Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 11

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Genuine Poo Pong

Hoax or extremtly non-notable game only one unique google hit [7] Fails

• Delete. Non-verifiable, and even if true, some silly game played by one small group of schoolkids doesn't seem sufficiently notable. *Dan T.* 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Unverifiable, seems like a humurous nostalgia page. Blnguyen 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  hoax. Genuine Poo Pong was a game played by students from Moorfield Junior School between 1974 and 1978. The single Google hit is for Special:Allpages so really no Google hits. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 02:09Z
• Delete. Not notable even if true. N Shar 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 02:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Mike 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, with regret. I love this article.
  rodii 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.--MONGO 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Schoolyard nostalgia. -- (aeropagitica)  07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- DaGizza ^Chat 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear a case of
  WP:NFT as one could wish for. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  WP:NFT. Robin Johnson 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nonsense --198.86.17.21 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Message left for creator Gav 2000 (talk · contribs) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; pretty funny in its own way, but it's a clear delete. Kafziel 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons listed above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the poo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whupee jumps

Verifiability/original thought

Delete as nom -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  original research. No Google hits. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 02:11Z
• Delete - original research/neologism for typical soccer training (minus the Whupee). —ERcheck @ 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - It is a excercise as common as a pushup sometimes called a burpee, defently not original thought however [8]. Mike 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might agree if the site mentioned whupee anywhere [9], anyone can make up an exercise or give an existing one a new name, that does not mean it should be listed here. There are no web results for this[10] [11] [12]. So one must grant the deletion request on pure verifiability if not on original thought. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -this is bogus original research-csloat 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if this a real form of exercise, it is not notable. -- (aeropagitica)  07:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided this is a real exercise, but not I think by this name and I can't find the proper one. It's not jumping jacks, that requires landing alternately legs apart / legs together. Formatting sucks, title is probably wrong, shouting is optional, but apart from that.... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some notes left for creator, Dariusarsenal (talk · contribs). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is defently not known as a whupee jump, but a search on google for burpee yeilds the correct name for the excercise. I think it should be deleted and if no article exists for burpee one should be created (obviously cleaning it up, rewording the whole thing, etc).Mike 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep yes ok fine they are not called "whuppie jumps. Upon further research they are burpies. However I found that my father who is the only one i have ever seen using the excersize would spell it "Whoopie" . I think that is a much better title. Susan Larson is not a nice person. But we all new that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusarsenal (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006

The previous account is less than 1 week old -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Move whatever relevant information can be compiled to calisthenics or some such thing. Or hazing, maybe. ;) Kafziel 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redir to

• Redirect to
  Black1, since it is now mentioned in there. - Bobet 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect--csloat 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge any info not already at
  Black1. Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Tom Emanski

Funny stuff. BJAODN. - EurekaLott 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs work, but the revised version is a vast improvement. Keep. - EurekaLott 15:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (or BJAODN) Not as notable as the article pretends, although some of the information is true (Tom Emanski seems to actually exist.) N Shar 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not notable.--csloat 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well-known videos, well-known youth baseball coach. [13] [14] [15] [16] There's even a nation called the Republic of Tom Emanski at NationStates. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Zoe, also interviewed in baseballworld.com [17].
  Kappa 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Perfectly notable figure.
  Grandmasterka 08:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Zoe -- DaGizza ^Chat 10:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but edit to read less like an ad. Robin Johnson 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: creator of well-known baseball skills videos. - squibix 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please zoe is right this is notable Yuckfoo 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Zoe, passes
  WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Zoe and squibix. MKaiserman 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and did some major rewrites on the site adding more information, removing a few stretched claims. Still needs more work to back up some of the info (especially the last paragraph), but he is no-question a Keep MKaiserman 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Trading Paint

Content is Trading Paint, also known as "Britney Spears Untitled

• Delete as per Jaranda. Mike 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything about this on IMDB or anything. Per some quick research [18] this seems like a stale rumor, and the production has not been confirmed at all. --W.marsh 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Actual movie produced by Brittney Spears [19]. Seems to be in the can right now. Wisco 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • How do you get that, when, from that very page, it says Release Date: Unknown; that will depend upon when/if filming eventually gets started. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I've been up all night and can't read... Wisco 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL. Hope you made it to bed.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:11Z
• Comment Greg's Previews has several pages on the movie. It has not been updated since 2003 and even then indicates there was only sketchy material on the movie. It would appear that this is a dead movie idea --eleuthero 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I first heard about this project well over a year ago, and there's been little official news about it since then.
  WP:NOT a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per W.marsh Kerowyn

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - nn-band. -- RHaworth 19:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few But Crazy

band vanity Melaen 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. By the article's admission, not notable. Does not meet
  WP:MUSIC
  .
  • very late signature, sorry N Shar 05:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable musical group. No AMG entry. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:12Z
• Speedy delete per nn-band. Stifle 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Kitty (porn star)

Kitty (porn star) was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star)/2005-07-10.

• Delete. Non-notable. Not every porn star should have an entry on wikipedia. There is no information here about her anyway; this is basically just an ad for her website. Her name apparently is inaccurate too so it should be renamed if it is kept but it should not be kept at all. If she is not known to the general public, or even most of the porn-watching public, she doesn't belong in wikipedia. csloat 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. --Dysepsion 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 45 films at the imdb. If she is known to a reasonable number of the porn-watching public, she belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia like wp.
  Kappa 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The IMDB isn't based on legions of fans creating articles; most pages are created and maintained by agents to help promote their clients. As a longtime member of the "porn-watching public", I will avow that I have not only never heard of her, but have never even seen her. This article is just an ad. Kafziel 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa (OMG!) User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion has not changed since the last AFD discussion. No biographical sources are cited by the article, or were produced as a result of the prior AFD discussion. (The IMDB listing gives her date of birth and height in its biographical section. If that were all of the biographical source information required for a biography in an encyclopaedia, everyone with a passport or a driving licence would qualify.) Note that the place of birth given in this article has no source apart from the almost certainly entirely fictitious biography on the web site. People in the pornography industry are usually deliberately unverifiable by their own choice, for obvious reasons, and this person appears to be no exception. The purported biographies that accompany pornographic pictures are usually fiction, moreover. As before, delete. Uncle G 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have plenty of biographies of fictional characters.
    Kappa 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Obviously this is a broader subject than just this AfD, but fictional characters are verifiable in that we know what books/movies/etc. they're in, there's often published criticism concerning them, essays about them, etc. What's kind problematic here is that there's really nothing verifiably known about this person other than that she's been filmed having sex 35 times. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but we know that she's been filmed having sex 35 times!!! (ye gads). Indeed, IMDB knows that.
        T
        04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is
          not an indescriminate collection of information though, obviously. Biographies are written on verifiable information... it's just hard to see what's going to be verifiable here other than the contents of her IMDB page, that's what I meant. I'm sure this argument has been held before though. --W.marsh 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    • As W.marsh points out, the fictional characters for which we have biographies have independent secondary source material available, such as third-party annotations of or commentaries on the works of fiction concerned. See the References section in Sherlock Holmes, for example. Uncle G 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of "proof" are you looking for? [20], [21] User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually wrote "independent secondary source material". Ironically, the "proof" that you've offered is proof of my point. You've hyperlinked to a list of products for sale in a catalogue that contains no biographical information whatsoever and an on-line biography every field of which apart from the birthdate, ethnicity, and hair colour is "No data" — giving as much information about this person as a driving licence or a passport, as I said. I have a passport. Do I get an article? Uncle G 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you in the IMDb? Turnstep 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • He could be, if he's willing to pay the fee for gold member access. For a few bucks, anybody can be in the IMDB. Kafziel 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to their homepage, there are 2 million people listed on IMDb. If we make an article for each of them, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Kafziel 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sounds good to me. You do the first million, then I'll do the second. :) Turnstep 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete commercial advertisement for non-notable pr0n-media product. —
  FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
  ) 03:44, Jan. 11, 2006
• Delete - I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a run-of-the-mill college basketball player played in 45 games over three years but had no major awards and was not a likely high-round draft pick in the NBA, we would kick his article out in a flash (that's not a hypothetical - we have done it many times). If a 21 year old girl appears in 45 videos in an industry that cranks them out in a matter of days, she's a "star" without a single shred of evidence. No awards, no critical acclaim, nothing but a list of her "body of work". Boggles my mind. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; ditto what Cyde Weys said, above. Kafziel 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What DS1953 said. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a star with no brillance.--MONGO 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DS1953 Reyk 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DS1953 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G and DS1953.
• Delete. No sign of mention that are not actor listing or her site. gren グレン ^? 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serves no purpose except advertising. CalJW 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as per Kappa --kingboyk 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Confusion between her and Kitty Jung. --kingboyk 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Uncle G, and it looks like advertising. Robin Johnson 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 45 movies for a porn star is not the same as 45 movies for a hollywood actor. Obli (Talk) 18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the IMDb in itself is not an indicator notability. -R. fiend 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa BenBurch 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cyde. Themusicking 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with DS1953, Uncle G, and Cyde Weys. Barno 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for
  WP:BLP, per Obli, adult entertainer can be notable, but we can't use same movie or google counts as other potentially notable people.Obina 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'keep please this porn star is notable too Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please, this pornstar is not notable Eusebeus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but consider moving to "Kitty Jung (porn star)" instead. Is there a seperate set of criteria being used for adult film stars? In any case, this should be notable and
  WP:V enough. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Kappa 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • But external links suggests she is Kitty Jung. I think you're right and the article must be wrong. --kingboyk 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G.
  t c 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Uncle G. We don't waive
  (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep --Haham hanuka 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not notable enough as one editor said indicates a level of notability. No work done on the article since the last AfD is not a reason to delete the article. If it was, we could flood AfD with many other articles. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. She is real, and there is information about her. Also if the article is correct, she is not American born. We know that some editors have raised a bias issue with articles of foreign subjects. Is this part of the reason there is little information available? In the end I don't see a reason to delete this article. I do see another article in need of impovement. Kappa is right on this one. Vegaswikian 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, IMO 45 film credits on IMDB generally makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per csloat. Stifle 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for verifiability difficulties. Sliggy 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a big difference between 45 film credits, and 45 video credits over a period of less than two years. Ed g2s 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The difference between appearing in 45 commercial films and 45 porno videos is that each of the 45 porno videos constitutes a starring role. Porno films do not hire extras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.128.151.131 (talk • contribs)
  • I would argue that given the necessary talent to perform in the starring role, porn stars should be compared to stuntmen rather than Tom Cruise. --
    (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep porn is notable.  Grue  13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Rachel Levy

• Comment At the time this created quite a stir and was covered in major news outlets. N Shar 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Palestinian political violence - condense the relevant info into a paragraph and add it to the "current political violence" section. Fabricationary 04:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but maybe merge per above... this is all verifiable and attracted quite a bit of media coverage and public interest. --W.marsh 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain for now. I found 479 unique google hits for her, so there is a certain level of fame. Pburka 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Her name pops up often on sites about the Intifada, but beyond being blown up she has no other claim to fame, and
  WP:NOT a memorial. If this isn't deleted, then merge and redirect per Fabricationary -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and Redirect per Fabricationary -- DaGizza ^Chat 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though I'd support the merge suggested by Fabrictionary, too. Levy passes the bar for notability due to the news coverage. I'm pretty certain she even made the cover of a major news magazine (I want to say Time but I've been unable to find an online source to confirm). 23skidoo 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or possible merge. Seems a fairly well-written article about an arguably notable news story. Robin Johnson 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per Robin. Themusicking 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please because of the coverage Yuckfoo 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being in Newsweek seems notable enough. Johnleemk | Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Victims can be notable. Story is well known and is verifiably documented. Her "American-ness" made lots of news here. MKaiserman 14:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.  Grue  13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable story, widespread coverage, all verifiable. —
  Cleared as filed. 14:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Moyple

No relevant google hits [22], looks like

• Delete per nom Melchoir 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Fang Aili 03:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, non-verifiable nonsense. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  Complete bollocks -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:09Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

2nd bimillennium and bimillennium

Almost patent nonsense. Nobody measures years in "bimillenniums", and seeing as how we are only five years into this one, it's pretty much lacking all of its content. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have bundled the AFDs for

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Bimillenniums. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:05Z

• Delete per nom Melchoir 03:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sheeeeeeesh. bikeable (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there's also Bimillennium and Category:Bimillenniums ×Meegs 04:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot of 'em. Pburka 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See
  Perfecto 05:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nomination. Recreate when historians and the like begin to refer to bimillennums on a regular basis. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • correction, delete both. -- Saberwyn

AFDs were bundled at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:07Z

• Delete all per above comments. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:06Z
• Delete all bimillenniumcruft. Gazpacho 08:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 09:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete random hobbyhorse. CalJW 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Any list of events that includes "The September 11,2001 attacks came and attacked the socialists" and "some millenairists came and thought this would be a bimillennium of peaceand great" is at best weird, and at worst defined or executed in an excruciatingly bad manner. ("Attacked the socialists"? Really?) And, as noted, this unit of time isn't actually used for any notable purpose. Bearcat 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all non-notable and the article hurts my brain. Themusicking 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All someone is trying to coin a phrase. Good luck, but this isn't the right place to do it. (Signed: J.Smith) 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and speedy delete any related neologisms that pop up (trimillenium, quadrimillenium) --
  talk) 23:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. KramarDanIkabu 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. AnonMoos 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Rocketship Rodents

A parody comic with two issues published. Ezeu 03:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Clyde Weys -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:01Z
• Delete - Non-notable. -- Dragonfiend 06:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Tri-blog

Extremely non-notable content. NO relevant google hits [23]. Delete, neologism/blogspam. Not even worth merging into

• Delete. per nom. Incognito 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — it's not even a neologism. It's a
  proctologism?) --Hosterweis 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Seems like a made-up term to me...
  T | @ | C 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Tri-Delete - one liner advertising -- Femmina 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - No notability whatsoever. Cptchipjew 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:00Z
• Delete per nom.
  t c 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete New internet lingo? Never heard of it. --Depakote 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. nn Eusebeus 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ZERO google hits pertaining to "tri-blogging." -- 66.142.85.214 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Cptchipjew 08:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Squad

nn Star Wars Video Game cruft Pboyd04 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not video game cruft, since they're novel characters. So far, they've been in 2 novels and a short story, as the protagonists . They're more notable than more than a dozen other Star Wars characters.-LtNOWIS 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the relevant list of minor Star Wars characters. -Sean Curtin 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Sean/Gtrmp and/or disambig if needed.
  T | @ | C 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zamanfou

Hoax? This seems to be a joke. No sources. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) DELETE. Simply, this does not exist in any othe encyclopaedia. It would possibly be an entry in a slang dictionary, or a funny websites list. Not wikipedia.[reply]

• • Comment: why you won't find it in encyclopedias is explained below. Zamanfou is an attitude and lifestyle, not an organised movement. Wikipedia has other topics not found in encyclopedias. Pictureuploader 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. Could be acceptable as a lexicographical entry (an entry in a Greek slang dictionary), but not as an encyclopedia lemma. The social phenomenon it describes is neither unique to Greece, nor unanimously bound with the title word. Unless somebody provides links or references to some widely respected resources treating the alleged social phenomenon as a unique case for which a special term is required (and thus establishing a strong bind with the title-word), unless this happens, the entry should be deleted. As said, it would be perfectly OK to have a related lemma treating Greek slang expressions, marked and labeled as such. Modern Greek has an intricate system of profane verbal expressions and signs, and it would be great if someone were to document it and, if possible, link it to the formative social phenomena. But the "Zamanfou" article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.62.220 (talk • contribs)

• No reputable references (all Google searches point back to Wikipedia), so I suggest speedy deletion. It sounds like someone had a lot of free time on his/her hands and was spouted out a lot of unfounded nonsense. Fabricationary 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there is not an equivalent, legitimate article on the same topic in the Greek 'pedia. pfctdayelise 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP It's not a hoax folks, it's a valid social phenomenon in Greece. and you won't find any resources unless you search using GREEK LETTERS AND WORDS cuz we all speak Greek over here dotchaknow? For example search for "Ωχαδερφισμός" <-- search for that. And since when does the Greek wikipedia, a wikipedia with less than 10K articles, and in which you'll find mostly articles of historic value, validate the english wikipedia and vise versa? O_o So, if i put up a similar article in the Greek wikipedia, it will validate *THIS* one? Please. :P Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 17:34, 10 January 2006

• Keep but rewrite. The subject is not a hoax. Maybe funny to some but it is an existing phenomenon in modern day Greece. -- Michalis Famelis 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The talk page leads me to think it is not a hoax, but it may be very inaccurate, non-NPOV, needing cleanup, link to Greek Wikipedia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:59Z
  • Comment Well, find me another Greek to show me just where I'm wrong :P Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but please rewrite with citation. And an article in Greek in the Greek Wikipedia would probably help a lot, because there would be more people there to feed back and improve it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Nikos Dimou and Demosthenis Kurtovic as fast as I can :P Damn it Jim, I'm a programmer, not a Literature Major! ;) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 10:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite, as per Michalis Famelis and Jmabel above. Lukas 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is definately not a Hoax, ask any Greek and you will find out that it is totally correct
• Delete Uses foul Greek language. There is no phenomenon of the kind but terminology and the gestures mentioned can be found in the streets. It is like elaborating in detail on gestures and idiotic neologisms. Entry regarding the army is completely irrelevant with the subject, term "loufa" as well. The lazy idiots described in the article are always unable to respond correctly to disciplined situations in life, like in the army, in a decent job, etc. It is a silly article, unworthy of Wikipedia. It cannot be rewritten. How deep can you elaborate on laziness and idiocy in non-medical terms? --Spryom 10:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not have a position an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, being greek, a couple of points. It is vulgar. A lot more than anyone might consider even remotely necessary. It is badly written. It generalizes a lot, being at points inconsistent. However, there is indeed such a culture in Greece, although informal. Even formally, many have referred to relevant aspects as characteristic of the Greek people. Perhaps it would be best to scrap and rewrite under "Ωχαδερφισμός" or something. I wonder, though, how one would write that using proper naming conventions. --Cangelis 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP it's the quintessence of modern Greek society and psyche, although the article should reduce it's 'manual of behaviour for Zemamfoutists' look and it needs to make clear that Zamanfou is an abstract phenomenon; not an official or organised movement with dedicated followers, as sometimes non-Greeks would wrongly understand. That's why you cant' find it on Google and find bibliogaphy and references. That doesn't mean that it's unexistant, fake, nonsense or irrelevant Pictureuploader 12:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• NO, this is NOT a hoax. The phenomenon exists. All the article describes, including the hand gestures and foul language do happen. The terms are broadly used in everyday life. Even, I use them. As a Greek male who lived in Greece through the 80s as well as presently and served in the army, I cannot describe how close this struck to my experience and how relevant it is to my life.

Loufa could be seen as an extension of Zamanfou, even though it is an related army term. There are even Greek movies about loufa. The movies are called no surprizing called "Λούφα και Παραλαγή" and "Λούφα και Παραλαγή 2" (the latter one is by Nikos Perakis).

Comment BOTH movies were direted by Nikos Perakis Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 12:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does use foul language but only as it is necessary to talk about the phenomena. Foul language is part of the specific sub-culture. I would suggest not to remove it because it would alter the accuracy of the content. In the end, such is life and one cannot and may be should not clean it up!

The books can be found at: [24] and [25]

(Unsigned comment by User:212.205.97.6)

Please, please and please keep this article. Zamanfou is a part of being Greek. This is a part of my life!!! Nikolas Athens, Greece 11/01/2006

• Keep and Cleanup, Verify. If All your base are belong to us deserves an extensive Wikipedia article, then so does this. Foul language, if it is overwhelming the article, can be translated periphrastically to avoid it becoming the main attraction. Actually, some of it is untranslated in the present article: I believe σταρχιδιασμός means something like "on-my-ballsism," but that isn't mentioned. And since there are no official Greek government statistics on the demographic distribution of zamanfou attitudes, we need to cite more of whatever evidence we do have for its prevalence among different age groups. What arguments do Dimou et al. make in the books? It has some issues but it is definitely worth keeping.--Jpbrenna 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not even understanding some of these delete votes. "Delete because it uses foul Greek language"? WTF?! Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one of the great pages in the Wikipedia, despite its being rather coarse. They should be congratulated for including it! Definitely a keeper. Anyone who has been in Athens for 5 minutes can attest as to the existence or not of Zamanfu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.49.131 (talk • contribs)
• KEEP IT!!! Its humoristic, very very real and describes modern Greece exactly! These expressions are used all the time by Greeks and thy are not vulgar! An encyclopedia should not be repressed by pseudo-morality shocks! This article speaks the truth, and I being greek recognised it instantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.1.115 (talk • contribs)
• Keep and Cleanup, Verify. User:Romanista

Comment: What brought this article to my attention was an email to the Help Desk mailing list from a Greek national who claimed it's nonsense. We need some references, people. This is unsourced and all lookups on the net go to Wikipedia mirrors. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: Zoe, Greek society, currently, really hates the idea of their dirty laundry getting public. It's not something Greeks are proud of. So, look for alterial motives when a Greek national asks you to "delete an article that's utter nonsence". Ask them "why is nonsense?", first. About the references: They are out there, definately. Gimmie some time, and i'll compile a list. In the meantime, I got to make some Pentiums at work compile some bytes for me, so, cut me some slack. ;) I'm trading my hours for a handful of dimes...

More to the point: Watch the article I got in line next about Greek Shadow Theater and Karagiozis. See what kind of reactions I'll elicit then. AFAIC, I can smell the foam comming out of the mouth from those so called Greek "nationals" (Read: nationalists), already.

I got 3 links to the books of 2 Greek authors. Would you like to list them by ISBN instead? There are many more in print, just not enough on the web, though "ωχ αδερφέ" does yield enough google hits to guarantee notability. Note please that the

Zamanfu attitude is something like insider knowledge, i can't describe it in a better way: you got to be Greek in order to fully understand it. So, it's highly unlikely that you are going to find any references to this attitude that are not in Greek. Oh, here's a tip: Your average modern Greek assumes bad faith . Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• I really fail to see how all this can be verified bibliographically, although I can agree with every single word of the article. Come to Greece and ask anyone you want about what Zamanfou is and not only everyone will tell you about it, but you will clearly see it on yourself; ask for books and articles about it and you will find none. I don't know if it's a weakness of Wikipedia: to erase a general truth simply for being unverifiable Pictureuploader 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on google hits: It is quite natural that searching for "Zamanfu" only yields 333 hits in Google. The term as used in the article name is a greeklish transliteration of the french language slang expression je m'en fou (420.000 google hits) or je m'en fous (217.000 hits). I think one could consider zamanfou a neologism, as there exists an otherwise slang ("argot") term to describe the state of being "en fous", je m'en foutisme (only 634 hits but with an entry in the "Dictionnaire d'argot"). From the above I would note that apart from cleanup and verification, there should also be a renaming as I see it to one of the following:

1. Je m'en foutisme (which would mean that the article would have to incorporate information on the french version of the mentality)
2. Ohaderfismos (which gets no google hits in english and merely 266 hits in greek (ωχαδερφισμός) but could(?) be accepted as a transliteration)
3. Oh Aderfe (Ωχ αδερφε) which gets merely 764 hits in english but a relative impressive number of hits, 14.900, in greek as "ωχ αδερφέ".

-- Michalis Famelis 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. However sources would be nice. If it is as well known as people are saying it is, then surely there is a magazine artice at least written on it. Paul August ☎ 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sources are easily verifiable, just not on the web. Greece has still to come out of the bronze age as far as available bandwidth is concearned and it's still in the dark as fast as internet b2b. So, there are 8-10 books, and plenty of newspaper articles in print available, but none really on the web. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

There is no requirement that sources have to be on the web, nor do they have to be in English (although both things make verifiability easier). Please add whatever reliable references you have, with complete bibliographic information. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m sure that you find apathetic and socially irresponsible people in every country of the world. This article can only have meaning as satire or a joke. Taken literally as an attempt at sociological analysis it is plain stupid. The author takes a gesture, a few words, and a quite common human characteristic, found I’m sure in people of all races and colors and creates a “social phenomenon”. He gives it a start point in time (that has developed since the late 1980s), a place of origin (It first began in Athens), and a background that even involves the Greek civil war.

The paragraph in which he offers an extremely detailed description of the movement of the hands towards the genitals organised in 5 different categories is proof enough as far as I’m concerned that the author just wanted to spend a fun evening in front of his keyboard.

This pseudo-sociological text could be amusing in a blog but it can be extremely misleading as an article in an encyclopedia. Of course the word exists. Of course the gestures exist , but you can not make a social phenomenon out of them. It is nothing more than the author’s personal, completely unscientific opinion probably inspired by certain satirical pieces (I see links to Nikos Dimou)

It is definetely not suitable for Wikipedia. Dimitris

Comment: Weather or not the phenomenon exists is not something that per se dictates deletion or otherwise. If sufficient sources can be presented that there exists a trend that holds it as a social phenomenon then there is a place for it in WP. The article could be like

"Zamanfou, is a belief held among some Greeks <with citations> that.... They trace it back to....." etc etc.

WP has an article on

Flat earth theory. Flat earth does not exist, but there exist people who think it does. -- Michalis Famelis 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: I would like Dimitris to show us how Nikos Dimou is satirical in his writings. I think Nikos Dimou, a modern Greek author is dead on point on his observations about the modern Greek society. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT The references are real and it is modern Greek... People reaching their 60 years may not even be aware of these "words" but that does not mean that they do not exist out there. Maybe it is exagerating somehow but they are people that fall exactly in this category

OK, I"m going to withdraw my nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted! - people who say delete have no experience of modern Greek Culture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.62.189 (talk • contribs)

KEEP IT-Definately an accurate and valid greek social phenomenon, not even part of a sub-culture but rather a vital part of the modern greek mentality, except, of course, for those who think that the entry came out of the blue (and who probably live in another country, not to mention another planet). Some parts are written in a caustic manner, but do not give false information, on the contrary, they are precise and revealing in an imaginative and non-conservative way. As for the hand gestures, well, if they are not part of a culture (as the greek or the italian), then what is? -- 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)mxrwho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.233.187.84 (talk • contribs)

DELETE As far as I am concerned, it could be accepted as a lexical entry in a glossary but definitely not as an attempt to analyse a - so called - sociological phenomenon, especially in an encyclopedia. Absolutely misleading. It just doesn't have any scientific grounds whatsoever. Furthermore, the links to Nikos Dimou articles are just a collection of the author's opinions, definitely not a scientific approach. I don't even think that Nikos Dimou intended them to be considered scientific.

This is definitely not a culture-specific phenomenon. It's not bound to the Greek society. Maybe the gestures are. As an extralinguistic phenomenon, gestures are linked to language itself, and these gestures are definitely linked to the Greek language. But that's about it. It should not be associated with a sociological stance, well, at least not one attributed to a specific nation, anyway.

Eri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.39 (talk • contribs)

COMMENT Eri, pray, do tell, show us antother culture on this plannet that does have a

Zamanfu attitude about life. And if you are conserned about the scientificness of the whole thing, just be patient, i'm reading as fast as I can. Cut me some slack :P ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

‘look for alterial motives when a Greek national asks you to delete an article’
‘your average modern Greek assumes bad faith’
‘Greek society, currently, really hates the idea of their dirty laundry getting public’
‘not even part of a sub-culture but rather a vital part of the modern Greek mentality’
‘it’s the quintessence of modern Greek society and psyche’
‘Anyone who has been in Athens for 5 minutes can attest as to the existence or not of Zamanfu’

‘that has developed since the late 1980s’
‘main supporters of this phenomenon were generally between the ages of 16-25’
‘citizens that chose to prioritize their individual well being’
‘It is thought of as a form of insubordination against the state and the Greek status quo’
‘Due to Zamanfou, as of 2006 the cohesiveness of the Greek society has deteriorated to some extend’
‘this was also one cause of the less than optimal recovery of the Greek economy,
as a member of the European Union, during the eighties and the nineties’
‘Subscribers to this ideology use a characteristic phrase’
‘The Hellenic Armed Forces have developed a military version of Zamanfou, called Loufa’

It might be funny, certainly puts a smile on your face, but it is just not true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People come here for information. It should not include articles appearing to be scientific while providing completely personal views and ideas. Dimitris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.248.248 (talk • contribs)

KEEP but refine. As a non-Greek who has lived and worked with Greeks for two decades, I can say that it is 100% true. The elaboration on hand gestures is ridiculous and should be deleted. Although I have never heard this social condition referred to as zamanfou, I have seen numerous comentaries on the phenomenon of Ωχαδερφισμός in the Greek press. If someone has the time, they could translate a few articles or post references to them. This is by no means a uniquely Greek phenomenon, but in Greece it does indeed have a unique expression bordering on a counterculture. As far as loufa goes, it does not really apply to the Greek military as a whole but only to the conscripts who serve a 12-month tour which is viewed as an unwanted interruption from their life. The truth of the matter is that the Greek military is largely a professional force with conscripts relegated to menial labor duties and other busy work that would drive most Americans mad. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.167.225 (talk • contribs)

KEEP!!! Having read the article on Zamanfou I must stress with a thick underline that the article must be kept. The term is no longer being used except by those of a certain age but the phenomenon is certainly here to stay with Greek everyday life unfortunate as it may be. My sincere thanks for those who posted it!!! My age allows me to know exactly when the phenomenon got started and how it evolved over the years. Thanks for the hospitality, www.phaedrus.gr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.10.97 (talk • contribs)

DELETE The article is full of factual inaccuracies, and the writing style is very poor. The subject is serious, yet the article is tongue-in-cheek. See the article on Chav for how a serious treatment could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.29.36 (talk • contribs)

• We can reassure you that it's NOT full of factual inaccuracies, and if it is, you can just go on and correct them. Pictureuploader 13:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better than one more article on a video game character (I know, pretty low standard, but don't take it as an insult). alteripse 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Edublog

non-notable dictdef. Begone. Timecop 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. nn. Incognito 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Timecop, I think you might be incorrect about the non-notable part - googling reveals a fairly broad reach for the term (including "edublog awards"). However, it is still a dicdef without too much room for expansion, so I'll say Transwiki to wiktionary.
  T | @ | C 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sure. Though the meaning is patently obvious and the article is cruft - 'water bottle is a bottle for storing water'. Not even sure it needs coverage of any kind. --Timecop 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a one-liner in Blog if not already there. --Timecop 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for the record for the closing admin, I'll accept either a delete or merge here also.

T | @ | C 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. -- Hosterweis 05:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or create a page about Bablogging, for people who like to blog from their bathrooms too -- Femmina 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's already an Educational section in Blog -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Blog#Educational. I see enough google hits (300k) to warrant mentioning the name there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:55Z
• Delete this, mention in
  t c 12:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Edublog? I'm not laughing... --Depakote 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with maybe a one-liner in blog under genres (i.e. would accept merge as would some others here). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since already mentioned at blog and does not justify its own article. Eusebeus 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eusebeus. *drew 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Cptchipjew 08:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick joke

Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given. As it stands it's unreferenced and may contain a certain amount of

• Delete - original research. —ERcheck @ 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like a personal essay to me, not encyclopaedic. - Jjjsixsix 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, at least it's a reasonable article now. - Jjjsixsix 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. This has the potential to be a reasonable article, although it is not one now. N Shar 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After changes, the article is reasonable. Speedy keep. N Shar 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)WHICH PART OF YOUR BODY CAN AUTOMATICALLY GROW WITHOUT YOU KNOWING? ALL OF IT YOU SICK BASTARD.[reply]
• Keep - references added by Uncle G make this "good enough". -Jcbarr 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. This could actually be a good article, eventually. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dick jokes are hilarious. Nobody can get enough good phallus humor. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, famous comedy concept. Rhobite 06:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  potty humour. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:53Z
• Keep as can envisage this developing into a strong article, and is now an OK one. Sliggy 13:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to penis humor. Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep hilarious Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I'll make a redirect at
  knob gag. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)*keep please these kind of jokes are popular we shouldcover them too Yuckfoo 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bello Band

NN Band. 103 Google hits for "Steve Bello Band" [26], 3 hits for "Steve Bello Band" "Jupiter Return " [27], its most recent album. Fang Aili 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument Against Deletion:

• Has had 3 releases on notable indie labels.
• Is endorsed by several notable professional musical intrument companies (Ibanez, Ashdown, Warwick)
• Featured as an official Ibanez Guitars artist on the Ibanez Guitars website.
• Gives clinics to promote Ibanez guitars.
• Has gone on tour.
• Official website first result on google search.
• Most recent album has been topic of discussion on online forums (mention of the public's reaction is made in the Steve Bello Blog

Flypanam 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Flypanam: One of the criteria for notability is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Which indie label produces this band's records? I looked at their website but could not find out. --Fang Aili 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not on allmusic, not on Amazon, not convinced by Flypanam but open to persuasion. Significant media coverage of albums or tours would certainly do it for me (and I do not mean on blogs / forums / fansites) - in the UK, NME covers indie acts. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG Eusebeus 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Save I feel that the Steve Bello Band should not be deleted because they have this acclaim that not a lot of other bands have. They have been doing extremely well with their crowd pull, they have numerous endorsements that are not easy to get, they have been featured in several "Zines" in the NY/NJ area and their bassist Courtenay Penick had a feature in the December Issue of "Bass Player" Magazine. They are on a fast track to the top and are pulling people from all over, Yngwie Malmsteen couldn't even sell out a 1500 seat venue in Philly, yet this 3 person band is pulling people from all over the NY/NJ area and has a deep following and is yet to plan a new tour supporting the new album. If the Steve Bello Band gets deleted for their "non existance in the music industry, then other bands that are in the same boat need to be, The Muckrakers (louisville) are in this fourm and they have 3 releases on an Indy label and why are they not getting threatend with deletion. Mark J. - Louisville, Ky.

• See above, Mark: if you can cite coverage in authoritative magazines (I'm a brit so I know NME, there are different ones in the States of course) then you will stand a good chance of persuading people. We need to be able to
  reliable sources. And I'm sorry, Carlos, but your comments are subjective and of no help to anyone here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: Please see WIKI:MUSIC for Wikipedia's band notability standards. --Fang Aili 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron crighton

Sophomoric nonsense Fuhghettaboutit 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason all of the text of the article went away Fuhghettaboutit 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably someone speedy deleted it while you were in the process of tagging it.
  Kappa 03:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as empty article. Tagged as {{db-empty}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:51Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:Anonymous editor —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:51Z

Tony Zhang

Nonsense article about an apparent 13 year old who is "is the best football player ever" Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where's the article? N Shar 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -

Syrupy Pop

Non-notable blog. Has no assertions of notability. —

• Speedy delete This really should have been placed under speedy delete. Non-notable and spam. Get rid of it. --dj28 04:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Indeed, and speedy the blog's author as well (see article). --Timecop 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately not a speedy as far as I can see.
  T | @ | C 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]