Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 6 December 8 >

Purge server cache

December 7

we're not a biased band in anyway. the constitutional 1st amendment declares freedom of speech. thats all our band does, in any way it should. the music speaks for itself. why would u delete us? can somebody tell me what NN stands for?

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

The result of the debate was delete.

CVU) 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

First Amendment (band)

NN band. Just released their first EP a few days ago.

e ] 00:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Che-Tew Eng

Ironically, this page might just survive AFD, though it's almost certainly vanity of the most pernicious water... This guy has been a royal pain in the neck on science fiction-related bulletin boards across the web. He has one published novel, which keeps on receiving identically (or virtually identically) worded fulsome praise on bulletin boards, and there is understandably considerable speculation as to who this anonymous is (the name Eng springs to mind). What's more, if other authors criticise the book, dozens reviews of their works suddenly appear on bulletin boards - all identical, all slating the criticiser's work. His frequently-repeated claim to be the youngest-published sf novelist in America is very questionable, and the anonymous reviews now speak of "one of the youngest...". Grutness...wha? 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I get no Google News hits for Kenneth Eng see [1] 456 Google news hits doesn't give much evidence of notability and not much in reliable sources see [2]. Delete. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Take a look at his book for sale on Amazon.com. I think that's notable enough.--Aleron235 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I've just cleaned up the page, after noticing that many were commenting that they would vote Keep once the article was revised.--Aleron235 02:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to the mix of dragons and technology it's listed as below Sarah Albee in sales.[3]. If her name came out blue I might have voted keep, but as it comes out red I go with delete.--T. Anthony 08:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking her up though maybe her name should come out blue, Sarah Albee gets a fair amount of hits.[4]. That's taking out Wikipedia, Amazon, Barnes, Hastings, and her publisher.--T. Anthony 07:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete, it is factual. And he is the youngest science-fiction author. JedOs 01:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not the youngest science-fiction author. I would be surprised if he is even the youngest published science fiction novelist in America; has anyone really checked the entire body of SF?--Prosfilaes 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In history Samuel R. Delany and Robert Silverberg both had their first novel published at age 20, both are still living. I believe I read a review at SFSite of a science fiction book by a sixteen year old.--T. Anthony 07:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon sales rank 441305 and no indication that his book ever made any impact. Pilatus 02:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notable and most likely vanity page. There are no links to the article, and the book's Amazon rank is 441,305. Recreate the page when he writes something popular and/or well received by real critics. Bmdavll talk 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and will alter vote if someone can make it an actual encyclopedic article. Right now it's lousy.--MONGO 03:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; I would perhaps change for a real article, but this is pretty lousy for a barely notable arguable.--Prosfilaes 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article non-encyclopedic and inaccurate (he is not the youngest published science fiction author in America as a teenagers have science fiction published with some regularity). Possible POV problems; no documentation/references. If he is notable, the article should be rewritten from scratch to overcome serious flaws. B.Wind 07:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just selling on Amazon isn't enough. I could get my book in there too (if I finish writing it) It's just that the sales rank doesn't indicate any serious sales. Also depending on how you define SF writer, I think I know a few of them under the age of 20, so even if Anthony is wrong, this guy still isn't the youngest. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the above reasons, viz: general insignificance, anaemic publishing presence, infactual article. Eusebeus 10:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. dr.alf 12:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. Sliggy 13:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only one claim of any notability ("youngest"), and that appears to be unverifiable and, in all probability, simply untrue. — Haeleth Talk 15:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was tending towards a weak one, but a pattern of Internet vain behaviour and the reasons given above re the Amazon sales rank dispel my reservations. (Although I would never dream of doing anything as unprofessional as voting to delete just because they write about "cyborg dragons fighting in the Middle Ages". Honestly guv.) --Last Malthusian 15:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Supposing he were the youngest, that would be one for the record books, but not one for the encyclopedia. So, let's examine him as we would any author. As an author (and we can totally discount any Usenet/BBS/forum activity), he fails the book guidelines. Honestly, that's about all that we need to consider. His personality and other behavior is sort of irrelevant. Geogre 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not a judgement of good or bad behaviour. If he has a book published, he is notable enough.Hektor 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a vanity press (er, "subsidy publisher")? Having a book publsihed is as easy as paying for one to be published.
rodii 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

CVU) 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Cinder Blocks

Non-notable band fails

WP:NMG. No entry in AllMusicGuide, no releases on Amazon. Google searches with "The Cinder Blocks" and album titles mentioned result in few hits. Possibly a hoax. Jasmol 00:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. Appears to be possible hoax.--MONGO 03:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "JOJOJOKOLKLJLkalfajlkaljkfaajkalj" (pronounced "Jamaica,") is all I needed to read to call this one a hoax. Mo0[talk] 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as attempt at a joke ("The Cinder Blocks' drummer, Mike Schviats, died in a Royal Flush Port-a-Potty from prune overdose...") B.Wind 09:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails
    WP:MUSIC, hoaxy as said above, written in promotional style. Unverifiable too. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom and above. -^demon 18:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. —
    The Hooded Man 21:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, per Mo0. Stifle 23:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article's author commits user page vandalism, which suggests vanity. -Naif 12:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forum 168

Verges on nonsense, but probably non-encyclopedic in any case. Delete. Catamorphism 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It "verges" on nonsense for you because you are most likely not a member of neowin and have not spent time watching the inner-workings of the forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.230.180 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is something referenced by many in a group as the Forum 168. How could that not be worthy of a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.9.61 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge Looks like the original afd was orphaned or deleted. It's a reference to an inside joke/myth on Neowin and should be merged with that article if anything. Jasmol 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Neowin article.--Aleron235 01:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Mandel 01:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merge and delete are not compatible votes. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not salvagable and not encyclopedic. --MONGO 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an inside joke by Neowin subscribers and moderators that has no business here. Aleck79 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. If it needs to be covered, it should be in Neowin and nowhere else. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per MGM, if someone really, really, really wants to tell the same joke again, they can do it where it belongs, but the content is not important for the understanding of Neowin, so there is no actual need to merge, and it's unsearchable, so no need to redirect. Geogre 17:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Slashdot is better anyway :). Per nom, obviously. -^demon 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

WP:CSD G4 -- substantially a recreation of previously deleted "chet shakesbeare". Jkelly 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chet shakesbeare

Recreation of

Talk 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. DES (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of pi

Not enough here for a separate article. All of this can be included in a short section of the main Π article. Firebug 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Pi, agreed. --Aleron235 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is someone can find something worth merging... not much there.
    rodii 01:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with Pi, added mergeto tag as well. xaosflux T/C 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax and if the math is indeed correct, well merge to Pi.
  • Delete. There is nothing to merge. The square root of pi is not a relevant number, and one instance in math can never be used to prove a general statement as claimed in the article. ESkog | Talk 04:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Last statement is pure nonsense, so article is nothing but a number.TheRingess 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say merge if there was anything there worth merging. There's not, so delete. Reyk 06:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pound with asteroids --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless trivia. Not worth merging into π as opportunities of using the square root of π are about as common as using the square of the number. The last sentence is nonsense mathematically, for one example does not constitute a proof. B.Wind 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge. gren グレン 07:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless 2+2 will get its own article also. Mo0[talk] 08:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This made me laugh.
rodii
  • Merge to Squaring the circle, maybe, but I don't feel that strong on it.--T. Anthony 08:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per B.Wind abakharev 11:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but only use the first say twenty digits or so. No need to have a thousand! Astrokey44 11:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost completely useless. The square root of pi is not significant separately from pi itself, unlike say, square root of 2. And PLEASE, whatever content may be or may not be merged into Pi, don't even consider a redirect. NO-ONE will ever seach for this string. Zunaid 13:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no useful information here. Seems like personal research to me. Aucaman 15:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencylopediac information. BTW, what is this Sourcing section supposed to be about. --- Charles Stewart 18:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The links I got that mentioned it. Although what if any relationship it has to squaring the circle is already on the article about that topic.--T. Anthony 05:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three men make a tiger

I know this is well written, but why is a Chinese proverb here in an English Wikipedia? This should rightly be in a Chinese dictionary. Mandel 01:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable enough. Illustrates a particular type of logical fallacy. Useful.--Aleron235 01:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you haven't explain why a Chinese proverb should be here. Or Russian, or Arabian, or African, or Spanish. We already have a perfect expression for this in argumentum ad populum. We are not Chinese lexicographers, nor is this a dictionary. Mandel 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we are not Russian lexicographers, would you propose that Category:Soviet phraseology be deleted? Shawnc 07:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, on hindsight maybe one should merge and delete into argumentum ad populum. No one in the right mind will go search for a Chinese proverb here in the English Wikipedia. Mandel 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chinese proverb articles have a place in an English language Wkipedia as long as they are written in the English language (and they are notable, etc.) --Elliskev 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree totally. Unless an expression is commonly used in the English language, who would search for it in Wikipedia? Via the same argument all proverbs are notable, all languages are notable, and therefore Wikipedia should include every single proverb from every single language on earth. That, however, would suit another project better than an encyclopedia. Mandel 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 99% of articles on Wikipedia have names that nobody would ever look up. But, someone might stumble on it, and it has merit as an interesting article. (99% is totally made up) --Elliskev 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It'll be a sad day when a researcher has to stumble on something useful in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you don't know Chinese (I reckon > 99% of the users here don't), how would you check this expression up? If you do know Chinese, would you be searching for this in an English-language Wikipedia? Mandel 02:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I took one year of Chinese and I'm interested in this culture. However I could not use the Chinese Wikipedia because I don't know Chinese all that well. All I can say is things like "I'm an American" and "I'm going to the bookstore." I wouldn't have looked this up on my own, but I'm glad I learned it now. I'm not sure if it should be a stand alone article, but I'm not sure I would favor a merge to argumentum ad populum. If my interest is Chinese sayings, which it can be, I wouldn't look there. Although I guess a merge implies that this becomes a redirect, so maybe.--T. Anthony 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say 'has to stumble,' I said might stumble. What's the Random Article link for? Anyway, I'm off topic. My reason for keep is that I see nothing wrong with the article. Your nom reason is that it's a Chinese proverb in an English Wikipedia. I rebut by saying that it's not an English Wikipedia, it's an English language Wikipedia. --Elliskev 03:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. Well, pressing on Random Article mean you intend to stumble on something, don't you? Say I want to search for Arabic proverbs, but I don't know Arabian, so how do I know what to search for? Furthermore, no traditional encyclopedia in the world provides interlanguage links to proverbs. Mandel 04:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I guess I don't know how to say it any more clearly. I think the article has merit on its own and should stay. --Elliskev 14:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can read Proverb, click on List_of_proverbs->Arabic_proverbs and learn "If you had an opinion you better be determined". For the phrases among those that have historical significance or background, I would also enjoy reading more about them in an expanded article complete with wikified and external links. Shawnc 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a traditional encyclopedia, notably in that Wikipedia
(talk) 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

There's also Category:Proverbs.--T. Anthony 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, But replace the 'Original Text' section with a link to a foregin language site. Although someone might not search for this by the subject line, it can be linked from other articles and be searched by content. xaosflux T/C 02:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original text is now moved to Chinese Wikiquotes. Shawnc 06:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to argumentum ad populum --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by creator:
Accessibility to non-Chinese readers: this and other articles can easily be found via links. In this case: Chinese_language->Four-character idiom. Categories can also be used.
Inclusion of translated foreign expressions: it is stated in the first line of
Two wrongs make a right
because it is culturally notable (see below).
Problems with merge/redirection: there are problems with merging the article to Argumentum ad populum:
If the text existed under the "Argumentum" page, it could no longer be categorized under both Category:Chinese proverbs and Category:Logical fallacies, which means that the concept would be more difficult to find for those only interested in Chinese proverbs.
The article indeed started out in
Appeal to belief
, the predecessor to "Argumentum ad populum", but was moved to its own article because the Chinese phrase is not meaningful without the full story and translation, which would appear disproportionally large and out of place in those articles.
Possible alternative approach: move the full translation to
Wikiquotes but leave a brief explanation in Wikipedia. A downside to this is that it somewhat disrupts the presentation. Shawnc 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The nominator's concern was that the phrase is non-English, but this concern is unnecessary because there currently exists a large amount of such phrases on the English Wikipedia. See
Raubwirtschaft, They shall not pass, We will bury you, Glasnost, By administrative means, Mutatis mutandis... Shawnc 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per above arguments. Herostratus 05:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I "stumbled onto" this very interesting article today in precisely the way one of the deleters above seemed to be arguing shouldn't happen, and from there onto the Four-character Idioms page... that's what Wikipedia's supposed to be all about, and it's one of my favorite things about this place! (I started out by looking up Whisky!) Link it however you like, but don't delete it. --Arvedui 03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - tidbits like this make wikipedia interesting novacatz 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

CVU) 00:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tolland Street

not a notable place by the looks of it. unless we want all "industrial and low income" streets in the USA in wikipedia. BL kiss the lizard 01:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, NN, unless it is expanded before this vote closes xaosflux T/C 02:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This isn't a map in words. Pilatus 02:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not Sunset Boulevard, for sure.--MONGO 03:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't say anything a map can't show and WP ISNOT an atlas or roadmap. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In addition to the above, it is an improperly named article. There is not just one street called Tolland in the world. Geogre 17:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That last comment isn't really a good reason to delete. The info in the article is sufficient to do a proper renaming if need be. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO. Stifle 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. This was a tricky one. The page was moved durign the AfD debate, which is usually a bad Idea. I take the Afd as applying to both the moved page and the resulting redirect. I count 7 votes for delettion, and 2 more for either a redirect to

WP:DRV. DES (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Non-Muslim (term)

Delete. No way is this worthy of a wikipedia article. Imagine if we had an article for opposite of every other article... Mushintalk 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as self-explanatory dicdef. The article also implies that only Muslims would use the term "non-Muslim" to refer to people who are not Muslims, which is obviously inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC) ... per Geogre below. --Metropolitan90 16:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Yawn. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its now a disambig page. --Striver 03:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the distinction between different "types" of non-Muslims can be misunderstood, as a variety of words are used in the Qu'ran, and it is important to know who is being discussed in the context of Islamic law. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but it only supports the existence of said articles, not this Non-Muslim page. Mushintalk 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kafir, hope for future page as described by Gren. Smmurphy(Talk) 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make this more complex... kafir to some denotes all non-Muslims... but, it has a broader scope of meaning as well... so it doesn't always denote all non-Muslims. The people of the book are believers to some... it gets more complex. gren グレン 08:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kafir" simply means "non-believer" or "denier" in Arabic. When a Muslim uses it, it means non-Muslim. What's so complicated? Aucaman 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more complicated because that's oversimplistic. A kafir is not just a non-Muslim because it has overtones of willful rejection. It's unthankfulness. Ethico Religious Concepts in the Qur'an by Toshihiko Izutsu has a few good sections on it. gren グレン 16:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The dab looks fine, but the original page that had the modifier "term" needs to be deleted if it's history is empty. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the dab, which is useful; the redirect probably wants to go, but there's
    WP:RfD for that if it's bothering anyone. — Haeleth Talk 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, as per above. LordViD 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kafir or Delete. There's no way to merge it anywhere and we can't just keep it like this. There is nothing ambiguous about the term "Non-Muslim" for it to have a disambiguation page. Non-Muslim simply means a person who is not Muslim. --Aucaman 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kafir or Delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Speaking of systemic bias, this dab implies not "Non-Muslim (term)," which is a mouthful that no one will ever type, but "Various types of non-Muslims mentioned by Muslims and/or how Muslims consider them." What do B'hai call the various non-Muslims? What do Christians call them? What do Buddhists call them? No one likes deleting, but we're bending over backward until we're looking up our own pitutis to make this valid. Geogre 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per gren. Stifle 00:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. And a redirect to Kafir isn't exactly accurate. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless. Zora 19:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with
    1m 03:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

CVU) 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Father doug

Article is about someone called Father doug (no last name) who teaches at Northbridge University and writes about sex. Very difficult to verify and article is in poor shape.Capitalistroadster 01:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dang it! All this talk of "speedy delete" made me go read the thing, and now I have to wash my eyeballs! No, it's not a speedy by my interpretation, but it's a 100% delete. (I think he's supposed to be a yogi.) Geogre 17:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, non-notable. Jtmichcock 01:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Queen Mother Building

Non-notable individual building on a university campus. Firebug 02:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • With no skateboarding, yet.  :) Ah, memories of misspent youth. Delete, but I wouldn't be against merging whatever useable info there is to the main article and redirecting it. - Lucky 6.9 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete heavy student humour (feeling old) Jameswilson 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ordinarily, the thing to do is merge and redirect to the university's page's #Student life section, but there's nothing here to merge. Our gentleman scholar is upset at skateboarding prohibitions. We get it. Geogre 17:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything worthwhile into the U of D main page. Stifle 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as per

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions#Mast stubs. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Emmis TV Tower Omaha

Delete. A single FCC Licensed TV Tower in Omaha. Not-notable. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep just one of over 600 listed radio and or T.V. masts listed on
    List of masts. If we delete this one, we might as well delete them all and most of the 600 listed have their own articles.--MONGO 03:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's truly unbelievable. I would will vote to Delete but that is pretty irrefutable evidence that towers are in. based on the comments posted below. Eusebeus 10:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL @ Bob. I voted to keep, but for your sake Bob I won't start my planned series on individual guy wires, K? Herostratus 04:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another mast. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we should decide what would make a tower notable enough for inclusion and delete those that aren't all at once. I think height is the main claim to fame for towers, so how high should the towers have to be? How about the top 10 in any country (but only if over 500 feet/150 meters) and the top 50 in the world, unless there is another claim to notability? The list could remain, just without articles for every tower. -- Kjkolb 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the idea of establishing criteria, but I would argue that's too broad, since by the time we're talking about Canada's eighth-tallest mast we're talking about a pretty boring mast. I would argue top ten in the world or first/having held first in any country would be better. Lord Bob 01:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to
    Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions#Mast stubs
    :

Mast stubs

1) The table in
list of masts
should have added columns for Location, Coordinates, Purpose, Owner and FCC registration.
2) Mast articles should be merged and redirected with this list, unless they contain substantial additional information that does not fit in the list (for instance, Warsaw radio mast).
3) If the list gets overly large, it should be broken up by country (or possibly, region).

--Calton | Talk 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that, Calton. #2 is a problem because non-notable towers are allowed to have articles if they have a substantial amount of information not on the list. I looked at the list and there are many non-notable towers that have a large paragraph or two. Also, no one seems to be working on redirecting the stubs to the list. In fact, more articles are still being added. -- Kjkolb 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delette, no real potential for expansion. Stifle 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for merge itno Mast List per Carlton. Do NOT delete all the masts, as some have suggested. Mmmmmmkay? Herostratus 06:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual towers are not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn mast --Jaranda wat's sup 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was that

electrical and electronics engineering or not. There is no reason to let the debate-cum-edit-war spill over to AfD. Pilatus 05:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Electrical engineering

This article has been superseded by the new NPOV world wide article on

electrical and electronics engineering and this article is now redundant and is sheduled for elimination.--Light current 02:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DES (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KGRG-FM

Page is redundant, because List of radio stations in Washington has all it's information and more. ApolloCreed 03:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment most radio stations have their own articles, but this is a substub. Vote reserved to see if gets expanded in the next few days. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this on AfD? You could have been bold and redirected it. rspeer 16:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect works for me. Just so everyone notices, it's 250 watts. Again, that's 250 watts. That means it has an effective radius of a few hundred yards. A small college radio station will be 40,000 watts. Geogre 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Really?
WOSU (AM) is 5 kW day, 790 W night). It seems that 40 kW would be a very big campus radio station. Small is under a kilowatt. (And I think small radio stations with regular programming deserve articles.) Fg2 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - Seems to warrent its own page. 9cds 18:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If it was a major college, then it might be notable enough. 250 watts is low, but only very large stations would be 40 kW. For example, KROQ-FM is only 5.6 kW. -- Kjkolb 00:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic information. Fg2 04:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- FCC licensed radio station. There is plenty of precedent for student-run radio stations on Wikipedia. Haikupoet 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong redirect to the list. This is a community college radio station, with a range covering the campus and not much else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with the article. Vegaswikian 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - abuse of AFD for editorial work. You don't need an AFD to make a redirect - David Gerard 14:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been expanded. -- JJay 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shia view of Muawiyah ibn Hind

See Talk:Shia view of Muawiyah ibn Hind. I have cut-n-pasted the explanation given there to to this page too.

I did not even know that this article existed before its creator, Striver, linked it to the

Muawiya I
page. The very title is a slur. It implies that Muawiya was not the son of his father, Abu Sufyan, but was a bastard. Muawiya ibn Hind means Muawiya son of Hind -- Hind was his mother.

The Shi'a view of Muawiya (which is very dim) is given on the main Muawiya page. There doesn't seem to be any reason for this article to exist, as the only material in it is a quote from Maududi, who is a Sunni, not a Shi'a. The title is irrevocably POV, the subject is covered, the article has no content. Zora 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In lake'ch

Originally posted for deletion on November 28th. Relisting on December 7th due to insufficient consensus. No vote. Ral315 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition. Delete unless somebody verifies it, in which case move to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 17:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. As far as I can determine, it's a real expression and has some currency in New Age circles. Doctor Whom 13:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary....but who acually speaks Mayan?--MONGO 03:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if it can be verified. Otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel's Tea Room

Non-notable restaurant. Delete. Neutralitytalk 03:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Less than 100 displayed hits, and they're just local directories giving it no acclaim beyond being a place to eat in Sackville (or trivia mentioned as newsletter filler--that it was originally in a different location, but moved). De-link it and Bridge Street Café (another local eatery there that seems of similar note, or lack thereof) from Mount Allison University or we'll be discussing the Café the next time an MTA student gets bored. 24.17.48.241 04:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally non-notable restaurant. JanesDaddy 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiTravel if it can be verified, otherwise delete. Stifle 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. DES (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it really does look like a nice place, but the article reads like an advert. Delete Bridge Street Café, too. --maclean25 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Owen Scott, Jr

This article has been around for a while now. Note that this is not Robert Owens Scott, the Shakespeare translator. The article states that this Scott founded the Church of Wicca. The notable institution of that name was actually founded by Gavin and Yvonne Frost. "The World Council of Witches" gets 0 Google hits [5]. I cannot find any of his books on Amazon.com, and, because of their titles, Google is not helpful. The one reference for the article

does not inspire faith in me, nor does the creator's contribution history. I will mention this deletion on the Talk page at Wicca, in the hopes of additional input. Jkelly 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete: per Jkelly's comments. I agree 100%. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Stifle 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In defense of the article, according to the page linked as a reference (apparently a list of "famous gay people"), this guy founded the "Church of Wicca" in Washington state in 1992-- apparently not intended to be a claim that he founded the original Church of Wicca. Crypticfirefly 06:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keith almli

Scrappy NN vanity. Was nominated as a speedy, which it isn't quite. Alai 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete; vanity bio for a non-notable techie. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:49:15Z
  • Speedy delete, substub if non-notable and incorrect info is removed. Claiming to be an admin on a small forum isn't relevant nor notable and if he was born in 1988 he can't be involved since the start of the net as that was happening around the time he was born. I also have doubts about him being the youngest entrepeneur on the web as Ben Woldring seems younger and better know. The fact it doesn't contain references doesn't help either. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a speedy because notability (CEO of something) is claimed. Stifle 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

U Street Casino

Appears to be a non-notable, non-verifiable, group of people who have hosted (per the article) four poker games. Delete. ESkog | Talk 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This appears to be a semi-vanity page for a non-notable group. The Bearded One 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As one of the founders of the casino, I resent the adjective "non-notable." Kung Fu Chess Lives! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:RS. Can you provide any sources to show this is not just a promotional page? - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Sixth form. DES (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Year 12

Essentially a dictionary definition, and not all rules apply to the same Year 12s. x42bn6 Talk 04:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect, as appropriate with Sixth form. It appears to be about the same thing. Need more input from our British contributors. ◎DanMS 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sixth form. This article at present describes a very specific system which is by no means universal here - most state schools don't have prefects, for example. All the useful information here, and more, is contained in Sixth form and articles linked from there. — Haeleth Talk 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is redirected by me now. Yuckfoo 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just redirect it, you have to let the AfD go through. In The Flesh? 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
not when there is a consensus it can be a speedy merge Yuckfoo 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was (I think the closing editor forgot the top template. Enochlau 08:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Frankie Tomatto's

An article about an all-you-can-eat Italian buffet restaurant in Canada. Does not establish notability. Pamri • Talk 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an ad.TheRingess 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the contributor can substantiate that this particular restaurant is significantly more noteworthy than thousands of other Italian restaurants. ◎DanMS 06:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- JamesTeterenko 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement, unless proven otherwise. Mo0[talk] 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mo0. Stifle 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan American

The article appears to consist of various ramblings which are incoherent and have little to do with the title.

In fact the 'ramblings' are not 'various' nor 'incoherent'. The title is Tibetan Americans. I added what I knew about Tibetan Americans in my own state, and the reason those Tibetans ended up in Colorado to begin with. This is just the seed of an article, as so many begin. It would be nice to see you add something contribute something useful to the article itself! Chris 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's not what I'm really trying to accomplish either, there are significant groups of Tibetans in California, Oregon, Idaho and elsewhere, I'm just not the guy who knows much about them. Please leave the article where it is and don't delete it for a while. Leave it to grow and I think you will be pleased to see what may happen to it. I do appreciate the interest in this, truly! Chris 05:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Donkey punch (band)

Band fails to meet the notability criteria at

WP:MUSIC to the extent that the information in the article allows checking. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:47:14Z
Every time I come across one of these, I have a little internal debate: Should I just apply {{
WP:CSD) that's along the lines of, "It is an article about a real person, band, high school club, neologism, ..., or website that does not assert the significance of the subject." :( —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 05:20:07Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Blogieman

Appears to be a neologism -- google search for the word turns up 1 result.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

2009 in film

Most if not all of the films listed here are BS created by different anon IPs using the same format, and several are already up for AFD. Unless someone can present examples of actually announced films that will be released 4 years from now I recommend this (and any bogus films listed herein not already AFD'd) be deleted as crystal ball. Possible exception might be the Star Wars 3-D but I can't find anything to support a 2009 release date. 23skidoo 04:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not encyclopaedic in any way

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Multiflash

"The article is nothing but a stub with no assertion of relevance and no sources cited. The only editor is anonymous and has made no attempts to expand the article or provide references.DeleteTheRingess 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hook Man of the Sun (2009 film)

Another hoax film article created by an anon. No Google, no IMDb, no fan page references. Total B.S. 23skidoo 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 deleted as nonsense by Lucky 6.9

John sadlik

Multimap knows of no "Blondegaard straat" in Amsterdam. Delete as hoax. Pilatus 05:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; can't verify and no sources provided. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 05:10:14Z
  • Going away right now. Not allowing anons to edit is causing this new batch of problems and I, for one, am wearing out fast. - Lucky 6.9 05:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Quiz bowl chess

Unverifiable chess variant. I could not find any description using Google except for Wikipedia mirrors. Even if it is documented elsewhere, it is non-notable. Eric119 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - precisely how many sites mirror Wikipedia? I got up to page 12 of google, so that was about 100 different sites that had mirrored that exact article. Since its
    WP:NOR and has nothing to back it up other than itself, I think that that means we should aim to delete it as quickly as possible. Unless its true of course. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, already covered at Chess variant. Post a note on their talk to inform them of the issue. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remove from chess variant - Not independently verifiable. ESkog | Talk 15:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

talk) 03:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Boot Camp Click

Was nominated for speedy. -- Scott eiπ 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not eligible for a speedy, but nn band is eligible for a delete. B.Wind 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - not sure why you think they are non notable. What's this then? [7]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasUmmmmm.... no consensus I afraid. -

Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Scientology centers

Listcruft, borderline spam, already been deleted once here Delete-- негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Tally
  • keep

User:Wikipediatrix-Serves purpose of a list
User:Ævar_Arnfjörð_Bjarmason-Prefers cleanup.
User:Alkivar-Feels it's been redone well.
User:Zordrac-"beautifully written."
User:Turnstep-Referenced well enough
User:Yuckfoo-Likes the cleanup
David Gerard-Because it's important to WP:SCN
User:T._Anthony-Weak as it does need actual articles.
 Grue  seems okay
Haukur Þorgeirsson-Harmless, marginally useful
User:Entheta-"does it hurt?"

  • Delete

WP:NOT a link repository
User:Zoe|(talk)-WP not a catalog of links
TerryeoWP's not an advertising base
User:Skeezix1000
-"repository of external links"

  • Other

WP:SCN
Charles Stewart-projectify
Antaeus Feldspar
-projectify

The above box is only to show where people stand so far and as a test. AfD is not a vote, do not base your position on this box in any way if you can avoid it. This disclaimer brought to you by.--T. Anthony 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be comfortable nominating things that are say, nothing but a list of URL's yes. You, too could be
WP:BOLD and do it yourself, as well. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I've read your response several times and still don't understand it. What do you think lists are supposed to be of?? Go here and familiarize yourself with the way of Wikipedia lists if you haven't already. wikipediatrix 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was previously nominated for speedy by someone else and deleted by me. Just a link depository. -- Scott eiπ 06:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, currently a link repository, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are the keep proponents seriously suggesting that this be cleaned up and turned into... well, what? A link-less, comprehensive list of every Scientology center out there? (It's a very, very big list without further valuable information.) A linked list of every Scientology center out there, with wikilinks to articles on those centers? (A very big list becomes a very, very big collection of painfully similar articles.) An article in and of itself with brief descriptions of the centers? (How many times can you justify the repeat of "This is a Scientology Center, much like all the others, except this one is in San Bernadino" on one page?) I can't see this article going anywhere valuable. Tom Lillis 06:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain. Possibly a list of just the celebrity centers would be notable, if quite small. Otherwise I'm thinking this could be like, or lead to, a list of every center of every religion. Which is not what most lists are. I don't think we have a List of Unification churches. Or even a List of Kingdom Halls. If we do then I'll change my tone and be for keep. Right now I don't know. Are centers equivalent to Cathedrals or Basilicas to this faith?--T. Anthony 09:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, go here and familiarize yourself with how Lists work on Wikipedia. Also look here. Lists are not Articles in the conventional sense. They are intended to list things, no more, no less. Like
List of Ottawa churches. wikipediatrix 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Some of those other lists also have problems. The thing is, with this list there is no way in which it can be useful. If an user wants a list of scientology centres, then they would go quickly to the CoS's own website, where they will find a superior one. If an article needs to invoke a list of scientology centres, then it would also give a link to the current CoS directory instead. Even if written optimally, this list can only verbatim repeat the official, centralised listings, presenting no additional data, collating information from no additional source, and offering no summary or introduction or interpretation that will distinguish it and make it a rightful resident of wikipedia. There is no need for this list, and having this list is harmful because there will be a temptation to use it when in any concievably circumstance, the official CoS list will be better.--Fangz 06:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my redone list.  ALKIVAR™ 07:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's vastly improved, but I can't see that the content adds value to anyone or anything.
    Ben Aveling 10:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep beautifully written very informative and encyclopaedic. Like it or not, Wikipedia has lists, and this one is a great example of one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This lists cities that have scientology centers, not articles about those centers themselves. It's also still a link repository which is what
    wikipedia is NOT. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Still a repository of external links, only the cities are linked to articles on the cities (not the Scientology centres). One difference between churches and Scientology centres is that Scientology centres are clearly way further over the advertising line than, shall we say, "mainstream" churches. --Last Malthusian 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Sports associations and LGB centres, to use the example at the top, are also far more non-profit (if that's an adjective). -LM[reply]
  • Delete. This is just advertising. Would we want List of US Army recruiting centres? Or a list of every church in the world? DJ Clayworth 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid, verifiable, useful list. Each item even has a reference - what more could you ask from a list? Oh, and that tally box is pretty ugly and not needed - AfD should be about discussion, not mere vote counting. Turnstep 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — In actuality this is just a list of links to the city pages with a reference link to the Scientology web site. It is not a list of links to articles on the actual sites. This is just a sneaky way of appearing to be a valid list.
    WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". — RJH 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There are many good lists on WP that are not indices to WP content: eg. ISO 3166-1, a featured list. --- Charles Stewart 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there are zero good lists that are indices of external links. ISO 3166-1 has a good, well-written intro, followed by a list which is not a list of external links. Really, just look at the article you linked to. Look at it. Then look at this one. Then look at a fluffy kitten (no reason, but why not?) Then tell me that this list up for discussion has the same merits as ISO 3166-1. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking it up it has also linked to actual articles since in least May 2003, maybe from the beginning. Also I didn't even know a list could be honored. I thought everything concerning lists on Wikipedia was just criticism.--T. Anthony 10:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should emphasise that I linked to that list to defeat the misconception that WP should only host lists that are indices to WP articles. There is a case for lists to have encyclopediac value other than linking to articles. Note that while ISO 3166-1 does link to countries and acronyms, it is in no sense an index to those articles: we have better lists for that purpose. --- Charles Stewart 16:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, preferably with thermite.　Link farm. Oh, and not a single one of the adjectives Zordrac used above applies, nor do the bogus comparisons supplied by wikipediatrix convince. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too much like a Scientology directory and an encyclopedia is not the place one would look for such information. -- Kjkolb 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep-I found out there is a List of mosques so a generalized list of houses of worship is acceptable. On the other hand that list links to articles at Wikipedia so if this survives it should link to Scientology centers that are already important enough to have articles. Still some arguments on its usefulness, in the comment section below, have some merit. Then again Scientology is certainly not as noteworthy as Islam. Also it could use some annotation and links showing notability. For now the link simply seems to show that they exist and they are centers, which doesn't say much. Then David Gerard made some sense so I'll go back to weak keep and stay there.--T. Anthony 15:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus the list of mosques only lists mosques that are notable - not school/American town/radio mast notable, but notable notable. Unless there are really only three mosques in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it's possible that's the purpose of this list too, but there's no explanation as to what makes them notable either in the list or in a linked article, so hello
      WP:V. --Last Malthusian 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Delete agreeing with Calton, Kolb, mgm, etc... Eusebeus 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep it now it has been cleaned up Yuckfoo 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam and uncecyclopedical --Adam1213 Talk + 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers--T. Anthony 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only reason offered for this vote, I suggest that the closing admin disregards this vote. --- Charles Stewart 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed even though I'll admit I do hate Scientology. (I don't hate Scientologists necessarily, some of them don't understand it or got into in a bad period of their lives or other reasons I don't feel like judging them all)--T. Anthony 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "I hate scientologists" quote to his name on the above table so it'll be easier for a closing admin to see.--T. Anthony 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would stop assuming that "the Scientology people" are the ones who created this article and are pushing for Keep. Showing the full scope of Scientology outposts and their locations is highly relevant to anti-Scientologists as well as pro-Scientologists. Not to mention the average observer with no axe to grind in either direction. wikipediatrix 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "Scientology people" I'm not thinking of Scientologists - I'm thinking of David Gerard. Sorry for being unclear. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops.... gotcha. Sorry I jumped the gun, Haukur. Some other persons have made me cranky lately.... *smile* wikipediatrix 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing but a list of cities with external links, which is a blatant violation of the "Wikipedia is not a catalog of external links" dictum. I am not even going to bother tyring to figure out how to edit that ugly table to add my vote to the count. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wiki isn't an advertising base. A list of Scientology organizations is the work of the Church of Scientology, you want such a list they would be happy to provide it (I assume). Would you want a list of every First Babtist Church in California, for example? Terryeo 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do have
List of Presbyterian Denominations in Australia, Romney, WV Churches, etc., etc. Better start deleting all those too. wikipediatrix 14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Although I disagree with those lists as well, at least those are lists of churches, not simply lists of cities which have churches and then links to their external websites. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
This article is a list of churches that just happens to be ordered by city. And I've already stated repeatedly that if the external links are what makes the difference, I don't mind if someone removes them. wikipediatrix 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But that's simply not true. Just look at the first one, under Argentina. The link is to
Buenos Aires, Argentina, not to Scientology Center of Buenos Aires, or however they're named. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply
]
Zoe, the names of the cities are Wikified links because it is Wikipedia formatting style to do so. The links to each individual Scientology center is given as a reference link (y'know, the little number after each city?). wikipediatrix 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which makes this nothing but a LinkFarm, something explicitly forbidden in
WP:NOT. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply
]
You're arguing in circles. Short of deleting it, what needs to be done to the article, in order to satisfy you? Just tell me and I'll do it. wikipediatrix 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps not very useful to many, but does it hurt to keep it? Like wikipediatrix said, there's a whole lot of lists on Wikipedia that shoulr be deleted if this one gets deleted. (List of trivia lists). (Entheta 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Last Malthusian, quote what you like ;) it's a weak keep. I just don't see any reason to delete it when Wikipedia is so full of lists. I'm not a "her", btw :) (Entheta 17:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
My bad, guess I just automatically assumed because of the 'a' ending :) --Last Malthusian 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other - Right now the article seems like a list of links, but it also seems that it has potential (and it may be needed for the related project). I have also noticed that the article was created and (speedy?) deleted in 9 minutes, and then it got an AfD (three minutes after re-creation/undelete). I think that time should be given, in order to let the contributing editors show whether this article is indeed needed, or it could be provisionally moved from Main_space to User_space, be expanded and worked, and then listed normally in Main_space. +MATIA ☎ 22:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a valid speedy deletion as nothing but links to external sites. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. DES (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centropolis Entertainment

This article is one in a series of problematic articles by User:Logoboy95 (contribs). While Centropolis is a real movie production company, most of the information in this article is incomprehensible, and the main text is inaccurate. The logo description may be accurate but is unencyclopedic. Delete without prejudice to the creation of a reasonable article about this subject. --Metropolitan90 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about if it isn't? Being deleted wouldn't mean it can't be recreated. Regards,
Ben Aveling 10:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Buying Real Estate in Brazil

Hmmm where to start?

Wikipedia is not a how-to, so I wonder what this could even be rewritten to. At any rate, right now it's an advertisement for some real estate company (advert warning tag added). Seems likes a copyvio but I can't find the source. So uh, take your pick. --W.marsh 06:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Mathematical Lies

I tried to fix this up, but it stops making sense at all in the second section and becomes truisms. Couldn't find a speedy category for it, as it now is no longer nonsense. YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unless the article is significantly improved.67.161.240.111 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, delete. The third section is false as it proves nothing but is true in both cases: every number is equal to itself (this is the reflexive property of equality in algebra). The first section is a common homework problem in intermediate algebra class, usually with the instruction of "spot the fallacy"; the middle shows the fallacy of multiplying both sides of an equation by something that could be zero. Only the middle should be saved... and sent to the Talk page of Elementary algebra. B.Wind 07:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useful material already at the "Division by zero" article. Gazpacho 07:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho. I think. Relatively interesting, but not exactly accurate and I don't think its encyclopaedic anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho. JPD (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note the existence of mathematical mistakes. Uncle G 12:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No useful content; it contains basically nothing but several variations on a bogus proof that a*0=b*0 -> a=b (or just as mistaken a^2=b^2 -> a=b which ignores the possibility that a=-b). Delete Mathematical Lies. Either delete mathematical mistakes, or consider creating List of common mistakes in mathematics or something similar. - Mike Rosoft 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly expand in Mathematical humour. Stifle 00:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Pomerium. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge the information from the two articles should they so desire. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pomoerium

This appears to be a dictionary entry. Suggest Transwiki to the Wiktionary. Snorgenhorpher 06:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

talk) 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

C-Moon

Substub about a band, except I can't find this band on AMG or Google. Also, the german version of this article has been deleted for vanity reasons (as near as I can tell, I don't speak German) for whatever that is worth. At any rate, no evidence they pass

WP:MUSIC can be found... by me at least. --W.marsh 06:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sabrina Sato

I'm not sure I understand the point of this article. It seems to be borderline vanity, though it's likely not written by Ms. Sato. Also, the associated image is likely copyrighted. Snorgenhorpher 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a Google search indicates that she is some sort of celebrity in Brazil, and the associated image (a magazine cover) would support that. See also pt:Sabrina Sato. --Metropolitan90 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as nom misunderstood article. She should be kept because she's totally hot if nothing else. Major claims of notoriety. Playboy centrefold talked about a lot [13]. 49,300 is pretty good. Seems to be famous. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Portuguese entry. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a well known celebrity in Brazil. Carioca 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and lets change our bias Yuckfoo 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-enough known. Eusebeus 06:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to be fairly well-known in Brazil. It might be good to contact a Portuguese speaker(Category:User pt-N) though to add some information from the Portuguese Wiki.--T. Anthony 09:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (already deleted, I'm just putting the box around it) Enochlau 08:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C2 (Rapper)

Rapper (ahem, White Rapper, as the article asserts) with unreleased releases and planned releases and stuff like "The mixtape was never released do to unknown reasons" but no actual releases! No label, Nothing on AMG except a shell for an almost certainly unrelated electronica act. Fails the guidelines for notability found in

WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 07:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Appeal to gender

If there's an actual fallacy called "appeal to gender", this isn't it. This, on the other hand, is an original essay, characterized by bald factual claims about disputed subjects, a complete lack of verification or sources, and little internal consistency. Even if the subject is real and notable we'd be better off deleting this article entirely and rewriting from scratch. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If references cannot be provided, delete; if references are provided, the article needs a little "smoothing out" as it drops the reader into a discussion rather than leading into it. B.Wind 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite accurate with what it says. Google search finds supporting articles by the bucketload. [14] or [15] or [16] or [17]. Common term in regular use, very studios, accurately and neutrally presented. Needs to be expanded with refs quoted in article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
213 hits on Google is a bucketload? The links you provide are not supporting articles, they simply contain phrases such as "teaching techniques that appeal to gender differences" and the like. squell 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable and doesn't cite sources. No evidence of this term being in common use. — squell 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. This is another case where, as Squell notes above, Google may give a misleading picture. ESkog | Talk 15:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. A more plausible Google search phrase ("appeal to gender" "logical fallacy") brings up only Wikipedia and its mirrors. If this is deleted, don't forget to delete the link from
    Logical fallacy as well. — Haeleth Talk 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as original research. Turnstep 18:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Jtmichcock 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, class essay. Pavel Vozenilek 22:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Western scholars

Western scholars an article about Islamic scholars? What scholarly work can we use to make an article about Western scholars of Islam? If it's a list there's really no reason to split it. The reasons go on...

See also:

Orientalist scholars of Islam

--gren グレン 07:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as per Zordrac. Johnleemk | Talk 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Christianity scholars

What is this? The fact that a scholar of Christianity is Muslim doesn't make them special. Scholars of Christianity are all religions. gren グレン 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Islamic Christianity studies
(although this has more potential)

--gren グレン 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

S.Swaminathan

Non-notable resume/advert

  • Delete. Gazpacho 07:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One-and-a-half-hour-old article says essentially nothing (no specifics such as location, for example). Likely vanity. Nothing in the article asserts notability. Delete B.Wind 08:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure why a motivational speaker is considered to be vanity. [18] and [19], about the same guy portray him as an expert in the industry and a world leading expert. Mind you, it was hard to piece through it all with 913,000 google hits for Swaminathan, since adding management consultant still gave me 163, and they aren't all about him - plus it seems that he did other things than management consulting. But those 2 articles above suggest that its the same guy, and if so, he's an expert who warrants his own page. Just because he's not from USA/Europe doesn't mean he's not notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two people in the articles don't look the same. Tintin 13:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sufficient proof that he is notable. Tintin 13:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as in my opinion notability should be established beyond doubt to find an entry here. This entry appears like a veiled advertisement. I would request other editors who may be aware of his notability to please comment. --Bhadani 14:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article had a phone number and e-mail address in it when created. I remove such information when nominating a suspected vanity. Gazpacho 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page, non-notable. Eusebeus 07:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reference's given. Raghu 11:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zordrac, the google search you provide only searches for his last name, the first five entries show that the hits are not for the same topic. --DDG 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

talk) 04:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Deltagenesis

An open source software foundation created just last month.


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

Result of the debate was Speedy Delete - SoM 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Joyner

Not notable/vanity page. A vanity tag has been in place since

18 October 2005. Registers 59 Google hits, none of which reference this person outside of Wikipedia. Movementarian 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Imperial Republic of Shireroth

An online micronation with 25 members, unencyclopedic, delete--

nixie 08:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Furthermore, Shireroth is a nation--granted, a nation that claims no territory or even independence, but a nation nonetheless. We have existed for five years and fought (and won) against the plagues that most other online political simulations succumb to.

=FaxCelestis 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Most micronations of today are considered large if they have anything above five "citizens" or members. This hobby may be small, and it's easy to brush an article about it aside, but this is the largest and oldest micronation, and as such deserves the tiny disk space it takes up here. -foghorn5950|(talk) 9:57 PM, 7 December 2005 (UTC +5)
  • Live and Let Live Shireroth is the godfather of micronations, deleting this means almost total rejection of the hobby itself- we have stood longer than any other, and as was pointed out, we're doing a lot better than others that have been allowed to keep theirs. And really, why do you need to nitpick at this stuff? Surely you have better things to do than take on a page and 25 protestors? -Oz Mons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.41.59 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Shireroth is, by the standards of the hobby, huge. It's peak population is may seem small compared to some random generic forum, but over the years it has earned a place in the hearts and minds of many people and comunities. I has has links with a TV show with one of the highest audiance participation levels around (of non sports related or prize giving shows) -Conglacio 3:29 AM, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Calling Shireroth the largest and the oldest is a bit of an exaggeration, but as micronations of its type go, it is quite old, the oldest yet standing of its tradition; and it is larger than most micronations than it has contact with (the Kingdom of Lovely being the notable exception). If, despite this, having only 25 people ulimately makes it unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then so be it; but this will also exclude for the forseeable future all other members of a vibrant and diverse community, which itself is, as a whole, poorly represented in Wikipedia. -Shyriath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.52.31 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn.--Bkwillwm 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unnotable project that should be put on a personal webpage not in an encycopedia!! And thanks to FaxCelestis for pointing out other very suitable AfD candidates above. Eusebeus 07:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable in sources outside the micronational community. Sam Vimes 13:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think this is an interesting article, and we should give it time to see if others thing the same way as well. Obviously a lot of time went into this article, so let it stay! It is worth it.--Drake44444 11:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is more than a children's club, or just a message bourd, it is a thriving micronation of over 5 years, which in of itself is a feat, which has a sizeable, in micronational terms, population. The Micronational community exsists, and just because individual micronations are not massive in scale, (5,000+) members/citizens does not make them any less real, or any less worthy of mention in an article. This article interfers with no other articles of similar name that I can see, there are NO copyright issues over the name or the micronation itself. The Imperial Republic of Shireroth has a citizenship spanning many nations and continents. Why is it many who may not even know what a Micronation is to begin with are seeking the deletion of this page, passing it off as simply a "children's club" or some juvinile group. Yes, many members find their age to be under 25, does that make them, and what they have built any less substantial. Is not this article informative, and is not that the point of an encyclopedia? To allow people to look up and research information, no matter how obscure. Now I recognize there are some lines that need to be drawn. but saying a Micronation of sizeable age and population is unworthy of mention, is drawing the line in the wrong place. If you are seeing this as unworthy of mention due to the age of members, that is ageism, in it's purist form. If you are judging it by it's current citizen base, you are judging it by the wrong criteria. Shireroth has endured much as a political model for many years, and through it's trials and tribulation much can be learned about government, political-science, psychology, sociology and even religion/spirituality. The point is; this article is more than just the organization that it covers, it is all that has been learned and discovered through the project that is the Imperial Republic of Shireroth. To delete this article would be to deny the world information, possibly useful, possibly not, but it should be up to them to decide. (Please forgive any spelling errors, I did not have time to spell check)--Erik Metzler at 23:34 UTC Dec 8, 2005
  • Major clip or Delete. Way way way too long for a start, seems like webcruft. Wikipedia is not a free web host, this article belongs on the site's own page. Stifle 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shireroth is a well-established and senior micronation, and to delete it is pointless. It certainly is worth being in an encyclopedia, since it has had numerous successes, for example an appearance on How to Start Your Own Country. --Graius 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Try Uncyclopedia first. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Josh Parris#: 04:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 non-notable biography and A6 attack page. Capitalistroadster 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Binson

Short, uncategorized article with no biographical info or proof of the subject's significance. Primary intent seems to be to belittle the subject and his taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, has POV problems (too bad we can't speedy it as an attack). B.Wind 08:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A6 attack page and A7 speedy delete. Capitalistroadster 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baz Ladaria

Short, uncategorized article with no biographical info or proof of the subject's significance. Primary intent seems to be to belittle the subject and his taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlike the previous nominee, this merits a speedy delete for being an attack article. Perhaps we can bundle the three (including the next nominee) together and speedy all three...? B.Wind 08:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 non-notable biography and A6 attack page. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy Clifford

Short, uncategorized article with no biographical info or proof of the subject's significance. Primary intent seems to be to belittle the subject and his taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, serious POV problem, could be called an attack article (in which case it should be speedied). I'd suggest bundling with the previous two nominees and speedy all three. B.Wind 08:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hangin' With...Andrew Gold

Short, uncategorized article that doesn't even clearly indicate what the subject is (probably a VH1 program?). Primary intent seems to be to belittle three individuals (articles also nominated for deletion) and their taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - one-off VH1 program which is not notable in itself. Article has serious POV problems, but it's not as hostile the previous three nominees. It might be best to bundle the four nominations into one and speedy delete all four of them as an attack on the three individuals. B.Wind 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more is added to the article, I am not convinced. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is even real. A TV show in which a musician plays three different versions of the same song at different speeds? I doubt it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Stifle 00:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International defense organization

Article about a largely empty website for an organization that may or may not exist. Likely A4 or

Shazaam! - <*> 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Um, wild tagents aside, being "interesting" is not enough to warrant inclusion. --
    Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neutral. Seems an org by that name exists [20]. But I think we need more info than that. Regards,
Ben Aveling 10:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Click the PDF link and you'll see that the text refers to the
FCYTravis 10:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can find something substantial about it, I'll change my vote to keep. Regards,
Ben Aveling


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

1-Up Zine

A "handmade independent" fanzine with only three issues in four years. Delete. --

Shazaam! - <*> 17:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shout voice trump

Non notable religious theory. The user that created it, named

Shazaam! - <*> 18:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The user, being me, accidentally put it on the user page and user talk page trying to learn how this all works. The doctrine is not a just a religious theory but is a world wide group of people whose uniqueness is of great interest in all seminaries and theological studies. I will go to my talk/user page and figure out how they work. 23:12, 6 December 2005 postscript: I just left a better synopsis of this article at your, Mr. Gustafson's talk page. Slowly I am figuring this out. Thanks for your overview.

--- If an individual is not of seminary or theological background, this article may seem trite. However, within the large religious community this article is a vital resource for understanding this group of people. ---

Here is a copy of what I submitted to Mr. Gustafson:

Hello, Hope this is the proper spot. I have just started working on an entry on shout voice trump. Having studied the Rapture doctrines and seminary theology, this doctrine is unique because it involves people instead of belief. This doctrine is actually a large group of people worldwide. I have been researching it and currently have added some of the basic reference links I was directed to.

Your comments about user page and talk page need clarified. It took me awhile to figure out how Wikipedia works. I finally signed up with a username that would match the article title thinking that was proper. Then I tried to create the page accidentally on the user and talk pages.

Thank you for your considerations as I continue to expand on this group of individuals. You could say, that just as there are Methodists or Catholics, there are now a group of people who are Shout Voice Trump'ers for lack of an official title. I have had trouble finding clear resources and considered building a website but have now decided that the quality of Wikipedia would be the best choice for consolidating information for the research community. Above unsigned comments from User:24.151.228.4 aka User:Shout Voice Trump.

  • Keep - I am convinced that it is a genuine good faith attempt at an article. There are references that help to support the article's point of view. There are issues relating to its notability (36 google hits) and the way in which the article is written. It is clear from the history that the author is trying to make the article as good a quality as he possibly can. But the AFD was put on the article almost immediately on creation. I believe that, as with all but nonsense articles, an article should be given a good chance to develop, say perhaps 1 month, and then we can judge. It is too early to really say one way or the other. So for the moment I am saying keep. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could let this fester here for a year, the article could grow to featured quality, and that would not change the fact that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, period. You said it yourself: 36 google hits. No wikipedia article of any quality will change that. --
    Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • From Author: Type in William Branham, the author of this movement and you get 291,000 hits at Google. As I previously mentioned, there is no official title for this group of individuals. (Branch Davidians at google is 200,000 hits.)

Also, look at it this way, Wikipedia would be one of the main sources for research on this topic. Also, at Google type in shout voice trump without quotes, 237,000, and you will see the validity of interest in this scripture and interpretations, which I plan to include. ie: other interpretations, rebuttals, size of movement... I found one site WMB1.com that shows church groups worldwide. It has also been translated and distributed throughout the world. Here is a quote from Bibleway.org "To the millions of believers around the world who have heard and received the Message which God has sent through His prophet, William Branham..." From the same site, India alone has had over 2,000,000 books printed. From my research it looks like the move has turned from who William Branham was to what his message, I Thessalonians 4:13-18, has produced.

Comments from User:24.151.228.4 User:Shout Voice Trump.

  • Suggest merger with the William M. Branham article. I have no doubt that this is a good faith attempt at an article. Google, on the other hand, yields 3 pages of results for "shout voice trump", none of which seem to identify a particular body of followers. While the teachings are worthy of an NPOV article, not sure these three words are the best choice for a title. The phrase itself is not something that is likely to be searched for. External links in the article also identify Branham's name, not "shout voice trump," as the common thread. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it gets bigger or more notable for some other reason. -- Kjkolb 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient notability, per Andrew. Eusebeus 07:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Author: Looks like I've been outvoted. This has been a good learning experience and I appreciate the moderator/editors close watch on Wiki to keep it a valuable Internet resource.
  • Keep if given a major clean-up. Also needs a new title. The current one doesn't make sense. If this group has no official name perhaps the article can be called Branhamism. Logophile 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia cannot name something that doesn't have a name, that's Original Research. CDThieme 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion is made that this religious movement/doctrine/whatever ever made any impact. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for the promulgation of religious dogma. Pilatus 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral No place for dogma discussions, but I am familiar with this group and they have made a worldwide impact. For one, Oral Roberts ministry was inspired by their founder. I talked to one and he said just call us Christians. hmmm. (forgot to signin sorry)
  • Strong Keep. See no valid reason for delete. File under biting the newbies. -- JJay 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No valid reason for delete"? Then you clearly do not seem to grasp deletion policy. --
    Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, I could never clearly seem to grasp things as well as you. Thanks for the kind remarks. -- JJay 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Limmunize

Website founded in February this year. No explanation of signficance, no Alexa rank either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --QEDquid 09:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Groucho 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

CADnet

non-encyclopedic

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

The result of the debate was delete; besides the arguments presented, if this was not written by the contributor, this article would constitute a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Banister

autobio or PR effort, not sufficiently notable Lunkwill 09:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sufficiently notable (CEO, written a book), also appears to be an autobiography/PR article. (I'm also putting up Enginet, which appears to be a trademarked service, but in the context presented is a neologism invented in this author's book). Lunkwill 09:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up. Notable enough for mine. Written a book see [21] which has been reviewed. He seems to be invited to speak at forums and be interviewed see [22]

Capitalistroadster 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity page. [139] distinct google hits most of which are bios from promo engagements. Book is also nn. If this is kept, it must be cleaned up and have noisome POV content like: heir to the legacy of both Marshall McLuhan and Joseph Campbell removed. I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here and he's never heard of him.... Eusebeus 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can't stop laughing. MuLuhan says Banister doesn't understand his work at all. Gamaliel 07:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Jim posted this on my User page, but has now posted his own reply below along with his vote) Lunkwill-- I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly... responding to your nomimation for deletion of my biography entry. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate forum. I was encouraged to post on wikipedia (which i use and love, btw) by professor colleagues, students I've taught, and a number of others who use wikipedia. It wasn't written by me, though it was posted by me. And it's hardly vanity. Everything in the narrative is veracious. I'm not sure I understand how one "qualifies" to be an wiki writer. Seems self-selecting, at best; and I'd think that as long as information is verifiable and not overtly "marketing," then it should be okay. The writer didn't know how to post... I did... and the article was not written in a vacuum. It was patterned off of existing, approved articles. I'm happy to provide you any number of references to support the veracity of the information, and I'd appreciate you not deleting the bio. Cumulusguy 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Cumulusguy 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I'm frankly surprised at the vitriol from a couple of you. If you're going to review, please do, but do your homework. The cursory opinions as to the content of my character or thought-leadership are not informed, nor helpful.[reply]

Gentlemen, I didn't write the article, but I did post it. Why is it a transgression to endeavor to see one's work recognized and recorded for posterity? The information is completely accurate-- every word-- whether or not one agrees with the editorial. It is ironic that most of the (written) objection is around the references to McLuhan and Campbell. I suggested the writer use the entries for those two great thinkers as a template for how to write/post in wikipedia. I suggested them as exemplary not because I feel I belong in their pantheon-tier, but because they are two role-model thinkers I have studied and admired. The words heir to the legacy of both Marshall McLuhan and Joseph Campbell were not written nor suggested by me. They are paraphrased words spoken by my students and audiences. If they offend you, my apologies. It is an aspiration I continue to pursue, and if you'd read my book or attended one of my lectures, you might even agree. Furthermore, I see the word "promo" in some of the comments below. I don't sell my book, nor my services at my lectures. My lectures are designed for erudition, not revenue.

If necessary, I'm pleased to provide recommendations from many "notable" folks as to the legitimacy of the information, the deservedness of the posting, and the veracity of my efforts to add to the body of knowledge around digital media literacy.

If I was *truly* being self-promotional... I would have included links to the world-wide press on the breakthrough hybrid tv-game project I created and I'm doing with Ron Howard and Fox (airing next year), or posted more than just a link to the Hollywood Reporter's 75th Anniversary Future of Entertainment edition which decided my work was deserving enough to single-out on the cover alongside only four others-- Neil Gaimon, George Lucas, Jim Cameron and HBO's Chris Albrecht. But I didn't. I stuck to the tuition aspects of what I do-- educate others on all I've learned so that they have the leg-up I didn't have. They can decide for themselves whether my thought leadership is worthy of following. If you think writing books designed for tuition is a money-making proposition, then you've never written and published such a book. ;-)

Anonymous insults and cursory reviews should not be the order of the day in wikipedia. That is not my understanding of the spirit of this body-of-work. If you're really going to review, then please do your homework. I was careful to read the guidelines for posting bios, and I believe we've adhered faithfully to them. If you'd like to be more specific about what exactly you object to, I'm happy to consider editing to suit the majority of reviewers. Many thanks. Jim Banister


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enginet

non notable neologism Lunkwill 09:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neologism which appears in a single book, fails google test. (The results refer to a trademarked software/service or other things unrelated to the contents of this article). I'm also putting the author's (auto)bio up for deletion: Jim Banister. Note the single author with all edits to both articles. Lunkwill 09:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Stifle 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete unused dab page.

talk) 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chiropractic (disambiguation)

Delete. Unnecessary disamb page. All items now refer or redirect to chiropractic. Edwardian 10:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary disambiguation. -- Kjkolb 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --
    talk) 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky cat

non-notable cat


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Moth Complex sub-articles

This is a combined AfD for the following three articles

These are sub-articles related to the recently deleted Moth Complex (AfD discussion, their first single, bassist and drummer respectively.

These articles relate to a band that has been deleted from Wikipedia, and as such appear to have no further purpouse on the Wiki, until Moth Complex can be recreated as a

WP:MUSIC-abiding article. Saberwyn - 10:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Night elves (band)

Band that does not meet any of the

WP:MUSIC criteria.-- JoanneB 11:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Amour de soi

Is a dicdef of a french term. No encyclopedic value could come of this article, IMO, and yet doesn't fall under

speedy criteria. jnothman talk 11:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom jnothman talk 11:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete; I was going to suggest redirecting to Narcissism, but this term doesn't appear to be commonly used in English. — Haeleth Talk 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to French Wiktionary, or delete if you don't have the patience to. Stifle 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cocoa Smart

Appears to be partisan advertising for a non-notable product MPF 11:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Just another ad. Bergsten 13:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, advert. Stifle 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam, Spam, Spam. Jtmichcock 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

"rotary rj ilha do governador"

A very long history of a Brazilian Rotary club, most likely translated straight from the club's own website, with a horrible title. I speedy deleted it once, but it was immediately recreated, so I decided not to enter a delete war. Judging by the number of notice boxes at the start, this may be beyond hope of salvage. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 11:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much stronger delete. An individual chapter of Rotary International is not sufficiently noteworthy for an article of its own, and from skimming I don't see anything that makes this particular chapter significant. Anything that might make the case for significance is lost in the machine translation of club meeting minutes from the 1960s. This title has no business in the English namespace. A mechanical translation of a copyrighted original source text may also be a copyvio. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect to prevent re-creation. It's non-notable, a possible copyvio, and not accessible to English-speaking readers. Crotalus horridus 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP and Smerdis of Tlön.
    (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as above. Cool3 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a very important topic. delldot | talk 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, way too long and inaccessible. Stifle 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL at "This page has too many boilerplate texts. Somebody fix them before the article disappears off the bottom of the screen.". Stifle 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even after I ran it through a couple
    nonsensical in the Wikipedia context. Bdelisle 01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as advertisement and possible copyvio. Also delete Rotary rj ilha do governador. Carioca 20:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labadia

"A word associated with a cult radio show", as the article states.-- JoanneB 11:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this nomination was too concise: the word can not be found on Google in this context, neither is the show that the article refers to (that the word supposedly comes from) mentioned in the schedule on the radio channel's website. The Livejournal that the article links to, does not exist either. Therefore, the information is extremely hard (if not impossible) to verify. --JoanneB 12:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the website, if you look in the schedule. The vagueness was just temperally while I try and work out a way of phrasing what I mean. The live journal does exist, if the link is dodgy that must be because I mistyped it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncebackability (talk • contribs)

also, the only reason labadia was chosen is because it was the only word we could have used which wasnt already used.

  • Delete While the station that the show airs on might be as notable as any other similar organization (we do have student run newspapers on here), a self-admittedly small group of hardcore fans doesn't seem to fit any criteria for notability. If the show is considered notable (there seems to be no real reason for that assumption as there are no doubt many shows with a similar format) then this article should be merged with a article on the program. DeathThoreau 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to

talk) 04:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Emerson Spartz

Subject of article is webmaster of MuggleNet. Although MuggleNet is notable enough, the webmaster is not, particularly since all the information on the page is from the Mugglenet website. The article has numerous photographs that are copyrighted and whose use is questionable, at best. Jtmichcock 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Updated vote: Delete per nom or weak merge. Even when a website is notable that doesn't make everything associated with it (webmasters, servers, forum members, etc.) notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: vote updated to include merge option after considering Mgm's points on my talk page. The problem with covering webmasters is that, with only the rarest of exceptions, all information about them comes from themselves and their websites rrather than books, academic sources, or mainstream publications. Since this particular webmaster interviewed Rowling, I guess a certain amount of verifiable information exists. I trust that only the truly verifiable (and non-trivial) information will be merged when the time comes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition to the top two entires. The website is globally noted by distinct fandoms that show interest in its main topic (Harry Potter). So it is entirely just to make the webmaster notible for this achievement and the popularity it has gained. Darlyn Perez 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Even if the website of this individual is noteworthy in some respects, this information seems better suited as a sub-section of the MuggleNet article. It just does not seem relevent to have an article on a webmaster, and on their site also. Why not combine the two? There are obviously numerous successful webmasters out there, it seems irrelevent to have an individual article devoted to each one as well as their website especially for a fansite.
  • Merge any useful information into MuggleNet, although there doesn't seem to be much there. The plethora of pictures is unnecessary. Joyous | Talk 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Anyone who was personally invited by J.K. Rowling to interview her for the release of book 6 is quite notable in my opinion. The images are likely a copyright issue. All but one or two should be axed. If not kept, it should at the very least be merged. Link to the interview in question is at the Pottercast entry on
    deletion review - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with MuggleNet and Redirect to that page. There's only the one site he has that has notability and integrating the information in one article makes the most sense. Jtmichcock 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MuggleNet. feydey 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MuggleNet. But in any case, I hope people will remove some of the family info etc. It almost seems to border on stalking, or something. -- 71.198.189.142 11:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MuggleNet. It seems the best way to handle it short of revising the whole page, which would leave us nothing more than a stub :). Initially I'm for the deletion of the article but I think subordinating it within the MuggleNet article would be a good compromise.--Chinfo 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. When he does something else notable, we can have a breakout article. Gamaliel 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 24.224.153.40 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please discount this anon vote. They have not provided a reason. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kim Kotchanski

Non-notable radio show.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 12:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The graveyard is currentally appling for world record for longest time a woman has spent on air (its been done, just need ti officially validating), it is the first radio show which is totally interactive, it has given the best student radio station (URN, won more awards than any others) it's record listenership. It is also presented by the youngest mayoress in the country.

  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 07:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student radio show. I had one of those too, they aren't really notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Moments Videos

The particular company is number 1 on google when you search for Moments Videos, but no alexa ranking. I'm thinking its just advertising. dr.alf 12:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, article provides little or no context. Also fails to explain why the company is notable (e.g. different from other wedding video companies). — squell 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A speedy delete as empty would be fine as well. PJM 14:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PJM. I don't see anything possibly encyclopedic here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertizing. Stifle 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SySDSoft

Startup company that is non-notable dr.alf 12:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Conducting Business in Canada

Wikipedia is not a place to publish essays, original research, or how-to guides. Possible copyvio. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possible copyvio, a similar article on Ireland was on Afd recently, it is tradition to give a gift from your home country, the United States shows US-centricity. Dlyons493 Talk 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention the claim that Canada is more conservative than United States. By what standard? - Mike Rosoft 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't detect a copyvio and is more a howto guide. Capitalistroadster 17:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Buddy wrote a hilarious article, but it is not encyclopedic. WilyD 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone think the article can be salvaged as appropriate with a massive rewrite and a more appropriate title like "Business Culture of Canada"?
  • Delete unencyclopedic, inappropriate content. Eusebeus 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay. Stifle 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an essay. Jtmichcock 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree

Delete - ad. Natgoo 12:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

India BPO

First-person promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising and marketing/corporate jargon; substantive content covered by Business process outsourcing. Sliggy 13:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Apparent copy vio from [23] Dlyons493 Talk 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. PJM 14:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the text is not from a commercial content provider, so it should not be speedily deleted. -- Kjkolb 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment site says Copyright © 2005 DefenceWelfareCall.com. All Rights Reserved.
      • I didn't say it wasn't copyrighted. I said it wasn't from a commercial content provider, which is someone who makes money directly from the content that has been copied. The content of this article is advertising their business. People don't pay to read advertising, like they do for a newspaper or encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 18:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sligfy. Fails speedy by a few inches. Stifle 00:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Natural

Very minor band, no apparent hits in Google -- doesn't appear to fit with

WP:MUSIC Tim Pierce 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Article sent to

e ] 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Joe Barkai

Seems to be a vanity article. Creator is user Ybarkai and content is wholly plagiarised from [24]. I would speedy this but some sort of notably seems to be asserted. Delete. Zunaid 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Page was created by Ybarkai on 28 June 2005 and last edited by this user on 20 October 2005. It has been tagged as potential vanity since 13 November, i.e. almost a month has passed for the user to move the info to the User space if created in error. Zunaid
  • Speedy delete, copyvio. PJM 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7; it's the CV of a most nn individual. Eusebeus 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio tagged and bagged. Closing AfD.
    e ] 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 a sidenote, quite a few songs do have their own entries. Feel free to nominate Baby's in Black for deletion.)

Mandatory Suicide

Songs do not usually get their own entries. Merge into the album it's on if applicable. Stifle 13:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Agreed, fair comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:128.243.220.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete or redirect to the LP's article. PJM 14:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, songs do get their own articles quite often ... if they become notable. This one is rather too obscure a recording to justify its own article, so delete. 23skidoo 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - individual songs don't usually get 36,300 google hits unless they are very notable. The song lyrics and topic have apparently influenced a lot of other places, and so its chart notoriety is not the only deciding factor. Apparently it is used in discussions of
    Mandatory Suicide (song) to avoid confusion with the term that has been in somewhat widespread use as a result of the song, and also to avoid confusion with the almost-notable-enough-for-wikipedia band by the same name. And disambig "mandatory suicide" as well. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, songs are rarely notable enough for their own article. Also, only 808 of the search results are unique. -- Kjkolb 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom; info covered at main album article. Also, a Dutch band took the name, so the number of google hits is actually 25,000, which I grant is a lot. As to the above point, the 808 unique hits (I get [831] is from the Google sample of 1000. Extrapolating,that would mean roughly 20,000 unique hits which is pretty large. Eusebeus 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with the nominator's assumption that songs are "generally" not listed. There are guidelines for song notability at
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. However, if the article does not prove its own notability, then I will assume it does not meet these guidelines. --DDG 20:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ođđa mailbmi

Songs are not notable. Stifle 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, quite a few songs are notable. There is nothing here to suggest this one is, though. Delete. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Yes, while some songs, like Happy Birthday to You are indeed notable, this one isn't. PJM 14:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, did you hear that song? It's artistically notable and the first big song of the band, maybe it's only slightly not in the most people's taste. I thought Wikipedia should be about every more or less notable thing or it's not a universal encyclopedia. Efenstor
  • I've got an idea! I'll remake the article to that about a homonymous single CD, then it won't be so meaningless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Efenstor (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 07:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Sverre Johannes

It was marked for speedy deletion, but the stated reason did not fit within

WP:CSD. I'm hence creating the AfD for User:Ranveig. I abstain from voting. Enochlau 14:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Quoted from Ranveig on Talk:Sverre Johannes:

I'm Norwegian and I've never heard of this "famous" person. Also, Norway has very little nobility. Google gives a few hits for a private individual, which suggests this is simply a vanity page or something similar. -- Ranveig 14:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Never heard of the bloke either, and as said by Ranveig, Norway have little nobility. Probable hoax/vanity. Sam Vimes 16:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is not remotely serious. Punkmorten 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like vanity. CLW 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unconstitutional "Ingen Grevskaber, Baronier, Stamhuse og Fideikommisser, maa for Eftertiden oprettes." Fornadan (t) 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Seems unverifiable. Stifle 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Katanga Islands

The article states that the Southern Katanga Islands are an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Office of Insular Affairs has never heard of this territory, and some claims made in the article are rather unlikely. Listing on AfD for a few more eyes, Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. Pilatus 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits for "Southern Katanga Islands" see [25].

Nothing in Google News either see [26]. Capitalistroadster 17:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. FWIW, Katanga is a place in Africa, I believe part of the Congo, that occasionally comes to light as a result of a series of civil wars that has been going on since the late 1950s. It isn't an island, and were it U.S. territory we should make haste to palm it off on someone else. Smerdis of Tlön 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dfg (band)

Band that fails

WP:MUSIC, no allmusic.com page, (however if you search their site for dfg you get a different band called Dog Faced God). In short, not quite notable enough just yet. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 04:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Abstain Check out Greenbelt Festival and decide for yourself. Im not quite sure, playing with U2 is big but who knows. Jobe6 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well just because U2 played at this festival, which has been held every year since 1974, doesn't even mean that they played the same festival in the same year. Even if they had, that doesn't make every band that plays in the same place as them, noteworthy. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They've had Iain Archer perform with them live and contribute to their latest CD, along with Jars of Clay, Lambchop, and Eden Burning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.32.72 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 December 2005
  • Keep, 195.173's assertions establish notability.
    Kappa 03:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisting this AfD discussion in hopes of generating a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Midnight Syndicate

Previous afd (brought by article's author and immediately withdrawn): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Syndicate

Like

Cryptic (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisting this AfD discussion in hopes of generating a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does not look like an article about the band. Right now it reads like a vanity page for this Vargo guy. Delete unless made into a proper article. No need to adjust WP:MUSIC for rare cases. It's coverage in music press that (might) make this band encyclopedic, not their mp3.com success specifically. Friday (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The band is fairly well known --- at least I'd heard of them well before seeing the Wikipedia article. Their albums are widely sold in the pop-up seasonal Hallowe'en costume and decoration stores that appear in October. Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone else, especially note Kappa's recommendations. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Kappa. --DDG 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo of Alpha Chi

Non-notable college organization Paul 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random frat/society. Stifle 00:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Actually it is notable as its age one of the oldest in nation. Is the first and only DKE chapter to go coed in 1969. This is an historic first Its history includes a close association with the US Navy in WWII. Who ever lifted my writing from the website left out much of its history. Including Teddt Roosevelts visit.

While it is associated with Trinity College, it is also a historic and expansive organization, with members well beyond the Trinity community. The deletion of this article is absurd and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.10.88 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2011 (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. Enochlau 09:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B876 road

This is a backroad in the far corner of Scotland. Like all other

Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Delete per that consensus discussion. Pilatus 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

e ] 00:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Shape (Sugababes)

Songs are not notable. Delete against prejudice (the Sugababes are my favourite band) Stifle 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC) The rework and votes make me withdraw and request a speedy keep as nominator with no delete votes. Stifle 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

talk) 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Murder of Image

A Star Wars fanfic. Article claims that it is notorious as an example of bad fan fiction. Google does not concur: it returns 69 hits for the phrase, of which only 13 are actually unique, and of those 13, just two relate to this fanfic - one is its page on fanfics.cc (the source of the "screenshot" in this article), and the other is a single comment on an unrelated Livejournal blog entry (the one linked to in this article). The claims of notability are thus not

verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Roy A. Young

Very obscure, not notable. The google test only picks up Wikipedia and it's refferal sites.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PCosh

Delete. Cannot verify artist's notability. Google search on 'Phyllis Cosh art' returns only the source page and several mirrors of it.-- Syrthiss 15:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too obscure, maybe a pet project with a touch of vanity --Mecanismo 15:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Request by author (but consider creating Wikipedia:over wikified). Thue | talk 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over wikified

Funny, but not encyclopedic :o(


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

The article has been speedily redirected.

e ] 00:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Nihil aka Annihilus

Obscure, void of encyclopedic value, probably just nonsence, orphan article --Mecanismo 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A moment's peace

Doesn't seem to be a band worth noting hereNfitz 07:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - SoM 13:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Matadinho

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano Power Revival Orchestra

Obscure, non-notable

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Equine-Ranch

Advertisement, only content added by one person, most likely the owner.

Metalcore424 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I can assure you it's not the owner who made the page ¬_¬


If this was advertisement there would have been things for signs up and stuff. You're going to delete my hard work because you didn't read the entire article apparently and only the first paragraph. This is supposed to be an article about the game not an advertisement. It explains how the game works and it's features. Just because one person worked on it so far doesn't give any reason for you to delete it. Next time, please don't jump to conculsions on something that hasn't even been up for a day. Also, it's still being worked on. Give it a chance. Gokusan 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Bevilacqua

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Our children's world

Seems like a chain of bogus articles from this contributor. --Schmiteye 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ritchimon

The only Google references are sites that download Wikipedia dumps. Looks like a hoax to me. See also Skunkzilla by the same "contributor". --Schmiteye 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shamanic Training for Personal and Planetary Transformation

Obviously just an ad for some unlikely (and lucrative) new-agish nonsense. Too many wikipedia policy broken to count... Mtarini 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Skunkzilla

Looks like part of a hoax from the same contributor. See also Ritchimon.--Schmiteye 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead 50's

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Martin S. Kenney

Reads like one big advert. NN. Delete.

  • Delete --Quasipalm 15:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably vanity and marketing attempt --Mecanismo 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, claim to notability avoids CSD A7 but doesn't deserve a page. Stifle 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon fiber

orphan article, which doesn't seem to add much to the nylon article --Mecanismo 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was intelligent closing and deletism. -

Mailer Diablo 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Intelligent Design and Creationism

This is yet another (what is this number 7 or 8?)

WP:FORK by Ed Poor (talk · contribs) to push his bizarre religious view of science. — Dunc|☺ 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks. If you are saying that I have a "bizarre religious view of science", you are making a personal attack. Uncle Ed 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed contacted me on IRC about this, and I just wanted to put what I said to him on the wiki: 15:53/27 < Phroziac> Ed_Poor_in_exile: I don't think that's a personal attack. I think it's quite incivil and rude though. --
mmmmm chocolate!) 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
No. That's right. Had I wanted to be rude I could have been more personal about his motives. Continuing to ignore consensus on this issue however is rude. — Dunc|☺ 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another personal attack. For the second time today, I ask you to stop attacking me. Please do not call me rude. Uncle Ed 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, please. he's not making personal attacks. --
mmmmm chocolate!) 17:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MSN Scripters

Delete nn chat room cruft. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete copyvio and redirect to

Dark Lord of the Sith. Canderson7 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dark lord of the sith

Trash, nonsense article --Mecanismo 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a copyvio. Should be replaced with a redirect to
    Cryptic (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Darth Vader as that's the character more commonly associated with this phrase. 23skidoo 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the copyvio. If you want a redirect, I think it's best put at
    Dark Lord of the Sith or Dark lord of the Sith. Current article has incorrect capitalization. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well, I guess that settles it. Redirect to
Dark Lord of the Sith after deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah davis

Incomplete nomination by 195.92.40.49 (talk · contribs). Leithp (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oven rack guard

Delete : apparent advertisement for product, already edited-out elsewhere, added by probable spammer. --Zigger «º» 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree, a product ad. Bergsten 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fish eaters

delete This never can be more than a dictionary definition. Mostly this is to promote this website. Term is no longer in use, as if it ever was used commonly. Dominick (TALK) 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been merged and redirected by the involved parties.

e ] 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Talk On Corners Special Edition Europe/USA

Talk On Corners Special Edition Europe/USA has now had all of it's information merged into the basic release page Talk on Corners. So this page is now surplus and should be deleted. Kevinalewis 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it has been properly merged, then replace the page with a redirect - #REDIRECT [[Talk on Corners]]. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freon star

Google search for "Freon star" gives only five (irrelevant) hits; two more for "Freon stars". I suspect it is either a hoax, or some obscure crackpottery. Delete unless verified. - Mike Rosoft 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy userfy (done). Yes, you're right, this was pretty much made up on the spot. I'm impressed it was caught within twenty minutes. It's interesting to think about, though, perhaps these could actually exist somewhere. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[[30] is so odd...]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 02:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of purported cults

Previous AfD discussions:

See also:

I re-nominate the article for deletion due to inherent

WP:NOR
problems. The four months since the last debate have proven, that it is beyond repair.

The intention of the article is to present a list groups which are named "cult" in the media. No reference to scholarly research on this topic has been provided by the contributors, so they replace that with their own research. Starting with a selection, which media outlets should be considered most authorative. (British Broadcasting Corporation, Encarta online encyclopedia, The Guardian, The New York Times, Salon.com, Washington Post, if you bother). Then there is the equivalent of the

one drop rule
in place: A group is added to the list, if it is named "cult" in one article of one source.

Pjacobi 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All attempts and proposals have been rejected, with the negative result of a status-quo that is not acceptable. Delete as per nom or implement one of many proposals raised to NPOV the article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to
    WP:V. Those groups with more sources at the top, thpoose with less at the bottom) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Those are good questions but not applicable here, IMO. There where proposals made that could have resolved the dispute that you, amongst others, chose to ignore and continued editing the article without attempting to find a resolution. I find your characterization of "bitching and moaning", unacceptable as it assumes bad faith on the part of many editors that have attempted constructively to resolve the dispute. Status quo is not an option, not when a disputed tag is on the page for several months. We either find a solution that gains consensus, or this article will remain in disputed land and will end up on AFD again and again. Note that the issue is not that is not NPOV to say that the Guardian referred to People's Temple as a cult. The issue is that to have NPOV, all conflicting views needs to be presented, and that is not the case here. One small mention in a periodical is enough for inclusion, a
one drop rule that is unacceptable in such a controversial article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't go around falsely accusing people of crap. I only recently made my first edit to that page (a couple of weeks or so ago, I would guess), and I haven't seen any grand proposals for fixing it; in fact, when I asked a question, I never got a response from anyone. It's undoubtedly easier to make up false accusations against people, but please don't. As to the Jehovah's Witness that keeps messing up the article, he hasn't presented any solutions to fix the article, he's just trying like hell to put his group in the most favorable light possible by making up all-new 'non-unanimous' categories pretty much just for his group, while apparently being unaware that his proposed category is exactly the way the present categories work (and that there are a lot of groups on there that have a lot less sources next to them than his). Are you saying that if I want an article to change, I just have to slap a disputed tag on there, and leave it "for several months" until I get whatever it is I want? Members of these groups are going to dispute the article no matter what we do. I do not foresee all such members coming to a consensus that they are in fact cult members. In such a case, the decisions have to be made without them, whether everyone is happy or not. How do you propose presenting their side of this, posting statements next to each source where each group declares 'we say that we're not a cult?'Tommstein 07:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with POV tag. We cannot have a precedent that equates citing sources with original research. There is an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there can be an article about this. This list has improved over time. Gazpacho 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my not so humble opinion, citing sources can be original research. This is not only a serious problem in the cult articles, but in the pseudoscience category as well. There are zillions of primary sources for all sort of positions. Selecting and weighting these, instead of relying on secondary sources (academic studies of the topic, review articles) is original research. --Pjacobi 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't make something original research, unless we outlaw primary sources as being against the original research policy. Then again, these sources in question aren't raw scientific studies or anything of the sort anyway; the authors presumably obtained facts from wherever, and evaluated them; those facts were presumably obtained from somewhere else also, etc.Tommstein 07:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly my point. An encyclopedia would better outlaw raw primary sources as as original research in non-trivial cases. --Pjacobi 07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but this isn't the place to discuss changing the encyclopedia's original research policy. Press articles aren't raw primary sources anyway.Tommstein 08:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Press articles wouldn't necessarily be raw primary sources for
List of cults, but they are for List of purported cults. See arguments at previous AfD. Also note, that the current list doesn't care at all, what the article in question is saying about the group in question, but only whether it is called "cult" somewhere in it. --Pjacobi 08:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The "purported" is there to make it clear that the "cult" designation is not absolute, and that people have to source entries. It supports the very policies you claim that it violates. Gazpacho 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal was made to name the article List of groups referred to as cults in the media but was not accepted. If it was accepted, this AfD, would have been redundant. Such a name for the article would made it clear that the groups included may or may not be cults, only that they were referred as such in the media. Why do you think it was not accepted? That is the real question.... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article would then be misnamed probably had something to do with it. There are government reports, cult-watching organizations, all kinds of other stuff besides the media. "Purported" serves the purpose just fine, as Gazpacho pointed out above.Tommstein 06:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and protect page from further nominations for deletion. Come on, if its survived twice, does it really need a third try? Its obviously valid. POV it and get on with trying to improve it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- the article as written seems to be about as NPOV as it can get, it serves a useful purpose to people studying New Religious Movements, and the system is designed to err on the side of inclusion when no consensus can be reached. IMHO that is a reasonable position to take -- keep as is, NPOV tag and all. Haikupoet 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — nicely referenced list; encyclopedic information. — RJH 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Haikupoet and RJH --Irmgard 22:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --but narrow list of cults to those assemblies whose founder has not died and still guides the cult. Any organization with enough stability to survive the death of its founder has passed from cult to movement. Endomion 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hating the idea of the article does not make it deletable - David Gerard 14:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and narrow the citera for inclusion to news programs, papers and periodicals only.--HistoricalPisces 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep will always be controversial, but intro gives adequate context to understand the inherent POV nature of "purported" CarbonCopy 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per others who voted keep in this and two previous AfDs. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

People with an Aquarius sun sign, People with a Gemini sun sign, People with a Taurus sun sign, People with a Leo sun sign, People with a Capricorn sun sign, People with a Libra sun sign

The logical conclusion to this list is to have 12 lists, one for each sign, which combine to include every single person who has a page on wikipedia. My personal feeling is that this is a bit exessive, the lists will grow way out of control, and that a list like this isn't really necesarry anyway. Keep in mind that birthdates are already covered under dates. For example,

Bachrach44 17:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. I fully agree with Bachrach44 --Neigel von Teighen 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. these are lists, not categories. users who don t like them can simply ignore them. other users interested in western astrology will find these infinitely more referable than looking up separate lists for each day - here people of the same sun sign ll be all in one list. -Mayumashu 17:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bad argument, though. Don't like vanity? Just ignore them! Don't like hoaxes? Just ignore them! Don't like vandalism? Just ignore them! Delete for being unencyclopedicApostrophe 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if you don t like sports, delete it, if you don t like music, delete it - the counterargument to this in its extreme is as foolish too. my point was different (i admit unexplained). if these lists are in category form, people will say they are not important enough to warrant cats since the cat name would appear on every person page and that is far less ignorable. people without interest in this topic don t have to visit these pages, and in that way they are ignorable. whatever - the matter does boil down to if people consider these cats encyclopedic or not, as you mention as well. i think they are, every other user to vote here thus far feels they are not (more by gut reaction (this is non-science, superstition) than logical argument (this is of passing interest to many - has a worldwide audience as interesting trivia; and it isn t vanity). encyclopedicness is in drawing a line in the grey zone importance - what s important to any of us will vary). -Mayumashu 05:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at some of these pages and they have very few entries so they are not usable as they stand. If the creator wishes to compile more comprehensive lists before submitting them, they might be considered useful for those researchers who want to compare character traits, as I am not aware of any other way of finding lists of people by birthdate on Wikipedia (though I'm sure there will be something similar somewhere on the Web, in which case why go to the trouble of duplicating it?). The Astrological Association certainly has data of this sort. Actually, lists of people by birthdate would be more useful and more manageable than by sun sign. In any case, if someone is born around the 18th-22nd of the month, it is impossible to be sure of their sun sign without some complicated calculations, and knowing their time of birth as well. I trust the compiler realizes this. --Shantavira 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the ideas are to have the lists as any page expand gradually over time. people with birthdays from the 18 to 22 could be treated with asteriks until they re properly calculated signs were determined. no sight on the net has compiled a list as long as there can potential be. -Mayumashu 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful. Quite frankly, a list like that would go on forever in theory, taking up way too much space for an issue only a few care about. Coolgamer 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the dawning of the age of delete allious. A textbook category situation at best, as a list offers nothing in this situation that a category doesn't. And, frankly, I think they'd be pretty stupid categories regardless. Lord Bob 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd like to register a similar voice to everyone else. These would make categories rather than lists. STUPID categories, but categories nontheless. Mo0[talk] 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per
    Bachrach44. --Edcolins 22:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete While an article on astrology might be appropriate, this is definitely not encyclopedic. Users wishing this info should hit the New Age section of their favorite bookstore. Denni ☯ 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it is one thing to describe obsolete thinking and/or pseudoscience. It is entirely a different matter to espouse it in an encyclopedia. Haikupoet 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I have no problem with articles on astrology, but this is just silly. It can be deduced from their birthdates. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
but the point again there is that birthdates are on separate pages and in chronological order. these lists would be on one page and in alphabetical order, far more referable. -Mayumashu 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This needs to go. Eusebeus 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Eusebeus.--Dakota t e 07:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here are my reasons:
  1. It's extra work for people (like me) categorizing bio articles to look that up. Especially since, unlike birth-death-nationality it's not apparent. You have to go look up the sun sign based on the date.
  2. It's trivia.
  3. Even if you believe in Astrology, a person's sun sign tells you nothing useful. You have to run a chart.
  4. It would be basically only the fourth category that would apply to everyone (after birth-death-nationality). It's just a huge amount of data and work. Maybe a bot could do the work, I don't know. But still.
  5. I'm not super enthusiastic about seeming to endorse superstition. Herostratus 20:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nobody's that interested in astrology are they? Categories are sufficient. Stifle 00:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Martg76 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

A love story from romsås

0 google hits seals it for me. Punkmorten 17:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per Punkmorten. Sounds like nonsense, but sadly not patent nonsense. CLW 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yikes. Unverifiable, wrongly titled, probably doesn't even exist... Sam Vimes 13:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sam Vimes. Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tustena_CRM

Advertising. Tim Pierce 17:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable as per
    WP:CORP, contains also claims which seem rather unbelievable: 30% of the European companies using TUSTENA as their main CRM. --S.K. 15:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Praeon Network, Allandor Rpg

NN gaming web site and one of its RPGs. Alexa rank of > 400,000 and no links in according to Google. Web site's article has survived a long time without being noticed.

e ] 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, I am NOT connected to the Praeon Network in any way, shape, or form...but I was made aware of this only a bit ago... very simply put... any deletion of anything from a site like this, is flat out simple censorship!

Also, to whomever started this bit of censorship, you are a tool, what business is it of yours to attack a simple community site with your unjustified opinions? I'm going to guess & say that your probally all for the complete shutdown of the internet's freedom of speech.

Anyway, I highly suggest you Don't delete anything, it will only begin a downspiral of things that i'm sure are beyond the scope of things that this site would want to deal with...

-Jack R. Stewart (comment moved to proper location for timeline)

  • Excuse me, but I Strongly disagree.. Before Praeon Network, Uplink 2k Network was a STRONG Influence for a lot of people. Praeon Network is not a Gaming Web Site, it's a free community hosting site that has brought a lot of people hope in reaching out to the internet. One site in particular, is darkguilds. That community reaches out to those in struggling need for someone to talk to. If Praeon Network's and Allandor RP is deleted, you are refusing to accept entries of history. You DON'T want to do that. As for Google and Alexa Rank.. since when has this been a popularity score? You are no better off than "The Register" if you delete these listings. Praedon 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What needs to be done TO The article, to make it "Acceptable" with Wikipedia? Praedon 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is it's violation. It doesn't seem to be point of view intensive, and while I can almost see it as a violation under vanity pages, it does seem to earnestly attempt to be an actual catalogue of a project. 218.101.50.66 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless you can show me each and every line of violation that these sites have done on Wikipedia and they fit these violations to a t. Praedon 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no argument for the deletion of Praeon.net from the Wikipedia site. It is a piece of internet history. More than that it is a violation of cival liberties and free speech to delete said site. It also shows quite a bit of flagrant favoritism in business practices. Praeon Network hosts Allandor.Com, which I freely admit is a gaming site, however Yahoo hosts thousands of gaming sites on it's name servers. Praeon does not claim to control the content of the sites it hosts, it simply claims to host with much better services. Allandor Rpg was hosted through Yahoo in it's conception it grew, and joined Praeon Network and since has had much better support, and much better service. The point is this. How can a site host a page on a business that hosts Thousands of gaming sites, and gaming comunities Which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21 and delete Praeon network on the basis it has one, gaming site hosted on it's Name servers?-Christion from Allandor Rp
  • Also if you Type Allandor RP into the Google search bar it returns 721 links.-Christion From Allandor Rp
  • Furthermore. As Mr.Praedon mentioned earlier praeon network hosts quite a different bit of sites. Several I can name, Redmages.Praeon.net is an internet graphic art site. Darkguild.Org which is also hosted via Praeon Network's nameservers is an online support group for victims of horrible tragedies in their lives. The Suggestion for deletion of this entry, obviously comes from someone who has not done their homework on the entry they wish to have deleted. If this stands, I will advise the owner of Praeon Network to seek legal advise for a law suit dealing with the violation of free speech and cival liberties.-Storm From Darkguild.org
  • I'd like to see specified Praeon.net's exact violation of Wikipedia policy. Thank you.
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article
  • Keep I also see no reason to delete this article. Praeon has done nothing to warrent such a childish attack on it. Praeon is anything but a Gaming Site. Someone really should have done their research before trying to have such a wonderful site deleted for no reason.

Response to anonymous voters

I realize you are upset about having your article removed, but please consider that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which documents things that have been deemed noteworthy by the world at large. Here are the reasons why the article is being nominated for deletion. Please read the content at the links I've provided carefully and if you can prove that the site meets the criteria for inclusion, then by all means I will be happy to withdraw my deletion nomination.

  • Article does not
    not verifiable
    (this is Wikipedia policy). In other words, there is no evidence that Praeon has had any influence on the world at large or even within the gaming community.
  • www.praeon.net does not meet the guidelines set in
    WP:WEB
    .
    1. It has an Alexa rank of > 400,000.
    2. There are no links to the site according to Google.
    3. There are only 13 members registered with the site when I checked (00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)), not even close to the minimum 5,000 that we ask for.
  • There are only 30 unique Google hits for the site, excluding the praeon.net domain and the word "gambling" (apparently, praeon.com used to be a gambling site), which indicates a lack of web presence.
  • WP:ISNOT
    a propaganda machine, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.
  • "Allandor RP" gets a total of 705 Google hits, however if you page through the results, you'll see that there are only 38 relevant results.

As for the discussion of free speech and whatnot, first all, making legal threats gets you nowhere. Secondly, the First Amendment applies only to the government and not private entities such as the Wikimedia Foundation (otherwise, the Boy Scouts of America wouldn't have been able to ban gays), so that point is entirely moot.

To claim that I have not done my homework before nominating the articles for deletion shows that you have little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I suggest you become familiar with the requirements for inclusion before making any further such statements.

Additionally, please note that votes by

meatpuppets
are almost always discounted, despite your best intentions.

I would certainly like to wish Praeon Networks the best of luck so that in time the site becomes worthy enough for an article. --

e ] 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • As far as Allandor Rp is concerned, Please remove any and all references to it, from Wikipedia as well. Since we are not worthy. Storm Redhawk
  • I will post one more thing in my defense... How DARE you declare Praeon to be a gambling site... I previously owned praeon.com years ago when I had uplink 2k Network... Praeon.com got bought under me cause I was a few days late in renewing it... I regret it every day, but I have no control over praeon.com anymore, and it has stupid gambling links on it, which makes me upset to no end.. but do NOT Declare it a gambling site.. you guys LOVE making speculation without getting all the facts.. Just delete and remove everything relating to Praeon Network and Allandor. You have approximately 5 days to do so, cause I am revoking all rights Wikipedia has to post and have anything Praeon related. You have blasted the good name of Praeon to No end, and I will not tollerate it. Pull everything that has the word Praeon, and I will not flex my rights under the GFDL and GNU to have this site exposed for violation. Thank you. Once all sites have been removed, I will then ask that the Username Praedon, and Praeon be banned from being used as well for future reference of anything relating to Praeon Network, Praeon Technologies, and all other things related to Praeon Network and its communities, including Allandor. Praedon 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said that Praeon Network is a gambling site. I said that praeon.com appears to be one. It's an easy inference to make. Here's the Google search I used when researching your site. Are you going to tell me that you wouldn't have thought that praeon.com was related to gambling?
      e ] 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martinym

Please delete this neologism. Cmadler 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 65 google hits, none of them relevant. Bergsten 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

iamwritingto

Advertisement/promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for Web site, please delete --China Crisis 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn after rewrite and verification provided.

e ] 16:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas F. Breslin

NN bio.

e ] 17:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This nomination is now withdrawn.
e ] 16:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. There are four reasons why this article must be kept.
  1. Thomas F. Breslin was locally famous within the island of Cebu in the Philippines including having a street named after him there.
  2. There are few written records on any subject in this era from Cebu specifically and the Philippines in general. It is unreasonable to expect that there would be many references to him given the rural nature of Cebu. Deleting this record would delete one of the few records from this region in that era that does exist.
  3. Deleting this article would run directly counter to the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, skewing the Wikipedia more towards North American subjects than it is currently with this article.
  4. This article provides a significant individual story to an important historical event, the Bataan Death March. As part of adding this article, I added a category for Category:Bataan Death March prisoners and went through the "What links here" method to add the persons whose articles indicated that they were on that brutal march. I found only four other persons to add to the category. A person trying to learn about the Death March would definitely want to read about the life stories of individuals that were on the march. Thomas F. Breslin's story is a valuable addition to the historical record of the Bataan Death March.

For these four reasons, this article must be kept. Brholden 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nonsense. Enochlau 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warsome

Please delete this neologism. Cmadler 17:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Members_RuneScape_quests

Not encyclopedic, too long. This page is 47 kilobytes long. Even if it does warrent an entry (and I play the game myself), it should only be a brief factual mention of what it is, when it started, what the web address is, and a few external links. The level of detail in this article is far too much. It changes too frequently. JanesDaddy 18:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

talk) 05:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Closer's notes
The only argument for deletion was

original research, which seemed to be rebutted by the keep votes, although they were in the minority. However, one source was misrepresented (it said nothing about sexuality in the workplace), one was an opinion piece from AskMen.com, one could not be accessed for verification, and the other
(the only source in a reputable journal) was also misrepresented. Thus the deletes have it.

Women's use of sexuality in the workplace

Original research. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete You took the words out of my mouth --
    Bachrach44 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete Per nom. It's nonsense as well. -^demon 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. it's not speediable as patent nonsense. here is criterion 1 from the
    WP:CSD page: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." this page should be deleted, but it does not qualify for speedy deletion.--Alhutch 18:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. It's not nonsense, but it IS original research, and
    that's a no-no. Mo0[talk] 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • The article cites 6 sources that apparently deal with this subject. How, exactly, is this original research? Uncle G 00:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • would you agree that it's rather opinionated?--Alhutch 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion when there are 6 sources (and probably more) to work from. Uncle G 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites 6 sources. I've checked out 4 of them, and not only are they all reliable sources and independent from one another, they even back up everything that the article says, pretty much exactly. "Original research", my eye! Keep. Uncle G 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UncleG's comments are way off line. This is patently original research. And quoting other OR doesn't make it any less so. You can't just throw down some footnotes and pretend they somehow make an idea objective. Oh, it's also unencyclopedic Eusebeus 07:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, rubbish. If it's "quoting other OR", in this case 6 different reliable sources that are independent of one another, it clearly cannot be original research. If you think that something is original research because it merely isn't objective, then you don't understand what original research is. It has nothing to do with objectivity. Please read the policy and refresh your memory of what original research is. Indeed, if you think that the way to deal with a copiously sourced article that isn't neutral is to delete it, then you should read some of our other policies, too. Deletion isn't the only tool in the toolbox, and this article is not a nail. Uncle G 12:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. The fact is that providing sources and references to help readers decide whether your claims can be substantiated does not relieve it of the burdens of OR. If this was simply the pat repetition of what those articles said, it would only be OR once removed. But the sources it provides are by way of backing up an argument. Which is POV and OR. How is this hard to see?? Eusebeus 15:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you don't understand what original research actually is. Please read the policy and refresh your memory, as I asked before. If there are reliable sources demonstrating that the concept has gained traction, as is indisputably the case here (There are 6 reliable and mutually independent sources — journal articles, newspaper features, AP articles — dating back to 1997.) it isn't original research. Uncle G 18:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. This is a horrible article, biased, tendentious and badly written, but I reluctantly have to agree with Uncle G that it has some real sources (though it abuses them) and that we should try the other tools before deletion. Unless someone has the energy to do the research, however, it will remain in this NPOV state and may merit deletion somewhere down the road. Possibly rename to "Sexuality in the Workplace", which is an active research area and seems to have plenty of worthwhile discussions ([31] ).
    rodii 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, though it pains me. This article needs a lot of work, but it's not just original research. We need some people to work on it, not just shuffle it off. -- Dpark 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. UncleG is right, by the way. Being biased is not the same thing as original research. If someone comes along and says "women are all sluts in the workplace", then it's original research. If, instead they say, "women are sluts in the workplace, according to SOMEVALIDSOURCEGOESHERE", then it's probably biased, but not original research. -- Dpark 23:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dpark. Stifle 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"; "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine". This entire article is replicated in the original writer's profile and is manifestly an opinion piece. Sleepypanda
    • There are sources on this subject cited in the article that date back for the past 8 years. This is manifestly not original thought. Uncle G 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research, low encyclopedic value, high potential for edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • agreed.--Alhutch 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how, given the existence of copious sources that address the very same topic in the very same way, you came to the conclusion that this is original research. Also, "high potential for edit wars" is not a reasonable reason for deletion. If it were, Communism would have been deleted long since. Uncle G 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this doesn't make any sense...  Grue  16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NOR, difficult NPOV.--
    nixie 09:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Record Exchange

This article has no references. It was started in 2004 and edited once in 2005 (classified as a stub) and has had no other edits. No one has attempted to verify its one claim and no one has attempted to find out whether or not it is still in business.DeleteTheRingess 18:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy Bread

This article seems like nothing but an advertisment for Domino's. Prior to nominating this for deletion I suggested that it be merged with the article on Domino's Pizza. But then decided just to nominate it for deletion, and if the editors interested in the Domino's Pizza article, wish to add this information, let them. Are there separate articles for every item on Domino's menu?TheRingess 18:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Cheesy Bread seems to be a quite common food with nearly 40,000 Google hits see [32]. It isn't associated necessarily with Dominos unlike what the article seems to think. I would vote to keep even a decent stub on this but in current shape should be merged with Dominos. Capitalistroadster 18:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I wonder how many of those hits were to pages that contained a copy of Wikipedia's article? It seems to me that the number of google hits is no longer a valid metric for determining the importance of a subject.TheRingess 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all that many and certainly not in the early pages. Most of them were about various types of bread with cheese in them,. They are certainly a common item in Australia's bakeries and it seems the US. I give some consideration to the material that I cite in support of my votes. Capitalistroadster 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cmon, it's a Domino's menu listing lol. Eusebeus 07:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Domino's advert.
    Cheese bread is indeed common, but I can't think of a way to get a useful stub on it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Domino's Pizza. Stifle 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I don't like Cheese Bread. On the other hand Cheese sticks are very tasty. Also this is just a menu thing too. Croat Canuck 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least Edit it as at the moment it is basicly an advertisment for a pizza company RoryKillhorn
  • Delete This is my article, and I appear to have overestimated Cheesy Bread's popularity/association with the Domino's brand. I think of it as Domino's iconic food item, a la Big Mac or Whopper, but that's clearly not the case for everyone. I promise I don't work for them, though. :) Dan 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

NODWISH

Neologism. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 18:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 123 hits in google - not even a popular one at that. --
    Bachrach44 18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Neologism. No evidence presented of widespread usage. Gamaliel 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still just taking hold in the blogosphere where some popular bloggers have begun to use it seasonally in lieu of other greetings. A neologism, yes, but new words and ideas have to begin somewhere and I would think a progressive media such as Wikipedia would have a small bit of room for something which may, over the course of time, become something known. I know it's not as important as the history of obscure rabbis, but everything has its place. If you based everything here on google searches, you'd have quite a few deletions of subjects which are important to one or two people in the world...— Preceding unsigned comment added by MercuryX23 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Wikipedia policy expressly forbids promotion of not yet widespread terms. Wikipedia is
NOT the place to promote a new word. Sorry. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Combat Guide

worthless website spamvertising. non-notable and lame. Zzzzz 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Panda Manda Imaginations

Page appeared to be created for vanity purposes only. Content not relevant to general encyclopedia. — Shadowhillway 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Smokey Joe's

NN restaurant in

e ] 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Keep ,it is a well known restaurant in the city of Edmonton, and is featured in Edmonton Dining. --Matteso
    • Notablility in certain circles does not mean it's notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete per nom and vanity. --Wine Guy 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have lived in Edmonton almost my whole life and I've never heard of it. It's certainly not as notable as the Kyoto or The Red Ox, which do not have articles. Denni ☯ 02:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 07:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not globally notable. Stifle 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn --Davril2020 19:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

MarkPlus&Co

Advertisement for an NN company. Only 2 unique links in according to Google.

e ] 18:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for copyvio. Enochlau 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Boy Klick

advertising --Melaen 18:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The final paragraph is ripped directly from an MSN Groups page. The beginning is a rip from (link removed) this site. The whole darned thing appears to be a copyvio, so I'm going to go list it as such. Mo0[talk] 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Copyvio. --Apostrophe 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy.

talk) 05:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia supporters

Delete; non-notable organization. The article says that it was just formed today (December 7, 2005). Draw from that what you will. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, not notable. Thue | talk 20:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Bulmash

Non-notable vanity page, probably written by author. Google searches for "Ari Bulmash" and "Ari Bulmash poker player" provide no results related to this person. Mo0[talk] 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Emperious

band notability? --Melaen 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velo Club Monterey

Delete. Not notable except for one famous member. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being notable is not a requirement for addition, nor is lack of notability a justification for deletion. Please correct me if I'm missing something about Wiki policies. --Serge 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on who you ask. Some editors consider lack of notability a justification and others do not. However, you've failed to explain the importance or significant of VCM. There are a ton of cycling clubs. How is this different from any other?
e ] 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design

Was nominated for speedy. -- Scott eiπ 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable technology book. The programming/game design bookshelves at
    Barnes and Noble take up a whole friggen wall; there's no reason to start listing every one of them here. --Aurochs (Talk | Block
    )
  • Keep, while I certainly agree that not every book should have an article, that doesn't mean that some of the more major books cannot have their own article. Author is a respected figure in the VG industry. Note: I started this article. Jacoplane 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does this book have that the five hundred other books published on the subject in the past three years don't? --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
      • I guess I should point you to some of the quotes this book received from industry people. They're more qualified than me to discuss this. Jacoplane 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides, if you look at Category:Non-fiction book stubs, there are hundreds of books on politics listed there that seem less notable than this book. Is something more relevant because it's politics? Or should all those entries be deleted too? Jacoplane 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick google test returns 15,200 results, all related to the book. Notable enough for an article. LordViD 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google just shows popularity, not neccessarily notablility. Perhaps I should have said, "no claim to notability." --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete in its current form, possible Keep if expanded. I agree with Jacoplane that it meets verifiability, but while its authors may be notable and the book may be notable in the industry there is currently no explanation for why it is notable in the article itself. --Syrthiss 21:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be more than willing to flesh this article out some more, which I was planning to do anyway. However, I'm going to wait and see how this VfD turns out before putting any more work into it. Jacoplane 18:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is actually something I would like to say some more about. Just 3 minutes after I had posted the initial stub the article was tagged for speedy deletion. I think if you look at my history it's clear I tend to make reasonable contributions, so perhaps more time should have been granted for me to improve the article. Jacoplane 19:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • True. Perhaps you should mention that to User:^demon (who only has perhaps 20 edits to his credit). I certainly wasn't making any assertions one way or the other. --Syrthiss 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Royal inserts

Violates WP:MUSIC, non-notable, only 256 google results for band's name, most of them not even related to the band. Coolgamer 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Youth Federation of Spain

Was nominated for speedy. -- Scott eiπ 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article relevant, relates to PCOE article. Fits in category. --Soman 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could be wrong, but I don't see the potential for enough content. Possible merge with the PCOE article? -^demon 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I beleive the article could be expanded, but not based on google-searches. This is an organisation that did exist, but dissolved well before www, and thus little is to find on the web. I would vote against merging it, since it fits in the category Youth wings of political parties. --Soman 21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our PCOE article seems to indicate that it is a minor party in Spanish politics wih leads me to vote to Merge with that party's article. If the party was more significant, I would vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 22:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: PCOE was not insignificant. At the time of transition it was a major group which opposed Santiago Carrillo's leadership in PCE. However, as Líster reconciled with PCE and left PCOE, PCOE became a marginal party. My main point is though that PCOE were separate entities and deserve separate articles. --Soman 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case where the number of Google hits doesn't present enough evidence to determine whether something is notable or non-notable. —Sesel 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. relevant article. le petit vagabond 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems important enough and could be expanded.
    T C 09:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and expand. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill!  Grue  16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light Party

Party doesn't appear to exist beyond webpage Judging from info on their site, they have no candidates. delete

Lotsofissues 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

We've deleted parties off that list.
Lotsofissues 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Barbaluck

Neologism. Portmanteau of barbecue and potluck. To quote, "The first Barbaluck reportedly took place in Issaquah Washington in late 2005."

e ] 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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' under CSD:A1. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chung-fella

7 unique Google hits [35], none of them reliable. chocolateboy 19:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. Void of basic information. It doesn't say what the word is supposed to mean, which disqualifies it from transwikification. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. Stifle 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-bio. Enochlau 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sweetman

This page isn't notable--YHoshua 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Tim is not yet sufficiently notable. — RJH 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn bio. Enochlau 22:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Harper

Looks like thinly disgused advertising and/or a vanity page. Google gives lots of Brad Harpers, but none appear to be this one. Not-notable. DanielCD 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Lawrence

This article does not appear to meet the

Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The criteria set forth for inclusion of authors is "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." I can't determine the exact audience, but considering it is self-published and is currently ranked #2,538,941 in Books on Amazon, it seems unlikely. I imagine the article was added either by the author or a friend. JerryOrr 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Prof.Dr.Deepak Rao & Dr. Seema Rao

"This article seems like a commercial. The only links are to commercial sites that are not about the couple. The article cites no sources and probably should be split into two articles or merged with the articles that they reference. Also the referenced articles seem to have been written by the same author of this article. They created a nice circular reference.DeleteTheRingess 20:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this is the English language version of Wikipedia doesn't mean we should not consider articles from outside the English language territory. Which Wikipedia it's on should not affect its notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Misterios

not notable vanity and advertising — Shadowhillway 20:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn bio. Enochlau 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex S. Dumani

not notable vanity page — Shadowhillway 20:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense/vanity. Mo0[talk] 23:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16th august 1990

Speedy candidate. Nonsense/vanity article on a specific date/year. | Klaw Talk 21:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

CGNS

Claims to be a rising political party. Due to the generic name searching is a bit difficult, but in sifting through various searches I can find absolutely nothing

verifying the claims of this article. It's a hoax or a joke, or an attempt to use WP to start something. --W.marsh 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, not notable. Thue | talk 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McInnes

Vanity bio.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for db-repost. Enochlau 22:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker standard time

Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Old email

seems to be local neologism--Oberwolfach 21:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Shipwrek, Shipwreker

Article about a house, a meeting place of some of the students in University of Illinois. Patently non-encyclopedic content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets
The Google search Shipwrek "university of illinois" contains 3 hits, none of which is apparently about this location. The website theshipwrek.com is practically empty and says "The website will be updated soon. We've been really busy drinking." Shawnc 19:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I will just keep putting it back up.12.208.12.248 07:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your arguments didn't convince us, did you honestly think a threat would? --
      Bachrach44 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish inventors

After attempts at reform on the talk page - of which were ignored - I have decided to put this list up for deletion on the basis that it is highly extraneous, unprecedented by any other nationality, religious group, or ethnicity, and frankly listcruft. As a category, this would be appropriate, seminally. However, as a list it is too broad, not well defined, and all in all highly unnecessary. Anyway, Strong Delete and possible reform into category. Antidote 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Very important information in list form. We need more of this for other religions. -- JJay 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Important? In what way? How many people exactly go on Wikipedia looking for inventors based on their religion? Antidote 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lots of people. Same as with all the other info in this encyclopedia. I get 1.5 million google hits for inventor and religion. How do you explain that? The fact that you don't like the information, does not mean that it is not useful for many people. Was your nom in bad faith? -- JJay 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits have no basis for this - as there are many google hits for academics and political party as well - but I highly doubt List of Republican inventors will ever be made. Also, your accusations of bad faith are uncalled for and rather immature, apparently whims as you seem to disagree vehemently with any deletions of religious lists. Antidote 21:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's strangely revealing that you see a question as an accusation. A simple no would have sufficed. -- JJay 22:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's even more strange for someone to ask a question like that - even moreso strangely revealing of the giver's opinion. Would you really expect a bad faith editor to put "Yes I nominated this in bad faith" - grow up. Antidote 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is stated above. My feeling is that you nominated this when you failed to get a response on the article talk page. That's not a very good reason for Afd. I also fail to see why you feel compelled to resort to name calling. -- JJay 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this because I thought it should be deleted or majorly reformed - but now that I think about it the best move is to delete as I see no reform available. What name-calling?.
  • Wouldn't a category be better for this? Friday (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that above. Antidote 21:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah, sorry. Anyway, delete this article, use a category if anyone wants to create it. Friday (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Create category and move contents into that category. TheRingess 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per TheRingess. --Edcolins 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many other lists of less utility. It is useful, particularly in list format. A category would be fine, but keep the list as well. --Dschor 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i don't see how there being lists of less utility qualifies for keeping this - if there are worse lists...delete them too. Antidote 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all lists that can be converted to categories, like this one.Gateman1997 00:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, make into category. I'll gladly help, although ones are usually made by nationality and I'm sure they already include most of these people in them. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 01:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
this user is a suspected sockpuppet of the nominator, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. Arniep 02:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Pilatus 03:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Eusebeus 07:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please remember that lists and categories serve different purposes and that both can coexist without the need for deletion. Categorizing this would lead to the loss of numerous red-links which could spark the creation of articles on notable Jewish inventors. Only delete if this information is stored in an appropriate wikiproject first. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, for some reason, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Inventors hasn't taken off?!? Weird!  :) Friday (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of WikiProject Science or something. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily make stubs... but from a scan of this list some people don't necessarily merit an article. Antidote 20:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? They all look fairly important. -- JJay 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you demand an example - Avraham (Abraham) Cresas. Plus to notify some errors: Ludwig Mies seems like another error on this list plus calling him the inventor of industrial design is a bit farflung. Antidote 21:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry to be so demanding... so since you found one or two mistakes, that justifes ditching the info on the 50 redlinks in the list? Oh wait, I forgot, you are going to make stubs for those people. Let me know when you start, so I can help out. -- JJay 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we'll make them together. I have no problem with that. Antidote 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is 'suspected' by Arniep. And I maintain no meatpuppet relations with User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie on the RFC. Plus, this has no bearing on the reason for deletion of this thread. It may be a way to just circumvent the opinion on this AFD. Especially calling this a bad faith nomination though I clearly explicated my reasoning and ATTEMPTED to ask for reforms on the TALK page. It also may be further attempts to keep all the excess lists worked on and created by the people who hold a virtual monopoly on these pages - in other words, not allowing any outside view. If we want to bring out credibility, then please note the behaviour of User:Arniep during the times previous AFDS on Jewish lists were brought up. Nonetheless, I do not see his behavoir or my suspected behavior to have any bearing on the keep or delete basis of this list. Antidote 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I advise users to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote to judge for themselves this user's behaviour. Arniep 20:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, anyone can judge my behavior for themselves, but you are only ASSUMING that this is a bad faith nomination and have no proof that this is - especialyl considering I wrote everything I could about why I nominated it AND attempted to reform before deleting. I would wholy appreciate you reconsider throwing out accusations that are unsound in this specific case. If you want to vote keep then do - but my credibility has nothing to do with the reasons this list should go. Antidote 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ill-advised listcruft. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the only grounds for deletion seem to be that nobody has bothered to produce similar lists for other ethnic groups - rotten reason. - Londoneye 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note all the reasons I have listed above - then explain why you claim that is the only grounds. Also, deleting a list because one does not wish to start a revolution of ethnic battling on wikipedia with
List of Chinese inventors, and List of Native Inuit Eskimo inventors and because a category is clearly the appropriate usage here is in no way a rotten reason. It is surely more "rotten" to just vote keep on all lists you may have a preference for regardless of others attempts to improve (I mentioned before I will make as many stubs as I can for these) or revise (move to a category) them. Antidote 20:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Lists certainly do have usefulness. Categories are limited to the number of people that can be shown on one page, whereas lists can be scanned easily. Lists allow you to see names in context with descriptions and explanation, categories do not. I hardly see how your "ethnic battling" argument holds ground when you yourself recently created Category:Slovak inventors and Category:Serbian inventors. Regards Arniep 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't make the categories. Besides, I said before that I AGREE with categories - they are helpful - and I will gladly make one for that list for deletion. What I meant by ethnic battling is that LISTS of this specific nature do not have a basis for existing since they are all separate articles - made to explicitly highlight themselves. Categories on the other hand are PART of a larger category. You don't expect that if a list of Jewish inventors survives the Germans, the English, the Catholics won't want to make their own lists and TONS of other peoples with specific adherences?! THAT indeed is a creation-war on ethnic lines (and other lines, like sexual preference). It will spark listmania which many users here don't appreciate or like much. Antidote 21:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You did make the categories. Regards Arniep 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, not to my knowledge. Ciao. Antidote 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category is not the only appropriate answer here. First, you only attempted to make stubs because the list existed, which is somewhat ironic, considering you want it deleted. Second, how are anons, now banned from creating new pages, supposed to add new people to categories? -- JJay 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the anon ban was only temporary. But anyway, there are many things anons can't do but we're not flipping Wikipedia upside down just to give them more priveleges. I don't think many people are complaining anons can't upload images. Also, there exist lists for these people. They are called lists by country and Jews have plenty of them. All that is needed is to place a red name in
List of Jewish Americans or List of British Jews and it will get the same treatment as here. Your arguments I can understand but they do not really help support this lists reason for surviving. Antidote 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe you misinterpreted me. My point was that nationaltiy articles already exist for red names for Jewish people, so there's really no point of having this list. You can easily add these names to the sublists of Jewish Americans or to all the other Jewish country lists. As a matter of fact, they will probably be made faster on those. BUT if you DO want a separate area just for Jewish inventors (which ok..theres no problem there) then what's wrong with a category? Everyone else does it. Antidote 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what's wrong is your continuing concentration on deleting Jewish lists and your voting multiple times on them (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting). Regards Arniep 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is your claim that I have responded to - furthermore I already stated that I am done trying to convince you. Antidote 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per JJay. --Pecher 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't understand most of the arguments for deletion, and those I do understand are jolly weak. - Newport 12:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the connection between "Jewishness" and "inventors" is highly subjective and seems to be more of a psychological projection of something (maybe anything?) in some people's minds, than anything truly scholarly. IZAK 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
surely the same reasoning could be applied to American, Slovak or Serbian inventors. I don't usually look for inventors by nationality, I generally look for them by subject area. Arniep 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Boring discussion. Vulturell 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woospace

Obscure, probably vanity, fails the google test and the article is orphan. Deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 21:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olly's game

Non-notable, possible hoax. Gets 18 Google hits, most of which look unrelated.

(talk) 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Descent Of The Diabolos

Appears to be the track list of a album from a very obscure band. Nevertheless, it doesn't have encyclopedic value and it is an orphan article --Mecanismo 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per availability mentioned in the "notes"-section of the article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Stifle 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual academics

A very extraneous, possibly inaccurate (even for the confirms), and all around pointless listing. These people's being gay has no say in their work in academics - for an example of appropriate listings like this - see

list of Roman Catholics. Also, I highly doubt anyone looks up academics according to their sexual preference. Antidote 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagreeign with my reasoning gives no reason to vote keep on a page you would normally vote delete on. And
list of Roman Catholics IS more legitimate than this because it actually lists professions in which being a Catholic makes a huge difference - such as Church Music. Antidote 22:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
What makes you think I would "normally" vote to delete this page? I haven't voted to delete any other lists. :-) The time may come when I decide to do that, but it is not my approach now. In any case, I disagree entirely that religion is inherently more relevant to one's profession than sexual orientation, or that one of these lists is intrinsically more valuable than the other. I vote to keep for now. Tim Pierce 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand my reference to
list of Roman Catholics because I never said or hinted that I think religion is inherently more relevant to one's profession than sexual orientation Antidote 23:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss (typeface)

Non-notable font. This article was apparently created as part of a drive to get rid of redlinks on the Bliss dab page. It had been added to that page by an IP address whose only contributions to Wikipedia were to go through a bunch of pages adding external links to fonts by a single designer - i.e. by a linkspammer. — Haeleth Talk 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apro Networks Inc.

NN company from

e
] 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Their Website is http://www.apronetworks.com/ User talk:Matteso[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judas of Slavdom

See also Talk:Judas of Slavdom. mikka (t) 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. The term in its exactness is used in a handful of places as an interpretation of a word in a certain
    anti-Polonism article. In other words, merge, no redirect.mikka (t) 00:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Finishing a merge requires placement of a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope-term found in at least two books on Googleprint:[37] --Molobo 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 8 Google hits, including 1 (one) not from Wikipedia or mirrors. Of course, that the Polish reluctance to embrace Pan-Slavism under Czarist leadership was seen as an act of betrayal of the Slavic cause is an established and undisputed fact. However, that does not make this article, with a coinage in the title and some incoherent brainstorming in the body, legitimate in any way. --Thorsten1 13:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to To Slavs or To Slavs (poem), expand on the poem itself and not its interpretation and delete the redir. Halibutt 02:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original "research". Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Halibutt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Mikka and Irpen. --Wojsyl (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Piotrus.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't see any salvageable content. Leithp (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Saber showdown

A two minute and fourty five second "movie" produced by two college students. Neither the article or a Google search indicate that any place other than the site hosting the movie has heard of it. Delete as per

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --Allen3 talk 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Fred J. Abood Sr.

NN bio and unreferenced to boot, with 4 cleanup templates plastered on it.

e ] 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review

This website just isn't nearly information for Wikipedia. The hosting site is lower than 750,000 on Alexa; this is a message board that has one thread. It is probably a hoax anyway. We delete these all the time. [[Sam Korn]] 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the site is notable enough to warrant it's own article, particurly as it stands. If article is able to be expanded into something more than a stub, Keep. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. Any criticism of a prominent entity is desirable - are there any other forums dedicated to criticising Wikipedia? If not then any such forum, regardless of hit count or the number of posts, is notable. If we are confident of the importance and intellectual integrity of Wikipedia then we should be able to confidently face its critics, even if we find their arguments sloppy (I think right-wingers are sloppy and they probably think the same about me). [[jamescole1980]]
  • Delete. Not notable, only 38 members. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bremerton Marina

Delete per

WP:WWIN: Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Edwardian 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ERHM

This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but it does not fit into

WP:CSD. Hence, I am creating the AfD page for the User:Rebrane. The reason was "original research". I abstain from voting. Enochlau 23:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Elders of Nether York

Non notable organisation File Éireann 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable organization consisting of three people; possibly vandalism. The article itself says that it is mostly fictional. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete - I was confused briefly, but this note at the bottom helped me out, "Note: The Elders of Nether York is a small organization created by a few high school students.". Thanks, author, for making this easy for us. Small organisation created by a few high school students = no claims of notoriety. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all high school cliques except the unusually notable "Trenchcoat Mafia." Gazpacho 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Olorin28 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete admittedly NN. --
    Bachrach44 15:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete NN. --DDG 19:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Contreras-Churubusco

There is no need for this article, which only explains that there are two battles (of several) fought in Mexico City during the Mexican-American War. Vizcarra 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk) 05:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Nigeriens

"Not that I have any objection to this article, but shouldn't it be Nigerians and couldn't it be made into a Category?TheRingess 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really, the comment re "shouldn't this be a category" is perfectly valid, I'd say. -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Psychopablum

I can find very few places where this word is even used. It may become a notable word...but until then, it is just some term people use, and got knows there are millions of those. Either we don't have any or we have all of them.

Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JL421 Badonkadonk

This tank is a joke, surely. Do we need an article about a joke? Delete.-Mr Adequate 23:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, then Badonkadonk (disambiguation) should also be deleted.-Mr Adequate 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah.

Dave Letterman makes a lot of jokes. We don't need articles for each of them. FreplySpang (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs with the word "dance" in their title

Completely arbitrary, and of little encyclopedic use. WMarsh 23:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_7&oldid=1081092007"