Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 12:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4 (film)

• Delete This movie turned out to be nothing but vaporware, since according to ComingSoon.net, the studio aren't even sure whether they're going to produce a fourth film. Source:http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=13115 Jonny2x4 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  America, Australia and Asia. If the film was scrapped wouldn't Screen Gems announce it to the public by now? Empty2005 08:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled", like it says in the tag, okay? --Calton | Talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No. They never officially announced a fourth film, only the possibility of doing one. There's no concrete plans on doing a fourth film and everything in this article is nothing but speculation and gossip. It's the same reason why every single article on
  Batman Begins 2 gets deleted. Jonny2x4 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Even in the absence of an official announcement, it seems fairly clear that there are well-established and credible plans and expectations for this movie to be done. The article states (I'm assuming truthfully, until someone changes it) that "Producer Paul W. S. Anderson has signed onto the project and may write the script", so obviously there is at least a hypothetical project within the studio for him to sign onto. And if nothing else, it appears that the plans themselves for this movie are notable enough for an article (i.e., the article can be about present plans and verifiable reports instead of about a nonexistent future movie). –Sommers ^(Talk) 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Even in the absence of an official announcement... Bzzt. Game over: unverfied crystal-ballism. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."
• Delete Crystal ballage --Ruby 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep anounced films to do not fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The crystal ball objection is not for the announced film, but for if and when it will be announced. --Ruby 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sounds notable. --
  e Ong 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Pure crystal-ball: in Hollywood, nothing is settled until the cameras begin rolling and sometimes not even then. See Development hell. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If they haven't even confirmed if they'll make the film, that's crystal ballery at its finest. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sonys has confirmed possible creation of the film as the script details of Extinction still stand to lead into the forth film. If the plot details have changed for the third film somebody please provide a source, otherwise the film is still in early pre-production stages. P.S. why was this article was nominated twice for deletion when you cant even prove the film wont be made? Empty2005 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...when you cant even prove the film wont be made? You've got it precisely backwards: you need to prove it IS being made. And your use of weasel words isn't doing that. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per common sense. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per common sense. This is an announced film! Batmanand 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Twigger

Delete, non-notable, minor student activist and local official. Mtiedemann 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• remove - seems to be personal ad. (by User:Tawker)
• delete as an un notable--Cr0w bar 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity article. Deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo | Talk 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. moink 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He doesn't meet
  WP:BIO. Student politician. However, article does assrt notability so it can't be speedied. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Sort of asserts notability, but only sort of. --Allen 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hardly notable. List of links make no mention of this minor bureaucrat. Camillus (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. vanity article, I don't even know this person...--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity & nn. Mikker ^... 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --
  e Ong 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable vanity. --Kinu 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn bio per nom Ruby 02:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom,
  WP:BIO. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per NN. VegaDark 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn bio. Royal Blue 05:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet
  WP:BIO. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Vanity spam. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Siva1979 and Mikkerpikker. Not notable, does not meet required standards. Thor Malmjursson 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete personal ad. Yamaguchi先生 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Factory Records. Babajobu 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Benelux

I don't find this notable at all, not article really--Cr0w bar 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity article, void of any encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be verified, Merge with Factory Records - not enough for an article about a subsiduary which ceased to exist 18 years ago. Camillus (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Googles well, and was a spinoff of a large record company. -- 9cds^(talk) 01:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  e Ong 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per the above. Royal Blue 05:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Suggest examining contributions of Cr0w bar before deciding. Somewhat overly eager AfD'ing in a couple of cases. Weregerbil 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 9cds. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}06:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent company Factory Records. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above.Blnguyen 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadioRevista.com

A website that has only a not too active forum. Alexa rank 3,628,487. Not-notable.

• Delete Renata 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam article --Mecanismo | Talk 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. VegaDark 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable forum. SYCTHOS^talk 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Bad ideas 01:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 02:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable website. --
  e Ong 02:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royal Blue 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}06:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam article. Yamaguchi先生 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rancocas Valley Regional High School

Not notable at all, clearly not ever going to be more than stub, should delete--Cr0w bar 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It looks like a lot of work went into it - it's not a stub. It should be improved, but not deleted entirely. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, reads like the school's site. Completely void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo | Talk 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My understanding of current consensus is that high schools are usually notable. Please point me somewhere if I'm wrong. --Allen 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see Wikipedia:Schools. However, article needs to have POV written out of it, and phrases like "our" and "we" taken out, also WP:Schools suggests that only the principal should be mentioned. Camillus (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All schools deserve a spot on wikipedia, just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. Always has the potential to be expanded. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Schools are more notable than subway stations, and subways stations are considered notable per se. Monicasdude 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but tidy, as per above. -- 9cds^(talk) 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a stub but a useful one. Could be expanded. Mikker ^... 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all schools are notable. --
  e Ong 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep I have no idea who submitted this AfD, or why, but a cursory review of the article demonstrates that it meets all of the criteria for retention per
  Wikiproject New Jersey, which is expanding many articles related to the state of New Jersey, with a particular emphasis on education. Furthermore, as the school is a regional high school, serving students from multiple municipalities, the text cannot be simply merged into one article. Clearly the article will benefit improvement and expansion. But the user who created this AfD has been on Wikipedia for barely 12 hours and has already submitted several AfDs without clear justification. I fail to see any reason that a Speedy Keep should not be the result. Alansohn 04:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. All verifiable schools are notable. Carioca 05:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rid of the POV. Royal Blue 05:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unschooling

Does not seem like word?--Cr0w bar 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a neologism, but it's a hot topic lately. --Allen 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Amcbride. Royal Blue 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely a real phenomenon, and a belief system. moink 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - er, this is getting to be a pattern, CrOw bar... Perfectly suitable article, I've heard of this idea a lot. Lots of references in article. Camillus (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Invalid reason for deletion. SYCTHOS^talk 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep neologism, sure, but most articles in this encyc. were once neologisms... Mikker ^... 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete unless it can be demonstrated that this is actually a term-of-art in the references cited. Otherwise its notability has not yet been established. Savidan 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --
  e Ong 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Remohol 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible speediest keep evar. Most definitely legit. Coined by
  John Caldwell Holt, a world-renowned educational theorist (that may be a neologism right there, but it sounds cool). In fact, I actually unschool myself. --Rory096 05:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - valid article, I don't get why it's up for deletion -- Tawker 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, has been around forever. Daniel Case 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me}06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedy Keep'. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Candal

not notable? or is--Cr0w bar 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Perfectly notable, IMDB entry etc. etc. Camillus (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article makes notability clear. --Allen 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - IMDB asserts enough notability for me :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. What's the issue? Monicasdude 01:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Camillus. Mikker ^... 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above. Savidan 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Camillus Ruby 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an IMDB entry is considered notable. --
  e Ong 03:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep as clearly notable. Note that somebody removed the AfD tag with the reason "The deletion tag was posted by an anon who has no notion of what he or she is doing." --Rory096 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Norma Candal is beloved by milloins of Puerto Ricans and it is an insult to nominate this page for deletion on the week that she passed away. This anon is new and does not understand how Wiki works. Tony the Marine 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Above Joelito 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just lol'ed in real life. —Joseph | Talk 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Cjrs 79 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - McNeight 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everyking 05:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Notability is more than sufficient. --Vizcarra 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: this is key Puerto Rican figure...no reason at all for it's deletion<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: I remember "Doña Tere" on television

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Potts

Delete, non-notable, possible vanity. Mtiedemann 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds very un notable please delete it--Cr0w bar 00:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete imagine we had an article on every single political party activist. Not notable enough, I'm afraid. Camillus (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn & vanity. Mikker ^... 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor political functionary Ruby 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --
  e Ong 03:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nn/vanity. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Richard F. 04:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Car salesman 14:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Vanity article, does not merit inclusion or meet
  WP:BIO. Thor Malmjursson 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete seems nn, but maybe this guy actually consulted for someone famous? The current article doesn't mention any such work so I would delete. If kept, it needs serious cleanup in terms of spelling/grammar. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am actually a member of the Liberal Democrat party, and I've never heard of him! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definetly vanity --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity. Blnguyen 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car Free Days

No event of this name?--Cr0w bar 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - detailed article provides many, many examples of these events, with external links and everything. CDC (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - you're joking aren't you? World renown, as proved by links in article. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. moink 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Clearly a real event, and notable. --Allen 00:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable, per above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Invalid reason for deletion. SYCTHOS^talk 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep events are real and significant. Bad ideas 01:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep def. a real event (one happens early in South Africa). Mikker ^... 02:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable event. --
  e Ong 03:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, These are copyrite infingments. --
  e Ong 03:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Note the above comment was actually posted by User:68.225.228.111, with what appears to be a copied signature. moink 05:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep StarTrek 06:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Fraser

Not notable- done nothing notable. waste of a page -- delete--Light current 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems harsh. Plenty of folks pay to get in to the rooms he plays, and he fills those rooms pretty well, that I've seen. Discography. Has written at least one tune that made it into a standard tune collection: Tommy's Tarboukas in the Portland book. -- keep -- Just plain Bill 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: He has a whole collection of albums at Amazon listed here. This goes far beyond meeting
  WP:BAND. And this Afd is messed up. Both steps 2 and 3 were not followed correctly. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep: Definitely notable. --Allen 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as per Wknight94. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep What is wrong with this article, other than it could be expanded? Camillus (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Per WKnight94 --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per Wknight94. Monicasdude 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Wknight94. --
  e Ong 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep StarTrek 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone but nom. Definitely worth a cleanup and expansion as well. --Kinu 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Instead of deleting it, list it as a stub, and seek expansion. Thor Malmjursson 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no opinion about the page, but the nomination is dreadful! "Done nothing waste of a page!"?? JeezJcuk 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 37,000 Googles for a folk musician is extraordinary. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks notable, just expand --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep no need to insult the subject of any article during discussion. Yamaguchi先生 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs expansion and cleanup, but there's no question that he merits a Wikipedia listing. Dsreyn 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  αίδεια* 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Poor nomination. Merchbow 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per
  WP:BAND. --Craig Stuntz 15:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Curps 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Peace

made up? not really of note? too much like

• Keep - not made up at all. I remember him from his Bowie days. Credited on Bowie albums. Camillus (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well referenced and supported by Allmusic.com [1].

Capitalistroadster 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. SYCTHOS^talk 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Minimally but unquestionably notable. Monicasdude 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all of the AFDs nominated by this user, are bad faith ones. --
  e Ong 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for all the reasons stated above. Richard F. 05:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. I see the nominator has been blocked for trolling as well. None too soon. --Kinu 06:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 19:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Victimization of Native American Women

Delete. I'm not disagreeing that the phenomenon exists. I'm just not sure it should have a page. This article leads with THREE (now four, actually) boxes: a POV tag, a cleanup tag, and an original research tag. And I think the POV and original research may be inherent problems with the topic. Some of the text can be included in rape or sexual assault or Native American, and the rest should be deleted. moink 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Assuming it's not entirely original research, I'd merge what's salvageable into Native American. Chairman S. 01:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep problems with POV, yes, but I think there is enough material for this to become an article in its own right. Mikker ^... 02:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with sexual violence as linked in the article Ruby 02:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with sexual violence as linked in article. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to those voting merge: Sexual violence redirects to rape. moink 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the title itself is POV. Paul Carpenter 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essay dumped on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 12:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:NOT a soapbox. Daniel Case 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep but make it NPOV and wikify/cleanup. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Heavily POV, should be NPOV'd and dealt with accordingly, could be made into a valid article. Thor Malmjursson 18:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup including title if needs be Jcuk 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge although not quite sure where to: the article (now) makes a good case for this being a documented problem, but it should be covered together with other ethnic groups and other socio-economic groups for context, since it's far from clear that the problem is inherently one of Native Americans, rather than one of poor folks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References are there so I don't think it's original research but it could be NPOV'ed --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with pages pertaining to native americans, or sexual abuse, as it is highly inherently POV titlea as it stands.Blnguyen 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is contaminated from start to finish with a unitary, non-neutral POV. Furthermore, it's been tagged for cleanup for nearly 3 months and it's no better than it was. In addition, the sourcing is general (works listed at end, no footnotes, no page numbers), making the task of verifying the sourcing and rewriting the article nearly impossible to perform in good faith. To the folks above who are advocating merge, or keep but rewrite: would you like fries with that? How about a pony? A magic pony that flies and belches stingless bumblebees? -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rising tide lifts all boats

too short to be article or stub? what is an "all" and how does it mean?--Cr0w bar 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a fairly good, clear stub for a widely-used term in United States political discourse. CDC (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cdc. Bad ideas 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep famous phrase that could be expanded. Mikker ^... 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. As notable a term as "
  irrational exuberance." --Kinu 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above, but are you sure there isn't another term for this. Its possible that this needs to be merged into another economics article but I don't know what off the top of my head. Shortness is not a reason for deletion. Its long enough to establish notability, etc. Merge and Redirect with Keynesian economics. Savidan 02:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with Supply-side economics instead Ruby 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'. A redirect to either Keynesian economics or supplyside economics would not the best options as it could be used by either. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely used phrase and concept. (try a Gsearch). —ERcheck @ 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per CDC and expand. CVG777 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also note the preposterous nomination statement: what is an "all" and how does it mean?, likely bad faith. -- Curps 06:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely used aphorism. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable and do not redirect. Did the nom even read the article? Turnstep 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, considering that the nominator has been banned from wikipedia and that the nomination itself is somewhat incoherent, I'm going to guess that this may have been a bad faith nom. Night Gyr 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scili challenge

Unsourced, unverifiable description of a questionably-notable drinking game performed at one university. CDC (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete because of un-note--Cr0w bar 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can you imagine what WP would be like if every passing student lark was included? Camillus (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominator. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Mikker ^... 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Every former college student could write at least 25 of these articles. They don't all need to be on here. --Kinu 02:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete although I would like to play this game...I would be persuaded to change my vote if this was sourced and rose to the level of notability of
  Dartmouth pong. Savidan 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: 3 google hits Savidan 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. StarTrek 05:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:NFT. 'nuff said. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and
  WP:NFT. --Stormie 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)

POV fork of Naked short selling by users seeking to avoid seeking consensus on that article's talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Also be aware that this page's existence has been advertised on outside pages, so meatpuppetry may ensue. Please check commenters' contributions carefully. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious
  POV fork Savidan 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete POV StarTrek 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re ESkog's point above: the vandalism that necessitated protection of the page was apparently a result of meatpuppetry as well. See, e.g., "Wikipedia Entry On Naked Short Selling Hijacked by Bad Guys?", "Sanity Check" blog, Jan. 28. The proprietor of the "Sanity Check" website, Bob O'Brien, is director of the National Coalition Against Naked Shortselling. According to the editing history, he is a principal author of Failure To Deliver Shares (FTD)--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Naked short selling or delete. Stifle 16:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant POV fork, unencyclopedic, poorly written and rambling. Written by users from organized pressure group as a way of circumventing consensus -- they just stalked off and wrote this article. It focuses on a technical aspect of the
  naked short-selling impossible. --Mantanmoreland 18:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

--71.106.236.198 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not an accurate characterization of the discussion in the other page. What I said was that not all FTDs are naked shorts, in response to the assertions of the above user they were identical. Now he is arguing the opposite, in suppoort of his POV fork.

FTDs only have public significance as an aspect of the naked-shorting controversy. The head of the anti-shorting lobby himself makes that point in his website, saying that "The practice of defrauding investors by taking their money and not delivering the product they paid for has many names. Some call it market manipulation, some call it naked short selling, others call it failing to deliver..." [2]. Though his comments re "defrauding investors" are rejected by regulators, he is correct what is at issue here is a single issue, most commonly known as "naked short selling." See Google -- 414,000 hits for "naked short selling" vs. 174 for "failure to deliver shares" with virtually all of the latter in the naked-shorting context. --Mantanmoreland 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should the above two comments be moved to the discussion page? --Mantanmoreland 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland, Nobody knows the reason or context of why someone googles a term. The use of this type of logic will steer wrong almost every time, and when it doesn't it's coincidence.

IF this article is to be deleted, the information here should be merged into the naked short selling article, otherwise a big chunk of information would be left out of WIKI.

As an example, what does an FTD create? The SEC says it creates a securities entitlement, but what exactly is that?, Etc.... Naked shorting creates and FTD and an FTD creates.....

It would be incorrect to say and naked short sale creates a securities entitlement. Certainly the end result of all naked short selling is not always the creation of a securities entitlement. There are a lot of little steps in between that then fork the end result this way or that...

So I'm OK with the deletion of this page, so long as the information contained here is merged into the naked short selling article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommytoyz (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 February 2006

Fine. I would suggest proposing what additions you want to make to the discussion page of Naked Short Selling. A wholesale "merger" of this lengthy and poorly written page, with all its duplications, would overwhelm the Naked Short-Selling page. --Mantanmoreland 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Sonic Site

Clear vanity/site-advertising article (created by

• Delete per Aquillion Ruby 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more cheapskates looking for free advertising for their non-notable site. Utterly un-encyclopedic. Camillus (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you're right about Dave Linger being the one-and-the-same Dave - see [3] Camillus (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  e Ong 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all above. Also trash Image:Dsslogo.gif. --Kinu 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn webspam, per above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity page. Bad ideas 05:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 07:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Utterly pointless spam. Thor Malmjursson 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn junkspam. Blnguyen 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirected, no further action required. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Civilization

I believe this article is a POV. There is no evidence that one certain civilization is older than the rest. For a comparison

I think its best to either delete this article, or redirect it to Ancient history, or whatever else.. Kash 02:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Civilization#Early_civilizations --Allen 02:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bugger. I was just about to suggest that! Well, I've
  boldly implemented the redirect. I would love to read a good article on this topic, but this will have to suffice for now. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It appears like the redirect has already been done. No vote. Savidan 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Civilization#Early_civilizations. Remohol 03:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, you can't redirect to an anchor point like "#Early Civilizations". —Wahoofive (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've fixed that. It's still the right article to redirect too, but if that section expands too much then it would be great to extract it out into Early civilizations or something like that. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Allen
  rJoe 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yep, keep the redirect as it is now. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with redirect done. Pavel Vozenilek 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Brian cannon

Tagged as speedy, but makes claims to notability. Abstain for now.

• Delete nn-bio. --
  e Ong 02:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless this nebulous claim to "critical acclaim" can be backed up with sources. I'd like to see some awards or mainstream media coverage before I would consider that a valid claim to notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (music). Savidan 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Savidan's reasons/view on it. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. VegaDark 04:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. StarTrek 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've expanded the article somewhat, with references. -- Dragonfiend 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has been expanded and some references added, if they can be confirmed than this should be moved to
  brenneman^{T}{L} 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refined sugar and ritalin

Was tagged prod, but original author removed it without any cited reason. Very unencyclopedic and unsourced.

• Delete Renata 02:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and unencyclopaedic. -- Mithent 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination. --Hurricane111 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mithent Ruby 03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination,
  POV. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, POV, OR, UE, and scare advocacy. Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, POV, and unverified. Bad ideas 05:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "You may come to this page thinking: What does sugar have to do with ritalin?" And you may say to yourself, This is totally POV. And you may say to yourself, This is original research. And you may ask yourself, Why the hell can't this be speedied? Per Smerdis of Tlön. Daniel Case 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truly a once in a lifetime comment. Haikupoet 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OK, crazy guy! Your original research doesn't belong here.
  Grandmasterka 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for all of the reasons stated above. I don't believe there is one factual statement in the entire thing. 202.174.144.202 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons. No sources, nothing verifiable, all opinion. And of course the title itself is tendentious. The article says nothing at all about ritalin, other than to compare the presumed evil effects. Can never be more than a point-of-view fork of other articles we now have which I can't be bothered to look up... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Smerdis Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- POV rant, nonnotable crankery, and an insult to anyone who's ever actually lived with ADD. Haikupoet 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JzG. Blnguyen 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live with ADD, so you dont tell me that its an insult.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 19:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other names of large numbers

Note to closing admin: I request that the votes I have changed to a small font are not counted, as the accounts are too new or probable sock puppets.

Note to closing adimin: The following redirect should also be deleted

• Infinityscrapers
• Infinityscraper
• Infinity scraper
• Infinity scrapers
• Xonillion
• Attillion
• Picillion
• Micrillion
• Femtillion
• Myrillion

I believe this article is hopeless, all the verified stuff is in

• -Illion Numbers
• Infinity Scrapers
• A Fuga Really Big Numbers
• Very big numbers
• Weblog
• Big Number List
• AskNSDL
• BIG NUMBERS

—

• Delete. Per nom :p —
  Ruud 00:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It's not all made up. Many of those are actual real names coined by actual mathematicians, for instance "Mega". Science3456 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom.[reply]
  • Vandal, sock puppeteer, sock puppet of
    Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Would you mind providing some sources, so I can move the verified ones to
    Ruud 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep This article was actually split from the names of large numbers list, as it was too long. This article was created for extremely large numbers, larger than the ones found on names of large numbers. Robot32 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock puppet of
    Ruud 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [reply
    ]
  • No it wasn't, this article was created as a dumping ground for the made up entries, not for even larger numbers. —
    Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Robot32 (talk · contribs) just got blocked indefinitely for page-move vandalism. --Ixfd64 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to
  Ruud. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This was not split because
    Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Apparantly it was split because names of large numbers was getting too large. If you check the history of this article, you'll see that it says by the originator "create to reduce size of 'Names of large numbers" Robot32 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if you read talk:names of large numbers you see it is used as a dumping ground for unverified information. 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - very interesting and a lot of work went into this. Renata 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but that is not a valid reason to keep unverifiable information. —
    Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Ups, sorry. I was looking at the wrong article. Delete. I tried to google a couple those long & big numbers and it provided only WP mirrors. Unverifiable. Fantasies. Renata 03:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Micrillion" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=micrillion&btnG=Google+Search appears on websites other than Wikipedia. There's a website called "-illion numbers" that contain many of those large numbers listed here. Robot32 04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if verified. Delete per Ruud. Having given this page a second look, this is an obvious Original Research fork. Savidan 03:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, as I said, this can't be. —
    Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy keep and move to
  Names of very large numbers as proposed by George. Snowball Earth Hypothesis 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Account too new. —
    Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy keep if verified, per all of the above supporting viewpoints.
  Ruud. Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 15:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Myrianonmillinoncentinovemnonagintillion? —
    Ruud 04:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per above. Remohol 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —
    Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as nonsense. From the talk page for names of large numbers: "For fanciful extensions, use other names of large numbers." How about "For fanciful extensions, post it on your blog, not in an encyclopedia." --Karnesky 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect to names of large numbers. 64.194.44.220 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandal. —
    Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep many of them are in fact found in other places besides this encyclopedia. Delete "Myrianonmillinoncentinovemnonagintillion" though as that's definitely fake, being so long. Richard F. 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —
    Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep When asked how many strings there are in the universe, the answer is "a googillion". StarTrek 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —
    Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. The article is currently misleading, as it is a mix of fact and neologisms / protologisms. The reader should be able to tell fact and fiction apart. E.g. list protological numbers on a clearly separate page and warn the reader clearly, or list them in talk to await verification. Even if you made up a really cute GooGooGoo word in school today it shouldn't get listed in Wikipedia. Weregerbil 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then please edit the page and delete the fiction! I don't know which of the terms are fictional. If you do, then you could help us out by giving us a purely factual article that we can then evaluate and assess more accurately. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Names of large numbers not the version of the article where the non-verifiable entries have been removed? I don't need to do it, it has already been done? Is there a number that is missing from Names of large numbers that is being endorsed by a reputable source? Weregerbil 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what kind of article has "other" in the name? — ciphergoth 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if anyone finds reasonable reasons (references!) to include some of this information in wikipedia, move it to Names of large numbers. The rest must go. The "lot of work" that went into this seems to be the kind of work we call "original research". Honestly, I find it difficult to understand where all the "Keep"s come from. To those who voted "Keep", is it because you know substantial parts of this article are correct and relevant, or is it just because you think it would be fun if it was? If you know it's true, by all means add your references!--Niels Ø 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to
  names of very large numbers. "Other" should not be in the start of a title. Car salesman 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]