Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 24 November 26 >

Purge server cache

November 25

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

Francs2000 00:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Adrian Pelliccia

Appears to be a vanity page; very POV. --Ixfd64 00:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Does not assert notability. Tagged. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenologisms

The creator of the article made up this word, the content of the article is nothing more than a definition of it. This is all part of a propoganda for spreading

High Icelandic and doesn't belong here. Stefán Ingi 00:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete: Dictdef and self-evident. Geogre 02:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Geogre and
    Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Zero google hits. Good effort on the inventor, but loanword is the same thing. Even if you did find a good source for the word, xenologism would probably just redirect there. Stefán: I don't think this in particular is part of propaganda campaign to spread High Icelandic. Settle down there :P. I also replaced "xenologisms" with "loanwords" on the High Icelandic page.--Ben 03:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, I guess the propoganda claim was bit over the top, thanks for taking the time to look into it. Stefán Ingi 10:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. PJM 03:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. utcursch | talk 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no google hits, means it's not in wide use. Replace all mentions with "loanword". - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in order to halt the terrifying efforts of High Icelandic to consume the entire world and replace it with the letter 'Ø'. Oh, and because it's a neologism. --Last Malthusian 09:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonexistent. Bensaccount 04:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.
    讨论+extra) 08:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Doughnut Denni ☯ 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers and donuts

Is this article useful in anyway? If not, then I'd say delete it. Foogol 00:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there's some speculation in there doesn't mean we shouldn't document the stereotype. We can leave the speculation out of the merged material. - Mgm|(talk) 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible source -> Brehm, John and Scott Gates. 1993a. "Donut Shops and Speed Traps: Evaluating Models of Supervision on Police Behaviour," American Journal of Political Science 37:555-81 IanBailey (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice research you've got there. Good job! Merge to
donut. Jacqui★ 15:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
That could work, but it is still a very weak merge. Turnstep 15:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slang and offensive terms for police officers

What usefulness is there in having this article? I'd say it should be deleted. Foogol 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThereIsNoRadio and The Asylum and DJNewStyle

Non notable pod-cast style internet radio station and shows that are on it. ThereIsNoRadio.com has an alexa rank of 1,572,444. ThereIsNoRadio gets 333 hits on goggle. But does not appear to have gained the intrest of any major media. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indigo Kitchen which I submitted before I knew about these other articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there has been historic pattern for the deletion of internet radio stations, they are not suitable encyclopedia content--
    nixie 01:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Correction: These are actually live broadcasts, not podcasts. However, my nomination remains. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, really. Deskana 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deskana Stifle 11:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read through all the reasons for deletion to find out why any of these should be removed and I cannot find any reasons for deletion that apply. I see where radio stations are allowed.
    XM 202, and The Asylum is strongly affiliated with The Hideout through Badmonkey (who also runs ThereIsNoRadio). Most of these shows have been around for almost 2 years on RadioBBQ.net. I'll quit now as this is turning into it's own wikipedia entry. Randomgenius 02:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Note: This user has only contributed to related articles and this AfD. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course radio stations are allowed. But the question here is if ThereIsNoRadio notable. What makes it any different from the thousands of other internet radio stations? In my opinion, being plugged by another radio show (albiet a non-internet show) is not a claim to notabilty. At the very least this should all be merged into The Hideout. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First you say they've had no major media attention, then when major media attention is pointed out you call it just a "plug". Is the station notable? The station is ranked #13 in talk on
        XM 202, Ron and Fez, Opie and Anthony, or anything else related to this discussion and that you might not be knowledgeable enough on the subjects to judge notability? I could understand a request to merge the show entries with the station entry, but deletion for all seems excessive when based entirely on the number of internet radio stations out there. The lack of notability alexa has with ThereIsNoRadio listeners shouldn't count against it. Randomgenius 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • As I understand it the man who founded ThereIsNoRadio works on The Hideout, so it certainly sounds like a plug. If this is not the case could you please elaborate on the nature of it? The kind of media attention I was thinking of was an article about it in a national media publication or respected music journal - Something we can cite as a reference in the article.
          • Badmonkey does not work for the Hideout. He worked for the Hideout in Washington, DC for over a year. ThereIsNoRadio is kind of a continuation of RadioBBQ, which has been written about at DCRTV, a well known and respected website for radio and tv information in the Washington, DC area. Randomgenius 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say that it is currently ranked #13 on Live365. That's a good start, it should be added to the article. Although, I should point out that neither the #1, #2 or #3 ranked station on Live365 has an article here.
        • As for my ability to rate the notability of the station; I should point about that although I nominated these articles, I haven't voted on this yet and I shall continue to abstain for the moment. I am however extremely wary of the notability of ThereIsNoRadio, considering we normally delete Internet Radio stations. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make separate entries for each page Bensaccount 04:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a valid and well-established internet radio station. Certainly Wikipedia recognizes the importance of the INTERNET and it's future in broadcasting. 67.185.71.34
    • Please, where is the evidence it is well-established? I would rather see this article fixed, but so far the only claim to importance is the affiliation with another radio show. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you actually read any of this, you'd realize that ThereIsNoRadio is not important because of affiliation with one show. The station is important enough that other radio shows and stations talk about it. One of the DJ's was removed from the station a few months back and it was discussed for over 45 minutes on Ron and Fez. Randomgenius 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes! That does sound like a claim to notabilty. Why isn't it in the article? I added it along with the other thing you mentioned. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
  • Keep ThereIsNoRadio and merge related articles into it per discussions above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • so does this mean we can get rid of that ugly "hey lets delete this" block on the top of the entry now that the person that submitted this for deletion has changed his mind? Randomgenius 03:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. Others have still voted to have this article deleted. Their votes are still valid. You must wait for the AfD to finish. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the City of Brisbane

An offshoot from

nixie 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Geogre - Mike Rosoft 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Conetta

  • Delete nn vanity. Absolutely no related google hits. Forbsey 01:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -
    WP:BIO PJM 03:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem relevant to WP. Not, however, a speedy deletion; since he is the vice-president of a corporation, it may assert some notability.
  • Comment: have tagged for speedy - a non-notable VP of a non-notable corp (which is also up for deletion)... wangi 12:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It doesn't strike me as a speedy delete, but if someone else wants to try it, then that's ok to me. I really don't see any chance of this being kept in the first place. --
    mmm chicken) 14:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom JoJan 19:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per google. Bensaccount 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A7 possibly?
    讨论+extra) 08:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete: Was speedy deleted four times last year -
    db-bio}} to speedy this. Thanks/wangi 10:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SLGames

  • Delete Non-notable. Blatant vanity/advertising Forbsey 01:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 11:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thanks/wangi 12:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable JoJan 19:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn
    讨论+extra) 08:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.amazinggames.tk


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete all articles; Graeme Lawton speedied by JesseW. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Lawton plus

Samuel w phillips, Controversy At Belmont, Poésie Sans Frontieres, Sachburg, Daphne Crumble, The Poetry of Graeme Lawton and Ragtime Ragman Back In Rags.

A linked collection of articles all entirely hoax. All, I suggest, written by Graeme Lawton who studies at the School of Economic Science, Belmont House, Stockport. -- RHaworth 01:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note 72.36.253.66 changed Dlyons493's vote to 'keep' in this edit.--Spondoolicks 13:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; your suggestions regarding the authors of these articles are entirely unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.18.61 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 November 2005 *(UTC)
  • Speedy delete the lot as nonsense (hoax = nonsense in my book)
    t c 11:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - maybe there should be some more stuff on Graeme Lawton in your 'book', and fewer overused clichés. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.18.61 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nominator. At the risk of stating the obvious, the two unregistered users (the articles' only contributors) have had two votes each; 86.11.18.61 traces to Manchester and 216.222.200.2 appears to be an open proxy. Stifle 11:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC), updated 13:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its as if no one here knows or even understands poetry! Just because it's not in Star Trek!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.200.2 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am a 3rd year literature student at Trinity College, Cambridge and I've just completed my dissertation on the works of Graeme Lawton. He is little known I admit, but he does exist. A visit to the Bodleian library would confirm this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.200.2 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Online visits to the catalogues of the Bodleian, the Cambridge University Library and the British Library all fail to confirm the existence of any works by "Graeme Lawton". --rbrwr± 18:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. Ignore the silly "keep" votes. Logophile 13:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Note: 86.11.18.61 made this edit to Logophile's signature. A warning has been placed on his talk page. Spondoolicks 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Had these just been a hoax set, it would be possible that this was a Swiss Knight mistake/high spirits. However, the flood of "votes" from the author above show that it's vandalism. Vandalism can be reverted/deleted on sight. Just more graffiti. Geogre 13:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Maybe the flood of votes from the author is the result of a desperate academic only trying to preserve the literary history of the world, rather than have it wiped clean by the digerati? To delete would be a crime of the greatest magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.18.61 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Almost certain hoax since the creator and defender of this article is clearly editing in bad faith given his contributions here. --Spondoolicks 16:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, speedy if possible but doesn't quite meet any criteria. Block the anon IP for vandalizing this page. Turnstep 19:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete those that meet criteria, delete the rest of the lot.
    讨论+extra) 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete all as hoax. *drew 09:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Leavy

  • Delete vanity Forbsey 03:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Bjones 04:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, but folks really should provide a deletion rationale. Since there was no rationale in this nomination, having a referential justification is worrisome. The article is a joke/vanity article. Geogre 13:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete vanity, nn, A7.
    讨论+extra) 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete vanity, nn, advertisement Dbchip 17:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre. Content blanked by author. --GraemeL (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Hei Shun

What makes me suspicious about this entry is that Google comes up with no pertinent hits for the "Sun Yat-sen prize of Oncology" and the "Larry Lam prize in Forensic Biology". Delete as unverified. Pilatus 03:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified. Four Google hits for "Cheung Hei Shun" none of which verify the claims in this article see [1]. No Google Books results see [2]. No results from Google scholar see [3]. Capitalistroadster 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want to Delete the effort I put into creating the stub? How uncaring. -- JJay 07:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if he really did make his discovery at 1 year of age, he's notable. -- Kjkolb 08:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Now looks like he made the discovery a year before he was born. That's even more notable. -- JJay 08:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author-blanked and therefore speedied. Geogre 13:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shtickless

Vanity page for online community Bjones 04:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem remotely encyclopedic at this point.Bjones 04:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. --Nlu 05:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "our forum is totally important" is obnoxious even with sarcasm. Ashibaka (tock) 06:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shtickless but not sockless, apparently. Doesn't meet
    WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Too bad that's a proposed plan, buddy. Shtickless has a big base.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.83.60 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Speedy, preferably, per nom. --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dbchip 09:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I just wish it was worth a
    patent nonsense tag. Stifle 11:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above and because of the sockpuppets. 23skidoo 13:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and web guides aren't even forum guides. The sockpuppets only make it worse and make this look more and more fit for speedy deletion as vandalism than regular deletion for representing and unencyclopedic topic. Geogre 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this vanity ad. No context, no notability. Only thing it has lots of is sock puppets. Ifnord 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.
    讨论+extra) 08:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Blatant vanity and spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While not quite the most relevant content, there seems to be a certain amount of support here. Hoopefully it will be slightly changed and improved. I say we give them a chance. Dabroom 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has only two edits, one here, the other at Talk:Shtickless. - Mike Rosoft 21:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that votes from unregistered users, as well as ones from recently created user accounts which seem to have been registered to influence the results of the discussion, will likely be
        disregarded. - Mike Rosoft 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 03:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity advertisement. *drew 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comments/votes

One of many keep votes where the only cotribs are here --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, User's only contribs are here, and complaining about here.... --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contribs are mostly this AfD, and the article in question, and vandalising User:Bjones--VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, you have a page for shtick, but not for shtickless? So much for impartiality!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.43.244 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contribs are this AfD, and the article in question,, oh, and shtick is up for AfD Here just FYI... --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contrib is here --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • honestly, if i REALLY wanted to, youre right, i could. i just want to see if better options open up. im still being patient for now... maybe ill form a relationship... who knows. i dont wanna get too deep into it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.79.55 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP There's plenty of stuff "in development" on this site. Why be hasty? Give these guys some time, and maybe suggestions as to what might help them keep the entry afloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achilles11 (talk • contribs)
User's only contribs, again, are here, and at the article's talk --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should be kept...who are we to deny anybody the right to a fair and impartial website- Ron Mexico...Atlanta, GA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.142.42 (talk • contribs)
'Nother case of User's only contribs are here... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (by judgment of this admin as G1) --Nlu 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bippity bippity bumblebee

There are scores of little chants that are used in preschools; this one is not one of the more widely used ones. Joyous | Talk 05:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Entirely non-notable. Questionable accuracy at best. I never heard this one in school. Vonspringer 07:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete.
    Ben Aveling 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quitecom.com

Advertisement Nfreader 05:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resat Pasha

nn subject, Delete-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 05:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (by this admin's judgment). --Nlu 09:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DivineOmega

A one-sentence article about the author of a blog that has no entry on Wikipedia.

WP:BIO. (Article content: DivineOmega is the author alias of the popular weblog/blog known as 'The Haphazard Happenings Of The DivineOmega') · Katefan0(scribble) 05:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - non-notable JoJan 09:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gives no reason for notability.Bjones 15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity, spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion (no claim of note). - Mike Rosoft 20:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as there is no claim made of significance. If we accept the fact that blog software is free and that blog hosting generally can be free, having a blog is, like editing Wikipedia, something anyone can do. Geogre 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others, no meaningful content. Quentin Pierce 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn
    讨论+extra) 08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NewKadia

Advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In church

non-enclopediatic, belongs in a dictionary MAYBE.... Delete-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 05:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Oyvind 08:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 11:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definition is inaccurate as well. Subject is already covered in a cappella. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable --
    Bachrach44 22:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trendlines

  • Nothing but a web link.
  • Delete. A Web link only adverstisng. Author's is also advertising.--Pomegranite | talk 05:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted.
    WP:CSD A3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Jni - Mike Rosoft 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CRA MAP

looks like spam, Delete-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social networking service

Clear case of

original research
.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 06:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NOR. Stifle 11:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please fix the backlink in
    Perfecto Canada 01:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Over

  • Keep as this is tied to the issue of LGBT characters in the Star Trek universe. Perhaps some one might want to track Ernest Over down.

The unusual case where the nominator is voting Keep. I added AfD because there is a reasonable case that it should be speedy deleted as non-notable, but while I think he's notable enough to keep, I think it should be voted on. --Nlu 06:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw this on CSD also. I think the article does assert his notability, so I removed the speedy tag. Whether or not he's notable enough to be kept is up to this AFD. I personally vote keep. Interesting, with some potential for more expansion. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say keep, but the last sentence in the article stopped me cold. The article very much needs reliable citations or people (myself included) will wonder how much of this is true and how much is legend. Until then, DeleteVonspringer 07:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also: [4]
    Ben Aveling 07:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. The phrase "It is not know where he is or even if he is still alive." somewhat suggests non-notability. ➨
    REDVERS❞ 10:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, not notable in my opinion. Stifle 11:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep but add sources and please fix spelling errors, somebody. Logophile 13:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His main claims to fame are (1) He was personal assistant to a notable person, (2) He wrote a press release, and (3) He was gay. None of these are particularly notable. •DanMS 17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being gay is a claim to fame? Boy, I have some phone calls to make. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn Borisblue 19:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as unverifiable at this stage. I would change to keep if it was referenced, simply because it's interesting. Interesting makes it notable for me, but it may be a hoax. Ifnord 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with DanMS. The BBC site does carry the story [5] Dlyons493 Talk 23:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His fifteen minutes of fame (if that) were up a long time ago. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verified during the AFD process. Otherwise, nuke it. Jacqui★ 15:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per DanMS, material should be moved to some Star Trek article Pete.Hurd 02:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amish Friendship Bread

Delete - Nothing vaguely Amish about it, appears to just be a usenet in-joke or something similar. Rename - Having it here is just misleading, as people may assume it is actually an Amish tradition. Sherurcij 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Nlu 08:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Velasquez

Delete. If in fact he exists, this is a street musician who makes his living by selling cassettes of his music on the streets. AllMusic never heard of him. 412 Google hits for “Mariano Velasquez” but they all seem to refer to a Portuguese sportsman or the author of a dictionary. Many of the links are in Spanish or Portuguese so it’s not easy to understand many of them. The link to the picture in the article seems to be a picture of the Portuguese sports person. The list of songs provided has the note: “This will be very helpful when illegally downloading bootleg Mariano songs.” •DanMS 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Speedy Delete.

Ben Aveling 07:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mi7.info

Not notable website. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elite forex trading

Advertising. (Elite Forex Trading is a premier forex broker, offering unique services you can't find anywhere else.) Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 07:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as attempt to communicate. --GraemeL (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis

Possibly not notable, certainly patent nonsense in current form Vonspringer 07:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ananael

No content. Not obviously worth a stub. Discussed on another page already.

Ben Aveling 07:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Listed on fallen angel, which has a factual accuracy tag. I don't know how you'd go about checking a page like this one, unless there are some references listed. Delete — RJH 01:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what is this, gamecruft, some TV series character, some (recent) religion's lost messiah? ...how about starting an article with "In blahblah Ananael is a blab blah..." Pete.Hurd 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. Doesn't appear in Gustav Davidson's A Dictionary of Angels, for what that's worth. Possibly a typo for
    Hananel. -Sean Curtin 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auscamp

Delete. No assertion of notability for this outdoors company. Google returns 355. A relevant website shows it to be one of 21 of its kind in Australia and thus it does not appear to meet

WP:CORP. If an Australian wants to inform that this is the biggest and best of its kind, I have no problem reconsidering. Marskell 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --

mmm chicken) 14:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Correllus

Not notable. No google hits. No text on website 213.179.58.29 08:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by — Matt Crypto - Mike Rosoft 20:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rex curry

Delete ASAP. Incoherent

original research diatribe by a crank who has already tried spamming this crap onto a multitude of talk pages. Lupo 08:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MasterWish

Not notable. Advertising. Few google hits 213.179.58.29 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham The Movie

I can find no mention of this movie on imdb, or under the imdb filmography for John Ritter. No Google hits for "Birmingham the Movie" relate to Detroit. Delete as non-notable or hoax.-gadfium 08:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Games

non-encyclopedic, 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 keep (no consensus). After the translation, the reason for deleting based on the article being in German is now mute. Apart from that there is a notability discussion between two people. Ironically, it was Lord Malthusian, who wanted this deleted, who wound up saving it... that's the way things work here. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Durmus Kumdereli

Foreign language article; looks like German. I ran it through an online translator, and it doesn't appear to be *that* significant. Depending on its significance, I suppose it should either be deleted or moved to the German Wikipedia. --Spring Rubber 09:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the original text with this translation, but I still think it should be deleted. Sadly, foreigners being kidnapped and murdered in Iraq are too thick on the ground (or under it) to be notable. --Last Malthusian 13:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The man apparently existed. There was a video of his death, circulated by the usual suspects, and plenty of news besides, including on the BBC (from September 2004). If it's kept, it's inaccurate; from the Google summaries it seems he was beheaded, but I am most certainly not going to download the video to check. Still don't think he qualifies as notable. I remember one or two hostages who appeared in insurgency videos and made national news, but not this one. Perhaps he was in the news more in Turkey, in which case a transwiki to the Turkish WP would be appropriate, but we'd need a Turk to confirm that. --Last Malthusian 13:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was much in the news in Turkey, at least if the case caused some significant discussion in Turkish media on the general situation for Turks in Iraq, we should keep the translation in the English Wikipedia, but I can easily see it being merged with a more geneal topic at some point in the future. u p p l a n d 21:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Corner

NN web comic, vanity, not even about the comic in the first place Dbchip 09:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very non-notable. The article itself almost seems like an advertisement. MidnightWolf 07:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. —
    Cleared as filed. 02:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Marvick

Committed some prank involving reloading another web site's counter. Prank not committed by someone notable or against something notable.

  • Delete I don't entirely understand the article or the AFD but I know not notable when i see it. Dbchip 09:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about this article, Up in the Corner is my comic-website and Michael and I have been working on the Auto-Refresher Program for a little bit. This is not a prank, just an experiment. We wanted to test it out on something, but didn't want to choose a good, legitimate website, so we used my site as the subject. You can delete this article, as we should probably make one on the actual program, instead of Michael. We thought we were going somewhere with his article, but it just turned into the Auto-Refresher 

   -Frojo 1:30, 25 November 2005
  • Delete, and if the author comes back, he can tag it under CSD:G3 or G7. Stifle 11:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germans of USA

Doesn't really seem to be a topic that deserves its own article. Besides, the title is rather nonsensical I'd try to have it speedied, but it doesn't seem to fit the criteria enough, so I brought it here. --Spring Rubber 09:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by

Doc glasgow. - Mike Rosoft 09:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Joe Sullam

Nonsense hoax Dbchip 09:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a cross between G2, A1, and A7. Stifle 11:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax - the murder still has to happen JoJan 20:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Murder in the future?? This is patent nonsense/noax. --Hurricane111 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Circle of the Silvereye

It's a guild in World of Warcraft. Not a part of the game itself, but a group of players who organize events for their members. I'm having doubts whether they're more notable than any other gaming clan and it looks like advertising, thus I bring it here. I'll abstain until I have some feedback. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or possibly merge if there's a lot of guild pages. Stifle 11:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The guild's name is Silvereye, for one. Further, it's not even a very large guild by anyone's standards (latest census at 39 characters), when there's guilds with almost 10 times as many. Also, while they certainly have a more impressive guild website than most, I'm not certain they have the notability of other WoW guilds, like Ascent (first guild to defeat Ragnaros). It's certainly difficult to maintain focus on RP as diligently as they have, but that probably doesn't rise to standards of notability. Baryonyx 10:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAGS

Article states: This article is based on the theories and speculations of two university students in California. If this article has offended you in any way, go get a sense of humor. Delete as unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The above Keep vote contributed by User:66.122.245.126. -Rholton 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI've known a lot of Asian girls (many of them crazy), and this is only comprehensive theory on the subject that really makes sense.
Note:The above Keep vote contributed by User:204.210.24.61. -Rholton 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, by the way, Delete. -Rholton 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i was under the impression that all people are entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of press (such as stated in a little document called the Bill of Rights). Although a theory it is still their right to post it and explore it. There was once a man who had a theory and was censored and put under house arrest b/c it offended some, you may have heard of him his name was GALILEO!
The above unsigned post contributed by User:70.187.149.151. -Rholton 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Being a Caucasian female who has experience first hand with friends that are Asian American women who have developed CAGS, as well as white male friends whose girlfriends have developed CAGS, I believe that this is legitimately posted and should be further researched.
The above unsigned post contributed by User:128.195.103.179. -Rholton 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I signed your post for you (again). It's clear you have a few misunderstandings about Wikipedia. You might want to review
Wikipedia:Rights. -Rholton 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no 1st amendment rights here. Wiki is a privately owned enterprise. It's like being in someone's house--if they don't like what you're saying, they can boot you out. Wiki is under no obligation to keep pages. A claim to 1st amendment rights is ignorant. And as for the comparison to scientific theories, it's just a little bit different. This isn't a theory by a reputable scientist. It's a joke theory cooked up by a couple of college kids. Sarah Ewart 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sarahe's is right on target. Even theories by reputable scientists are not accepted here unless they are first published elsewhere. See Wikipedia:No original research. -Rholton 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On-the-job Dictatorial Training

This article is flooded with POV, which wouldn't be cause for deletion by itself, but even the title is derogatory. Parts of this might be merged into Meles Zenawi, heavily modified, but the rest needs to go. Deco 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom JPD 11:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete soapboxing. Gazpacho 04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — PoV name and content. — RJH 01:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Barclay

Hoax - doubt this person is real. She has no IMDB listing and no characters with the names claimed have ever appeared on Coronation Street or Eastenders. Neither does the album Confessions of a Red Head Diva exist. no references to the actress or her death on Google

  • Delete madey-up hoaxiness. No sign of her on the (inaugural) British Soap Awards 1999, nothing on Google, etc. Why don't people put as much effort into biographies of real people, if they have the time to spare? Tonywalton  | Talk 14:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impressive hoax though. Peyna 06:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Allard

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a 19-year old student with no notability established, and only marginally claimed. Sliggy 14:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this speedily is fine by me. Sliggy 18:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged this as a speedy delete. Stifle 15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No legitimate claim to notability. Google returns only 1 hit on “forma mutatio”, and that is a Latin phrase in a page about the ethics of Spinoza. •DanMS 17:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Jni - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iain moore

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted by

did you read this?) 02:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Jamalism

Non-notable. 2 pages of Google results. Homepage on Geocities. utcursch | talk 12:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but request citing of sources. Stifle 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, unverified. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious joke. Read their Official Jamalism web page. •DanMS 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability established, no verifiability, and the web site is, um, less than convincing. Delete as per WP:Complete bollocks. Sliggy 17:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because it's a joke (or we'd have to nuke
    Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) but because it hasn't attained the same amount of discussion and scrutiny. Simply put, it's not notable. Jacqui★ 15:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Jacqui Peyna 06:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonomenalism

Unverified original research. The only reference given is to a Wikipedia mirror, with the exact contents of this article. Cleanup date expired. Google shows 739 links, most of which are also from Wikipedia mirrors. Sikon 12:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cocepts in science

Redundant list. The concept of the list is covered much better in

talk 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know, I make this typo a lot; of course, I doubt anyone will be searching for this article so the need for a redirect is still questionable. Peyna 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, mispelling cannot be a sole reason for deleting, people can edit if any word is misspelt. Please discuss the reasons. I believe it is useful Charlie 11:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

> *Vote changed to redirect. A redirect should also be created from

talk 12:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [reply
]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amust registry cleaner

Just an advert, based almost wholly on http://www.amustsoft.com/registrycleaner/ (though not by the looks of it enough to be flagged as copyvio). Tonywalton  | Talk 14:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertisement JoJan 16:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertising. Gimboid13 21:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toupé

Delete - fails to meet

WP:NMG based on my findings. PJM 14:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Jni

Urban faeries

Is this a real topic?

talk 15:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture rating

Dicdef / neologism, with promotion. And it sucks.

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu (Mortal Kombat Character)

An article about something that was rumored, but from the article doesn't appear to actually happen? A brief search on Google didn't turn up anything to back up that this was even a popular rumor (but it is possible I'm just not using the right keywords). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculation. Stifle 15:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know of this rumor. It was caused because of the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat rivalry of the mid-90s, and how MK has dominated over SF. It is in fact a fancruft rumor. It speculated that SF Ryu (that game's main character) would appear in an MK game, since Street Fighter has fallen out of the media, and it was to symbolize MK's domination of the arcade industry, although it was completely fabricated and dumb. (Notorious4life 21:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian federal parliaments

This list is the same as both the category and the template. -Arctic.gnome 21:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tirumakudalu Chowdiah

No google hits whatsoever. I am not an expert on African classical musicians, but this strikes me as non-notable. --

(talk) Contribs 17:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silvereye Elves

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by JoJan, article contained only external links. --GraemeL (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Internet Links

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Özhan Öztürk

Vanity article, the author is also listed in the list of polymaths!


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

This is really two articles: an article on unaccredited higher education, mainly in the US and Canada, which is a useful adjunct to

[T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • You just know that tickles my sense of humour, don't you?  :-) -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I buy that. What should the title be? Give me a good steer on that and I'll move for early closure and do the needful. -
    [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was speedied by JesseW. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whining

dicdef

  • Delete - already covered in Wiktionary JoJan 15:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Del - Chelman 15:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't currently meet
    CSD but should be gone. Stifle 15:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was speedied by User:RHaworth. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación

non-encyclopedic; not in English

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic; I provided a machine translation of sorts JoJan 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not in english.--Alhutch 16:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stopper (war)

A term used in a blog. Claims to be "widely popularised" by it, but even if it were true (which I was unable to verify), then Wikipedia is not a dictionary. POV content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. this doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 17:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism. Peyna 05:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fennocentrism

Neologism/OR, gets exactly one unique Google hit. It's not very original either, for that matter, since most of that could probably be said for any similar country. - ulayiti (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge most of the meat to
    Fennoman (if there is anything to take), junk the excess baggage, then Transwiki the bones to Wiktionary. (Not really a neologism either, merely a derived word - if there were such strong issue with fennocentrism, that's the word I'd use!) This is such a general concept that it doesn't warrant its own article apart of a brief dictionary definition, and the current article is just too wordy. "Fennocentrism", in my opinion, isn't particularly different from any other <country>centrisms. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, doesn't seem suitable for WP. Stifle 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article isn't NPOV, and I doubt that it can be modified to fit the wikipedia standards. Let me give a quote: "It is always a great national news in Finland when Finnish athletes, artists or beauty queens gain success and fame on an international level". Now, how is this ethnocentrism or in any way racist or anything? Don't they celebrate in every country when one of their athletes wins? --85.49.229.165 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be borderline attack. MONGO 19:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Santry

A footballer who helped win the FA Youth Cup in 2001. There is no indication, however, that he ever played professional senior football. Punkmorten 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google suggest he almost certainly didn't. CalJW 10:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — needs a better record of achievement to be notable. — RJH 01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiu wrestling

Non verifiable on Google - searching for "Tiu wrestling" (with quotes) returns zero hits (without quotes there are numerous hits due to a wrestler called Tiu). The two referenced people in the article, Danikko and Reamonn (both tagged for speedy as nn-bio) appear per deleted edits to be aged about 12 and do their wrestling on their parents' bed. Cute, but NN and OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either a joke article or some kiddy thing, no place on Wikipedia so delete. Stifle 01:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crawline

Having released one (relatively unknown) album and sold "hundreds of EPs", this band doesn't quite meet

WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 17:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • With reference to [10] seems to be in accordance since they have infact released two albums. SJAQ 19:12, 25 November 2005 (CET)
    • Not two albums I'm afraid; it says two demos. Punkmorten 23:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Stifle 01:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Bentzen

Claims notability as a member of the band Crawline, who are nominated for deletion. May be vanity. Punkmorten 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American terrorism

This was written entirely by one editor and includes loads of original research, such labeling the JFK assassination and support of Israel terrorism. Carbonite | Talk 17:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Carbonite | Talk 17:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SOME of this article is origonal research, some isn't. The term American Terrorism was used in a CNN editoral. The School of the Americas is well known, for example. I will clean it up a bit, then see what you think.Sethie 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:


--Striver 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


As I play with this article, I think it is the foundation for an article that has real merit.... Terrorism committed by US citizens or the US government. Maybe we could call it Terrorism in the US. "American Terrorism" is just such a loaded term.

  • Rename
    FCYTravis 03:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I'm surprised the American attack on Grenada is not mentioned, nor is the blatant American funding of the Contras in Nicaragua. I do not support renaming this article - it does not talk about terrorism in the United States, it talks about terrorism by the United States. Denni ☯ 04:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I contend that this article is in need of so much improvement that it would be easier to start over at a new title such as Terrorism in the United States or Terrorism by Americans (depending on the focus of the article). Remember, substantially different content can not be speedily deleted. Carbonite | Talk 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support this approach, but I still have no problem with trying to work it out at this page, either. Jacqui★ 16:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think all this article needs is some massaging. It is a little heavy on lists, but is a sound beginning as far as informational content goes. Denni ☯ 20:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One country attacking another country is not terrorism. One country supporting counter-revolution in another country is not terrorism. You just want to add more POV to this already POV-laden article (and not the balancing POV either).  Grue  06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the surface what you are saying is accurate. However, is supporting terrorism terrorism? For example, funding insurgents in foreign countries, as the US has done, or let's say we had concrete proof that a foreign goverment aided the people who carried out the Sept.11 actack. Would the support of the terrorists be terrorism? I don't know! There are a lot of definitions of terrorism, one being: acts of violence against civiliians for the purpose of creating social change. How does funding/training people to do the acts of violence to that create the chang YOU want fit in? I don't know... Sethie 07:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, as per Denni. Perhaps mention the use of Agent Orange and the UN classification of depleted uranium munitions as a WMD. --Shaddack 12:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, maybe a whole seperate article on terrorism committed by US citizens

Sethie 04:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Has about a grain of truth in a 10000000000000 grain article. Absolutely hopeless.
  • Keep per Denni and clean up. All new additions should be as well-sourced as the article currently is. If NPOV is/becomes an issue, we can take care of that per policy. I would also support renaming this article, but to something more like Terrorism by Americans. Jacqui★ 15:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, if articles on terrorism in other countries can exist, then why not this one?--Khalid! 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: See above comment to Denni. Carbonite | Talk 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is ridiculous.  Grue  19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • cleanup this article is sub-standard, but the topic can be saved (as per Denni) if there are people willing to make the effort. Pete.Hurd 03:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,
    POV and in places complete bollocks (e.g. mention of use of WMD and torture, which while reprehensible are clearly not terrorism). I'm in favour of creating a well-written article elsewhere per the above, but that's no reason not to delete this rant. If it's deleted, the proposed new article can still be written, particularly as the consensus is to write it somewhere else entirely. And if it's kept and no-one gets around to writing the new version, everybody loses. --Last Malthusian 09:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Coment "Terrorism and American Foreign Policy", —by Robert Elias September 25, 2001, Professor of politics at University of San Francisco, California.

See section "US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction"

See also:

Specific Torture Campaigns
Creation and launching of direct US campaigns to support torture as an instrument of terror and social control for governments in Greece, Iran, Vietnam, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama

--Striver 13:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I put up the initial NPOV tag; this is more a
    war crimes
    and terrorism. (The UN sees a difference!) The use of weapons of mass destruction is not automatically a terrorist action. (And as for the U.S. being the only country to use WMDs: not by a long shot. The author doesn't seem to understand what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction; the definition changes every time the guns get bigger, so to speak.)
I'm a little uncertain about the logic supporting a redirect to a separate article, as you suggest above. The term is clearly notable and in wide use. BrandonYusufToropov 17:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty damned liberal and open to criticism of the United States, but not in this format and not on Wikipedia. It's soapboxy, often factually questionable, redundant when factually accurate, and structurally appalling in all cases. Tom Lillis 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
coment This article is not about disscusing what of the actions of the USA that comes into the domain of
Islamofascism (term)
, it does not give on single evidence of actions that are terrorism and sanctioned by Islam, rather, it talks about what people use the term, against whom, and what the cirtics respond.

Everything you listed belongs to a "critic" section in this article. --Striver 13:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though it certainly needs cleanup. Not yet NPOV, but that's not the issue. Whether an idea offends us or seems (in some subjective way) inherently contradictory is not the point. People are using this term, including [prominent journalists]. Google hits: 77,000. Clearly over the threshold of notability. BrandonYusufToropov 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could a NPOV article be written on American terrorism? Sure. The issue here is that this article needs so much work that it's just easier to start over. If someone wants to write Terrorism in the United States or Terrorism by Americans, no one is stopping them. Keeping this specific article doesn't make any sense because it needs a complete overhaul. Deleting this article doesn't mean that a substantially different and much better article can't exist. Carbonite | Talk 17:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I have to disagree. We're talking about the term, and this locution wouldn't be covered by Terrorism by Americans. It looks like some people with ideological motives wish to whitewash the term, despite the fact that this phrase is manifestly notable in usage. That's not the way we do things here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, it appears that this article was made in bad faith. The author (User:Striver) created the article with the edit summary "So, now im just waiting for the VFD, POV tag and such...)". He removed a NPOV tag placed by another user and stopped editing completely after it was put up for deletion. There's no sign at all that he's interested in making this a good article. Carbonite | Talk 17:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so delete the article and rewrite it, starting fresh. How can anything in the current article be of help to other editors? Remember, another article created with the same title can not be speedily deleted if the content is substantially different (which any good article on the subject would be). Carbonite | Talk 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, we disagree. The principle here is important. If the article needs revision to get to basic NPOV standards, other editors, including me, can help to do that. The fact that you believe nothing on the current article is salvageable is subjective and (if I may) only tangentially relevant to the question of whether this title for an article should be rejected here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The Google test is a wee bit skewed here. A search for "American terrorism" yields 77,000 results, sure. Remove "Latin," "South American," and "Anti-American" from the search, and it drops to 14,000. If you cut "expert" (as in "American terrorism expert"), it gets even lower. At that point, an astonishing number of the results are, in fact, copies of that article by Robert Fisk and many more are articles directly relating to the
            Attacks of September 11, 2001. The duplication is vast. Google test, therefore, is something of a canard and hard to apply in this case.. (Google for "Presidential blowjob"; I bet that'll meet the standards for a notable term, too.) Additionally, I second the on the article's creation being in bad faith on the grounds previously stated: it might as well be titled "Things the Original Author Does Not Like About the United States, So Come and Argue With Him About It." The argument that this article is validated by the fact that it is Wikilinked to on the State terrorism article and therefore is an expansion on the topic is ridiculous; I think we can all agree on that. The issues, as I see them, are then: 1.) The article is fairly clearly advocating a certain point of view. 2.) The article contains a very large amount of original research. 3.) The factual material present is listed elsewhere without the rampant POV. 4.) Personal opinion: We don't want to promote this article model. If we let this one go for whatever reason (be it belief that the article is suitable or personally held anti-American sentiment), we'll shortly have other articles like it for dozens of other countries. For instance: French Terrorism (They colonized Vietnam and oppress Muslim citizens.) German terrorism. (Battle of Britain, the Holocaust, et cetera.) Japanese terrorism. (The occupation of Korea, perhaps.) These examples are more or less in line with the material presented here. I have no doubt that a.) we don't want this kind of deliberately inflammatory rhetoric on Wikipedia and b.) that if we used the arguments against deletion being put forth here, the existence of these hypothetical articles could be justified. That's all. Tom Lillis 18:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • You're obviously better at disentangling Google results than I am. That said, 14,000 hits is 14,000 hits, and there are literally hundreds of WP articles that deal with topics of considerably lower notability.
  • 14,000 hits with considerable syndication and duplication, note. And in many (possibly most) of those results, the term is not being used in the context discussed in this article.
  • I'd like a clearer explanation, please, of precisely why this is relevant to our discussion:
4.) Personal opinion: We don't want to promote this article model. If we let this one go for whatever reason (be it belief that the article is suitable or personally held anti-American sentiment), we'll shortly have other articles like it
  • What I'm trying to get at is this: if we keep this article on the merits argued here (and I feel those merits are being overstated), we've set a very low standard for the inclusion of politically inflammatory neologisms. For the life of me, I have no idea how the hell Islamofascism has its own article, for instance--it has an ephemeral meaning and is little more than a venomous epithet.
Perhaps my aside about possible motives for advocating the retention of this article was inappropriate. I should have been more forthright: I'm increasingly suspicious that this is a violation of
WP:POINT tying intoWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamofascism (term)
. Please forgive my sudden break in formatting, but...
Note the following from the previously linked Islamofascism AFD debate:
comment American fascism [1] 78 000 hits, enough to make a article about it. --Striver 20:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol! There already was one! --Striver 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

christian fascism [2] 22,900 hits. --Striver 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
'Summary and timestamp for the creation of the American terrorism article:
08:14, 23 November 2005 Striver (So, now im just waiting for the VFD, POV tag and such...)
I'm sorry, but that is blatantly bad faith and (in my opinon) in violation of
WP:POINT
. I am fairly convinced at this point that this whole thing is a stunt to make a point and push a particular point of view. (Striver, I hasten to add, has something of a prolific history of disputed edits and heated arguments for someone who has only been here five months...) If this one gets by, a weak de facto policy decision has been made saying that this sort of article is okay, and it opens the door for the retaliatory creation of a mass of other pages in its vein.
I hope this makes my position clearer.
Tom Lillis 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It does. For the record, I have had my own (amply documented) problems with Striver in the past. Neither those problems nor the points you raise above, however, demonstrate for me that there should never be an article about this term's usage. In this case, we may well have an example of bad faith editing that has resulted in an article title that does not merit deletion, but rather rewrite and/or redirect. For now, I'm leaning toward rewrite, though I certainly respect other opinions on the matter. BrandonYusufToropov 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Going down that route, then, requires some kind of consensus on what direction such an article would take. Again, I challenge the notability of the term in and of itself as merit for a Wikipedia article. It's a poltically loaded neologism and a carefully conducted Google search will, as noted above, reveal a rather low count of usages in the context primarily being advocated here.
That's what the article talk page is for. (And see the citations below.) What we're talking about here is whether an article title about this term should be removed forever from the WP. BrandonYusufToropov 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it an "umbrella term," I think, is rather generous--even then, it's a tough candidate for elevation over a reasonable notability threshhold. At some point later, it might reach a level of notability to merit an article. Right now, though, I don't think it does.
If, as has been proposed above, the article is about "acts of terrorism committed by the United States government," then we have a legitimate extension of the State terrorism article, which would more properly be termed "Terrorism Sponsored by the United States." To maintain NPOV, however, actions taken by the United States would have to be judged as terroristic or conventional by the standards used to judge other countries discussed in State Sponsored terrorism. Neither the current article's title nor its content serve that purpose or meet those (reasonable) conditions.
  • Reminder: We are talking about the term, and documenting its usage; we are not talking about whether or not specific events correspond with someone's definition of terrorism. Important distinction. BrandonYusufToropov 21:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to discuss domestic terrorism in the United States (which has also been suggested above), then the article would rightly be named "Domestic Terrorism in the United States." (Incidentally, that would be more in line with the CNN article currently being used as a source for the term "American terrorism.") As it stands, the article almost seems to suggest that the Ku Klux Klan and the Beltway Sniper were inventions of the U.S. Government.
As for the list of Wikilinks at the bottom... I don't even know how to classify those. The Klan belongs with Domestic Terrorism, but the other three are spurious. Operation Northwoods was a suggested idea that never went anywhere. The CIA's experiments with LSD were unethical, but I have never heard them referred to as terroristic. I suppose they more rightly belong with a list of proven conspiracy theories, but certainly not here.
If we keep this up, I think we'll have to move the conversation somewhere else---we're crowding the vote page.. Tom Lillis 21:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and be aware of POV. Many articles were written only by one editor (excluding stubs) and many others are full of original research but that is not a valid reason to delete an article. The case of Al Jazeera bombing memo is still a hot topic and tagged {current}. Also, the article should be kept as it is also taking part of State terrorism but we should keep an eye on it to keep it NPOV. -- Cheers Svest 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Comment - I guess I don't fully understand. Is the page to be about the term american terrorism, who's using it, et cetra? Or is it to be about domestic terrorism in the U.S.? Tom Harrison (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as per Tom harrison. As an article about the term, it is largely devoid of content, so if that was the intention of the article, then delete. As an article about the thing the term refers to only, it needs to be renamed as per the above suggestions (state terrorism enacted by the united states etc.). Really, it can and should be about both, but then needs to be much more informative about the reference, as a bare minimum for achieving NPOV about the referent. In its present form, whatever the intention, I vote delete. Also, this may full under "don't disrupt WP to make a point." Dsol 00:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On second thought, I guess it's not "supposed" to be anything other than what we the editors make it. The article was written to prove a point, and the present content reflects that. But American terrorism, as terrorism by Americans directed at other Americans, is a reasonable title and topic for an encyclopedia article. I'm thinking of Oklahoma City, the Klan, the abolitionists, maybe tar-and-feathering loyalists during the Revolution. Hmm...What about native American raiding parties? That could get interesting. American terrorism as a term is also legitimate. Obviously all the content there now has to go; Whatever appears under the title has to fit the title. It should be an encyclopedia article, not a place to spew anti-American venom. I think the title is legitimate as long as the content matches it. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since all the content there now has to go, isn't that essentially a deletion? Wouldn't it be easier to start from scratch? I fully agree that an article can, and probably should, exist there, but this is a complete tear-down job. Why not delete until such time that someone decides to write a real article? It's not as if anything in the history is going to be helpful to future editors of the article. Carbonite | Talk 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It probably would be easier to start over, but I would prefer to keep the name if we can. I guess that makes me guilty of trying to prove a point just like Striver. Is there a technical reason why it's easier to take it down and then put it back up under a similar name? If the names are similar enough it's all one to me. Could some minimal stub go up, or a redirect to domestic terrorism? Would it accomplish anything to make a new page now and redirect the present page there? You've probably already considered these. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by dropping a
    MOAB on it. Hopelessly POV, and completely unsalvageable. Although, if recreated, Tom Harrison has a few interesting points...but current content and scope information is absurd.--MONGO 01:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • KEEP and needs Addup.Wisesabre 02:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add the thousands of videos, pictures, quotes, and "secret" memos that prove it. Is there anyone outside of the British/American Empire who thinks American terrorism against citizens of other countries doesn't exist? Is there a single person who signed their name to keep who lives outside of the U.S./U.K.? --Peter McConaughey 03:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually read any of the arguments here? Why not improve the article if you feel so strongly? Carbonite | Talk 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: This whole "then why aren't you working on the article" thing -- I believe there are many editors who have never worked on this article and are postponing doing so, pending the outcome of this vote. (I'm one of them.) We don't want to be labeled as partisans just now, which is what would perhaps happen if we started working on the piece, and we believe the term is notable and mainstream. Rest assured that it's on my to-do list.BrandonYusufToropov 12:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point (as I think you know by now, Tom) is not that any individual has outrage, but rather that the term itself has become a globally notable one.
  • As for whether the term has been used widely enough to be encyclopedic, I find it very hard to believe that it is less notable than, say,
    Unitarian Jihad. See the multiple representative mainstream sources I have referenced below, which are only a very small sampling. BrandonYusufToropov 12:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Like my vote on
    Syria's prior to the subarticle. El_C 07:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Examples of published mainstream use of this term, in this context

War on Terrorism and the Terror of God

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

by Lee Griffith - 2004 - 399 pages

Page 81 - ... Walzer's description of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as American terrorism cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a pacifist. ... [[11]]


Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism

HarperCollins

by Sean Hannity - 2004 - 352 pages

Page 166 - ... militarist leaning' in the US media, and what he described as the history of American terrorism in Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, ... [[12]]


Race Matters

Beacon Press

by Cornel West - 2001 - 144 pages

Page vii - 'The unique combination of American terrorism—Jim Crow and lynching—as well as American barbarism—slave trade and slave labor—bears witness to the ... [[13]]


There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such published uses I could post here, but this clarifies what I'm talking about. It is clearly notable and clearly mainstream. BrandonYusufToropov 21:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens, perhaps. You have to massage Google to get at what you're after. I get 119 references in 58 books looking for mentions where American terrorism isn't prefixed with "anti." I couldn't cut out other limiting factors because of a risk of culling legitimate results in the process. I question the standard of notability you are employing: broadly speaking, I think this is a fairly paltry result. Perhaps some effort should be put into developing a consensus on notability rules? Tom Lillis 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Wee addendum: I think you're slightly confused about delete policies. The rules do not say "forever." And a discussion about the content of the article in question is valid: determining notability is largely guided by determining definition and intent.[reply]
That's through Google Books. There are other resources with much bigger universes of references -- academic journals, for instance -- and it was those to which I was referring. I stand by "hundreds," and by the term's notability and mainstream usage. You are correct on the "forever" thing; my bad. BrandonYusufToropov 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, another prong. Using
JStor and excluding "anti-American terrorism" (retaining mentions of experts, as that would be sort of an idiotic term to exclude in a journal search), I came up with three journal items. (Restricted to the English language.) Tom Lillis 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
It is used, in addition to all the other citations I have given, in this morning's [San Diego Tribune]. Do you mind if I ask you why you keep trying to raise the bar on this? Is there something about this term that you find ideologically objectionable? BrandonYusufToropov 11:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. I don't necessarily dispute the idea of the article (anymore than I'd dispute Soviet Terrorism), but this is lacking in objectivity and scholarly references. Moreover, the term American Terrorism is linguistically broad. "American" can refer to much of the Western Hemisphere, not just the United States of America. Moreover, the term does not distinguish between foreign and domestic terrorism, or the nationality of the perpetrators of domestic terrorism. Finally, the term "terrorist" is inherently POV especially when applied to a sovereign entity. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream conspiracy theories

This poorly written article attempts to give more credibility to certain conspiracy theories by labeling them "mainstream". The article is full of original research and is highly POV. There are already numerous conspiracy theory articles, such as

Conspiracy theories (a collection). The information in this page is already covered in a much more NPOV manner in other articles, so a merge isn't necessary. Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Per nom. Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs improving, yes. And it does not "attempt" to give more credibility, it reports on conspiracy theories that are talked about in mainstream media. The Bush ploting to bomb Aljazeera is certanly a mainstream theory, and does not deserve to be bundled with the goofy "elvis is alive", "The earth is flat", "Moon hoax theory" and "Hitler is alive" thereories. By the way, how is it pov? It does nothing more that cite Newspapers, how could that possibly be POV? Also, is citing newspapers original research? really? --Striver 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's inherently POV because it asserts that certain conspiracy theories are "mainstream", while others are not (by their exclusion). Linking to an article or two doesn't show that a theory is mainstream. There's no reason to create an entirely new article when we already have several conspiracies theory lists (see above). Also, I fail to see how several of these are even conspiracy theories. How is "is bin Laden dead?" or "is al-Zarqawi dead?" a conspiracy theory? Carbonite | Talk 18:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a theory is not mainstream, then that should be disscused, that has nothing to do with deleting the article. Those two can be discused in the article talk page and have nothing to do with this VFD. --Striver 18:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Bush ploting to bomb Aljazeera is certanly a mainstream theory, and does not deserve to be bundled with the goofy..." That statement right there is why this article shouldn't exist. Everyone has a different POV on what theories are goofy and which ones are "legitimate". If you want to better source conspiracy theories in other article, go right ahead, but there's no need to have this one. How many mentions does it take to become mainstream? 1? 10? 100? By which news agencies? It's simply not an encyclopedic topic and shouldn't have its own article. Why not work on improving other conspiracy theory articles? Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is mainstream or not follows the same paterns as anyting else. It depends on how reputable a source is. You know, simple source evaluation. I dont care about POVs, we are talking about wheather its mainstream or not. And that is easy to evalate. Something like CNN = Mainstream, Blogs = Not mainstream. You get the idea... --Striver 18:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tabloid rumours and speculations are not conspiracy theories. u p p l a n d 20:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete inaccuracy, not the article--Striver 20:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conspiracy theories are inherently dubious until proven. A well written paragraph within existing conspiracy theory articles would do more for the credibility a particular issue than a poorly asserted claim in some separate article. Durova 22:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research and inherently POV. Capitalistroadster 22:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV title and criteria, possible POV fork. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uppland. Stifle 01:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are two excellent articles on this topic already; this sad litle article contributes nothing. Denni ☯ 04:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the theories described are not "mainstream" outside of Cuba. Gazpacho 05:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Mainstream" is impossible to establish. -Willmcw 14:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV, and the title is almost an oxymoron. --Last Malthusian 09:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Clearly agenda driven and the only likely changes I can see would be to add other agendas.--T. Anthony 11:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Weirdo

A cocktail invented by a group of friends that doesn't seem to have caught on outside their lunch table. Joyous | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; article redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Et Tu Brute

Article about a band that are "unsigned" with their "first full-length LP is set to release independently in January 2006". Delete, do not meet meet

WP:Music. Sliggy 18:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Notability not established. Redirect (no merge) to Julius Caesar (play); notable, memorable quote. CanadianCaesar 19:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect as suggested above. PJM 20:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. (This is why we need a speedy category for bands, they're clogging up the AFD (and I posted that in CSD discussion).) Stifle 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per CanadianCaesar, it's not unforeseeable that someone might search for "et tu brute" when looking for information on the play. Peyna 05:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Hulk

Not merely not notable, but non-existant. Someone's having a laugh... - SoM 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flat T'owt

Article on a “newly created organisation that has almost 400 members” [14] Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although I was rather charmed by the site & idea it is nowhere near being significant/notable enough for its own article. Sliggy 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a very well-known organisation here in South Wales, and is spreading quickly. May I ask what would make it notable enough? Lewispb 21:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 21:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't seem to me to be non-notable. Stifle 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 400 "members" and 16 Google hits does not seem very notable to me. Turnstep 16:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now at 500 members, and growing quickly. Lewispb 21:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reading the above, I realized that I did not completely explain why the article is here. Of the Google hits on this term, one is the web site of the group, and the other ones are signatures/etc. and similar uses of the term: they are not pages about this group. I think that here we have a big problem of
    verifiability. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 23:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete seems rather non-notable.  Grue  19:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to unverifiability and non-notability. Bring it back if you're still going in six months time and have received any coverage in mainstream media. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OpenToppedBus. Peyna 05:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notability --tyomitch 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaccidware

This is a neologism with no currency. I have been working in this industry for twenty years and I have never come across this phrase. Nothing links here. Best deleted. Gaius Cornelius 19:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this neologism. Turnstep 16:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but it was kind of funny to read. Peyna 05:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foreverworld Designs

This design community is quite small, there is nothing notable about it, and the only source of "history" I can find is from their own website. There are only a handful of Google links [15], and the Alexa rating is pretty low too [16]. That said, the real reason this should go is that there is nothing special about it, it's just another design community and there isn't much mention of it elsewhere on the internet. Also, a valid article can't be written because there are no third-party sources of information and history. I vote delete as not notable and unverifiable. Foofy 20:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be self-advertizing, so delete. Stifle 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — advert. — RJH 01:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First person writing suggests Stifle is correct. Peyna 05:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexander Leborg

A google search for "Alexander Leborg" with the language set to English reveals twelve articles, none of which are in English. Therefore, for English readers, I think the article would be non-notable. I'm honestly not sure if this is a good reason for deletion, but that's why there's a vote. Some guy 20:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - He's is perhaps notable to Norwegians (1,450 Google hits, most in Norwegian), but he hasn't even an article in no.wikipedia ! He's non-notable to English readers JoJan 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how notable can a book translator be? Punkmorten 22:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 23:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think it is appropriate to consider notability from the point of view as "notability in the minds of English readers". That said, the lack of a no.wikipedia article weighs against this, but that could be because no one has thought to add it there yet. Peyna 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (as nonsense) --Nlu 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snuzpuffin

I believe this creature and all the information given in the article is entirely invented. "Snuzpuffin" generates no Google hits. Deco 20:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense or vandalism or something. Some guy 20:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to move page to

Choose Life Inc. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Choose-Life.Org

This page was proposed for speedy deletion. I removed speedy tag as I think it is clearly not a speedy, but I can see the proposer's point -- it's largely, but not completely, advertising, even though I think the organization itself is notable enough. Neutral. --Nlu 20:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Russ Amerling, which however is also marked for deletion. JoJan 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The organization's website is very low in traffic rankings (4,740,182, to be exact - proposed
    WP:WEB guidelines recommend a ranking of 10,000 or below), and to my knowledge has had very little press coverage. Appears to me to be a fairly non-notable organization. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 21:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment This seems to be part of a larger national movement and therefore notable--maybe not notable enough to have its own page, but can't we find some other page to merge it into? (preferably not an afd). And its status as a non-profit argues against the claim that it's simply advertising. I think this article just needs to be cleaned up (which I already started after finding this article last night... it had some definite POV issues) and properly categorized. I don't like the moral/ political stance very much, but that's no reason to delete something.--Hraefen 22:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It amounts to political advertising, which I oppose as policy whether or not I like the politics. I'd delete an equally insignificant abortion rights group. Durova 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real movement going on in at least 8 states (I'll return with data) and the license plate fee arrangement had to pass through the Florida state legislature (I think this is true of other states...I'll find out). That alone should be enough to be considered notable.--Hraefen 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

  • This article was poorly named to start with. The article should have been named
    Choose Life Inc. as this is the organization behind the website. This name change would definitely make the average user less likely to think that this is unscrupulous self-promotion. Just to reiterate- I don't agree with this organization's principles, but I do think it is notable.--Hraefen 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Move per Hraefen. Stifle 01:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that an implicit keep and then move? --Nlu 03:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of laws are passed every year in a lot of states, that doesn't make the effort to get them passed notable except maybe a small mention as part of a larger movement. If it's not already there, this might deserve a mention on
    Anti-abortion movement Peyna 05:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ali Matin Azad

"Ali Matin Azad is one of the most famous refugees in the United Kingdom." Yet, I was unable to find him on Google. Delete unless verified. - Mike Rosoft 20:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - as A7 JoJan 20:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly notable, but definitely original research and the like. "I" should not be in an encyclopedia article. Stifle 01:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7, they can always recreate with references (though somehow I doubt that will happen). Turnstep 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hendricks fusion tornado surfer

original research

  • Delete - original research; no Google hits JoJan 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Original thought. Not sure why that is a problem. The professor of physics at the University of Arizona wasn't sure whether the notion had merit or not and I haven't the time to do the research or the math. Looking for comment.

When I envisioned the Bussard Ramjet, I wondered what could go wrong beyond the obvious. That's when I thought of the possibility of swirling or a vortex forming interrupting the normal flow of interstellar gas. What might be the implications of this.

So, you won't find anything on Google. Not until someone does the math and can yeah/nay the concept. Is this grounds for deletion?

Thanks for your consideraiton. posted by 80.80.170.248 Sliggy 21:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This research may or may not have its merits. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide. Continue your research, do your maths and get it publicised in a scientific paper. Only then Wikipedia will be interested. Good luck. JoJan 10:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm afraid that being original research is grounds for deletion; more detail is available at
    not a free host or webspace provider on which to broadcast research ideas, or requests for discussion. Delete. Sliggy 21:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 80.80.170.248/136.216.75.2, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is right at the other end of the process that you are embarking upon. Ideas belong here after they have been conceived, refined, published, fact checked, subjected to the praise and lambasting of the community, and finally (if they make it this far) accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance for new ideas. It is neither intended nor equipped to perform the peer review that you seek. Please look elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Stifle 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Russ Amerling

I think notable enough (and certainly not a speedy), but only marginally so. Very weak keep. --Nlu 20:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, just about. Stifle 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has a minor post in a minor organization and is otherwise completely non-notable. Gamaliel 10:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. May warrant a sentence or two in the parent organization article, but certainly does not deserve his own article, unless there is a lot more to him than the article would suggest. Turnstep 16:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Turnstep; the issue regarding the "Choose Life" license plates might belong in another article regarding Free Speech, but unlikely since it is probably just another passing fad. Peyna 05:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

TkChat

Non-notable article on incomplete instant messaging program. Article admits developers don't have required skill to finish program. Some guy 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Pruden Computer Ranking

Original research, created by the subject of the article

Francs2000 20:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Some guy 20:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Daertaesh

Hoax. The searchable archive of Orwell's works [17] show's no such word being used. Joyous | Talk 20:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nor does the purported "Don Juan de la Sanchez" who allegedly used the word, come to that. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thinking about it, "dintae be daertesh" sounds more like a rude mechanical out of DH Lawrence than somebody Spanish. Tonywalton  | Talk


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Dallas accent

There is no sourcing of the information in this article. I'm a lifelong Dallas-area resident, and I've never heard anyone, elderly or not, use language like "hockey disk" or "waint." "Y'all" is more widespread in the Southern US, rather than just in Dallas. I've asked for verification from the article's author, who removed the "verify" tag, but didn't provide any sources. Joyous | Talk 21:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the information I found doing research showed nothing different than a general Texas accent, and even a few sources suggesting there is no such thing as a Dallas accent. Anyway, without sourcing it can't stay. I re-added the verify tag. Peyna 05:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Tug Jobs

Last I checked, we don't do individual porno sites. Some guy 21:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like spam to me. Turnstep 17:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Turnstep. Peyna 05:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hawaii-sur-Rhone

The article is just an advertisement Some guy 21:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert. Gazpacho 05:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and probably a blatant advertizement. Stifle 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Peyna 05:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainians/temp

The article is redundant, as it essentially copies

List of Ukrainians Pecher 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

You explicitly stated that if I wish I could make another list which only contained ethnic Ukrainians - now that I have, you put it up for deletion. You leave me no option but to continuously revert the main Ukrainians page.
You shouldn't use a temp page on a permanent basis. You should have called it list of ethnic Ukrainians, though I'm not sure if that would be considered a legitimate article. CalJW 23:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicative of
    WP:POINT. Peyna 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Devin Odom

Not quite an nn-bio speedy. The article is attempting to assert notability, but the claim is just a few bit parts. Joyous | Talk 21:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity.Some guy 22:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Some guy. Stifle 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Charge_decay

No original research (personal theory on charge decay) --Heron 21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cork Drug

Apparent hoax. No references. Unable to Google as "cork" is part of proper name of research body as well as city in the UK. Ifnord 21:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Cork is in Ireland, but not in the UK. Stifle 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Googled "cork drug Calgary" and found nothing pertinent.Bjones 00:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it reads like a hoax. Seano1 23:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seano1. Stifle 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Debra Yaun

Vanity page, basically just a link to subject's website. Some guy 21:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • She's an excellent artist, but I'm not sure she's sufficiently notable. Difficult call, so I'll pass. — RJH 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vanity Pete.Hurd 03:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Peyna 05:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 09:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as G3 silly vandalism and G4 recreation of previously deleted content.

Scooby murders

Hoax article by an editor with a number of questionable edits. Joyous | Talk 22:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: Article was created and speedied earlier today. Some guy 22:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Some guy.--Alhutch 22:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Wobbleman

Advertisement for incomplete game. Some guy 22:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC). Withdraw nomination as per Hibana. Some guy 23:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, then redirect, as the article is about a completely unrelated subject. --

did you read this?) 02:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ashley riot

Fails to establish significance or notability of the band. Bandcruft. Some guy 22:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Vagrant Story. Gazpacho 05:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. I can't see any reason to redirect to Vagrant Story (?!) Pete.Hurd 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Ashley Riot appears to be a character in Vagrant Story. Some guy 22:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable bio/attack page combo. Joyous | Talk 23:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Ciaran Hyde

Wikipedia has been honored by the presence of this article for over six days now, and I don't doubt at all that its subject is extremely intelligent,funny, attractive and a great athlete, however there is the possibility that it might be non-notable. May I also point out that some people are of the opinion that

High on a tree 22:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Leif Karate

Fails to establish significante or notability of the band. Bandcruft. Some guy 22:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Hiccup fetishism

del. zero google hits. mikka (t) 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to merge and redirect to Paula Zahn. Johnleemk | Talk 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cohen, husband of Paula Zahn

Main claim to notability seems to be the destruction of the nest of a Red-tailed Hawk. The article appears to claim he settled out of court with the bird.

  • 60,000 Google hits for "Richard Cohen" Paula Zahn search and two current Google news hits for "Richard Cohen" property developer [19] so seems notable enough. Keep and move to Richard Cohen (developer). Alternatively, merge with Paula Zahn. Capitalistroadster 23:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 10:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep & move to Richard Cohen (developer) as per Capitalistroadster. Pete.Hurd 02:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paula Zahn. Stifle 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per Stifle, but being married to a famous person doesn't make you famous. There are probably thousands of "property developers" in NY. Peyna 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paula Zahn. Conscious 08:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is about Pale Male. Paula Zahn's husband did a major political faux pas when he evicted that hawk. Mary Tyler Moore does not want him to be president of her co-op. So, who do you vote for? Mary Tyler Moore or Paula Zahn? --FourthAve 04:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

did you read this?) 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

elittletokyo

A small website with an Alexa ranking of 2,089,518. Does not appear to have much impact. Joyous | Talk 23:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shortly after it was tagged for moving to Wiktionary, the original author posted a copy of this at Wiktionary, it can be found at wikt:Aitheehyam. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aitheehyam

Tagged for transwiki for most of its life. Could become the first word entered properly for Category:Malayalam language, in Wiktionary! Only one article space reference and that seems redundant (repeats English with no benefit from having Malayalam). --David Woolley 23:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No need for this word here. In the article that uses this word, it may be replaced by 'legends' (it is redundant in the context anyway). Tintin 14:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle 22:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. RoySmith 00:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AirTraffic

The textbook example of non-notability, with a bare minimum of content. Deltabeignet 23:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --

did you read this?) 02:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Steward

This dab page was marked for cleanup. In attempting to perform said cleanup, I realized that not a single entry on the page meets the requirements of

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), so by the time I was done cleaning it up, there would be nothing left. Therefore, I bring it here for consideration of deletion. --RoySmith 23:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_25&oldid=1081093186"