Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 8 December 10 >

Purge server cache

December 9

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

The article has been Speedily Deleted independently of this AFD. - SoM 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doodleprints

Non-notable created term. Jake 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can make it an encyclopedic article, which it currently isn't.--MONGO 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity neologism. --Clay Collier 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh c'mon I use doodleprints all the time. Well, actually I never do. Delete Croat Canuck 01:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doodelete - article itself claims that the term is a neologism. BD2412 T 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism. ERcheck 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Speedily As per all of the above... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a work of fiction. / Ezeu 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteTheRingess 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West End Girls (band)

Band does not meet WP:MUSIC no albums etc. There is even a group with the same name [1]. feydey 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC). Hmmm looks like I missed the "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country" -- as their single reached a number 3 in Swedish single chart. Damn these late nights. Keep feydey 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep one of the very few notable cover bands. By the way, I've heard their take on Domino Dancing and it's actually pretty good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minor notability.--MONGO 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. worthawholebean talkcontribs 16:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (nothing to merge). --bainer (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

String manipulation

dicdef. —R. Koot 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to String (computer science). Gazpacho 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense... Redirect to String (computer science). —R. Koot 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above.--MONGO 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect per above. Jtmichcock 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Bmdavll talk 03:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think an article just about string manipulation is warranted as it is a varied and complex topic. An article that covers the basics of string manipulation as well as the type of tools that exists and specific issues that are applicable to various programming languages can be a resourceful addition. This is a notable enough topic to have its own article. I don't think it should be included in the existing article on strings because of article size limits and because there is precedence for this kind of sub-topic to have it's own article. Maybe a rename with (computers) is in order though. The only explanation given for a redirect is that another article about strings exist, none of the issues I have raised have been addressed. I'd like the other voters to describe their computer programming language experience before their vote is considered. The article that people want to redirect to doesn't cover string manipulation. Perhaps we should also redirect regular expressions too then yes? Also the article in question is a stub and should have a stub tag. (Bjorn Tipling 20:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. String manipulation falls into two broad categories. First you have the high-level approaches: these are already discussed in their own articles, and those are linked from the "String algorithms" section of String (computer science). Second, you have the very low-level approaches. And those are very language-specific, or even implementation-specific. What middle ground can you identify that can actually support an entire article?

      Even if there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the subject, this isn't it. Anyone who can write one is welcome to - and will remain welcome to, and trivially able to, even if it is redirected. So nothing is lost by redirecting, while nothing is gained by keeping. — Haeleth

      • Redirecting an article because it's not up to a standard of quality is not warranted. What is warranted is that the article be improved. Ironically, in your argument to redirect you have given an example of the complexity of string manipulation. Had the information you have just provided been in the article from the beginning I doubt it would have ever been nominated for deletion. Perhaps instead of voting to delete or redirect you should vote to keep and improve the article. (Bjorn Tipling 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC))Talk 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have programming experience in Assembler, BASIC, C, C++, Haskell, Java and PHP. I listed this article on AfD, because I did not believe it could be expanded beyond a dicdef. If it can be, I believe it should be in the string (computer science) article, until if the treatment of string manipulation becomes too large, it can be split at that time. —R. Koot 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sounds as if some here would welcome this page if it had more information. That is why there is a stub tag. What this article needs is a stub tag, and not a redirect. Just so everyone knows, I am not the author of this article and only stumbled upon it while browsing the VFD page. (Bjorn Tipling 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Redirect per Gazpacho. — Haeleth Talk 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if updated. Stringology (which would be better name for the article) is quite established term and area of study: see stringology groups in Prague or Haifa or Helsinky. The article should cover basics of stringology and be named so (and no, I unfortunately don't have time to write it down). Redirect to String (computer science) would be misleading, the area is much bigger and more sophisticated than regex or what is described in String (computer science), better to delete the text if no one updates it and wait until relevant content gets created. Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Gazpacho Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Gazpacho. Does not deserve its own article, I think. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GadiArchive, G-Radio

Weird vanity hoaxes about implausible inventions related to the recent Gadi Lifshitz afd - Bobet 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. As the inventor was deleted it seems his inventions should go as well. Movementarian 06:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's not a hoax, it isn't notable enough yet to warrent an article -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Malo --Mecanismo 11:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable self-promotion. (Bjorn Tipling 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - for both. GadiArchive: self promotion. G-Radio: no evidence that this 'invention' exists or even that it has been published, so non-notable and unencyclopedic. ++Lar 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Malo. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, as a hoax that reaches the level of vandalism. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hoskinson

Doing very little research on this article will show that it is obviously fake. Doing a little more research will show that Charles Hoskinson created this entry as a joke, so that he could tell people to look him up in Wikipedia. Usage of Wikipedia in this way is very much against the aim of the project. It's essentially a fictional vanity. Nonforma 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'll take your word for it. It doesn't seem notable to me. Croat Canuck 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be completely farcical. Relevent talk pages with article clearly demostrate that the article is a hoax.--MONGO 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. m --Clay Collier 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roguesci

Comment: Completing an AFD nomination by 165.189.91.148. feydey 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Take a look at [2]. Apparently the site is being accused of harboring a terrorist network. That may make a good article with some sort of actual information, and give it some importance. --Aleron235 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly, given that the information is given on the site itself (and a couple of posts on mailing lists that they have written themselves). Delete / Ezeu 03:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay judgement The article is clearly not finished and the site is seen by many (not least its members) as a test of what accurate, yet use unspecific, information the public should be allowed to know in these post 9/11 days.
    • Yes, I am slightly bothered by the AfD vote occuring one day after the start of the article, 80.229.21.128. In the future, please make an account if you wish to vote/comment on AfDs.--Aleron235 02:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thankyou. Have added an aspect of the forum not currently included by the original author. I hope and think the entry will turn quite quickly into a balenced look at the site and that given the content and history this cannot be considered either spam or not notable. Furthurmore since names and faces can be attached to some of the casualties this makes it a much tougher test of free speech than merely theoretical, and that neither side of the argument can be easily dismissed, nor should be overlooked.--Ambix 15:11, 11 December 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Please don't be so quick to dismiss this as spam, as just like The Wikipedia, the aim of RogueSci is the free spread of information, it is not the aim of this article's creator, myself, or any other RogueSci member to generate traffic for us or further any commercial gain, we seek merely to regain contact with people who beleive that RogueSci no longer exists due to censorship of the site by some ISPs, governments, e.t.c. Ezeu, if you'd actually took some time to read the article you'd have learned that the site itself is being blocked by several major ISPs, and that's why this article was started, it is by no means finished... I ask all of you to allow this article to remain for now, so that RogueSci can get in touch with its missing members and begin to do some serious work on this Wiki entry. We have a lot of good information to contribute, and are not seeking to simply spam this site or generate traffic for RogueSci. Sorry for not making an account (but no, I'm not the same person as 80.229.21.128), I'll get to that later, but it does say that anyone can contribute to an AfD discussion. I would also like to note as an afterthought that other such sites discussing similar information such as TOTSE.com are allowed Wiki entries, even when their content is of a lower level of intellect and more focused around the uses of such information for crime and vandalism, rather than being focused around scientific discussion and the spread of information. -Xyz, RogueSci.org 202.72.172.136 09:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. This is an encyclopedia, not a link list for bomb makers. Opening the actual site doesn't give much confidence in the accuracy of this statement from their spokesman "around the uses of such information for crime and vandalism, rather than being focused around scientific discussion and the spread of information" Xyz.

A quick check of the site brings up quite the opposite, I quote:

"The device is constructed out of (preferably) non-metallic materials, with a mechanical or chemical delay, inserted in the appropriate orifice (and it's non-gender-specific, so we're being equal-opportunity!), and locked into place. The device is such that, when locked, it expands to such a diameter as to be unremovable without surgery (assuming you're not using it on a fisting fetishist), and begins the timer or chemical reaction that will result, if not removed, in someones ass being seperated from their body in a spectaculary lethal manner." Nbk

"Hey, the hostages are expendable, so why does it have to be removable?" Xyz

I dont trust that legitamacy of this wiki entry, and its promotion of illegal, immoral activities.(waspt 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

  • The thread you have quoted above was an attempt to see things from the perspective of terrorists, to get inside their minds so to speak, and through that gain a deeper understanding of methods they may use. As such, it is totally out of context in the way you have used it. Think about it, if we really had terrorist intentions, would we post them on the internet for the whole world to see? I don't know about you Waspt, but I wouldn't. We don't promote illegal or immoral activity, we merely seek to discuss it and draw attention to it. Call it investigative journalism turned up a notch. Information should be free for everyone to know, because an informed population is one less susceptible to terror. RogueSci is also hardly a site "for bomb makers" as you put it, in fact, I challenge you to go and start a thread at RogueSci even so much as hinting at intentions of really making a bomb, just see how long it takes for your account to be banned and the thread closed. I am also by no means RogueSci's spokesperson, so please do not label me as such - I'm just someone who chooses to stand up for what I beleive is a worthy cause. -Xyz 202.72.172.136 07:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your not the "spokesman" then I'm not sure why you care. This entry seems to have ulterier motives as evidenced by the very thread generated in that forum to discuss creating a wiki entry. I pull a quote from the thread, which discusses the wiki:

"It'd be great for keeping track of 'recipes' as, try as I might, it's damn near impossible to do so here. How many variations on the AP process alone? Christ...dozens, if not a hundred. Then sources for the process, testing for purity, VoD and expansion values, videos and pictures, etc., etc. All this is scattered over dozens of threads over the years. If it was all consolidated into just one Wiki entry, it'd be huge! Instead of telling a newbie to UTFSE (which isn't always helpful), you point them to a Wiki entry and let them learn on their own. If they follow the 'recipes' without killing themselves (which they shouldn't because our info is CORRECT), they'll be flush with success and want to tell someone about it. Where would they then go to?" Nbk

Its said within that very forum that this wiki entry is to be used to post "recipes" for people to follow, which I can only assume to be bomb recipes. I mean REALLY if you are going to abuse wiki to post bomb making recipes, you dont discuss it openly then link into it from here. Thats just dumb.waspt 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

      • You have either not read the thread from the start waspt, or not understood it. The thread starts,

"Has anyone any thoughts about hosting an E&W wikipedia site alongside the forum"

The key words here are 'hosting' and 'alongside'. The thread is suggesting that someone use software downloaded from the internet to host their own wikipedia and discussing what that should contain. Not that they should dump information onto wikipedia.org. There is even discussion as to where the site should be hosted! Noone there has suggested that the wikipedia.org entry should contain any methods of anykind at all. --Ambix 10:30, 12 December 2005 (GMT)

        • Waspt, I already explained why I care, if you'd taken the time to read what I'd said. I don't have to be a spokesperson for something to support it. Ever heard of the phrase "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me"? For the last time, WE ARE NOT A SITE FOR BOMB RECIPES, even though TOTSE.com is, and yet you allow them a Wiki entry. As I said, I challenge you to go to RogueSci and ask about "bombmaking" without getting your account deleted and your IP range banned for good. Likewise, feel free to delete any "bombmaking recipes", whatever that means, that appear in our Wiki entry. If any do appear then they certainly won't have been added by any member of RogueSci. If this is about censorship, you will find larger quantities of far more detailed information about the manufacture and deployment of conventional explosives, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, e.t.c. at the US Patent Office website than anywhere else on the web. Go censor them. -Xyz 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Censoring RogueSci would be stupid, and the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. Let the article develop. As for the complaints that bomb recipes might be posted, well, search for any common term for pretty much any explosive on wikipedia, and you get a result. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Explosive_chemicals ) Try "nitroglycerin", and skip down to the "Preperation" section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerine#Preparation ) If someone posts a recipe here, it should be moved to the right place, rather than causing this rather interesting thread to be killed. '
            • ^ Words of wisdom in the post above, thankyou anonymous ^ -Xyz 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO-Mat334 inclusive. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stifle for appropriate name. Delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ova Prima

  • del Nonnotable joke. Despite being named "web hoax" is sits in the web largely unnoticed for quite some time, with about 150 unique google hits. mikka (t) 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the edit history for this article goes back for 4 years, but it appears to lack much notability today so I would concur with a vote to delete.--MONGO 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for an nn joke (It's listed at [3], and its mission statement is "to provide funding for research efforts that build a body of scientific evidence showing the egg came first.") —Bmdavll talk 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's be serious now...this doesn't sound like its trying to be a serious article. Delete, please.-MegamanZero 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It was a weekly ha-ha mass forwarded through e-mail. Well, the thing about the weekly ha-ha is that it's gone by the time it's noticed. I'm sure people said/thought, at the time, "Well, if no one remembers it in a year, we can remove it." It has been four years. No one remembers it. (And, incidentally, there was a "ova prima" theory for a while that said that humans come from a woman's egg alone, that the sperm is merely a sort of activator to the egg, and that the person is fully formed inside the egg, needing only the food or spark of the sperm to grow. Inside the female persons inside the eggs are eggs that contain within them fully formed people, and some are female, who have within them eggs with.... The idea was that Eve had the entire run of humanity in her, and that is how original sin could be passed on. It was a minority theory, but Laurence Sterne satirized it in Tristram Shandy.) Geogre 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. (Bjorn Tipling 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Turnstep 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mikka. Stifle 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Sethie 18:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect (keep and merge votes were equal, but seeing as many keeps were changed to merge as the debate progressed, I saw no problems with merging straight away). bainer (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life Alliance

Lacks notability, however, switching this from a speedy delete tag to bring it to a vote.--MONGO 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is a duplicate of an existing article, isn't that actually a pretty good reason to delete/redirect?--Aolanonawanabe 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought this here for a vote only because I saw it was speedy tagged...but I vote to Keep and expand tag it to bring it up speed.--MONGO 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree not very notable. Croat Canuck 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It deserves just as much attention as the Labour party. Chooserr
  • Delete, there is no content here, essentially an excuse for the article creator to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:It's not to preach about abortion, but to give information on a political party. Also Aolanonawanabe has opposed me on every level...and I believe it's been nominated only out of spite. Chooserr
  • Comment: You did for speedy deletion or Mongo wouldn't have changed it to a regular delete. [4] Chooserr
  • Comment This is not a blog, you can't just go around creating POV forks that serve as an excuse for you to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but an article about a political party that actually exists simply isn't a POV fork. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Groups lawsuit here invalidated much of Britain's reproduction law. Jtmichcock 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Merge with ProLife Party per below. Jtmichcock 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve, and be vigilant against POV. Very small politcal party, but 20,000+ votes in 2004 election per BBC, and we have decent articles on parties that got fewer votes (Forward Wales, The Common Good). Bikeable 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. A magazine only needs about 5000 subscribers to be notable. If this party garnered 20,000 votes, I'd say it's notable enough for an article. --Elliskev 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has at least one more BBC article (past the above): [5]. Do the people who argue lack of notability really think that's consistent with some of the points in the last few Keep votes? I urge you to reconsider. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per Uncle G below. -- SCZenz 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less notable figures/ideas/etc remain without any threat of deletion. This is supposed to be a resource for information. GreatGatsby 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What information does the article contain? Seeing as how the only content is a single unsourced quote?--Aolanonawanabe 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a stub, with one NPOV sentence about what the party believes. I agree the quote needs to be reformatted and sourced (it's from their website), and it needs to be tagged as a stub. None of these are reasons to delete. -- SCZenz 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say, but with the following changes:
  1. Get rid of that unsourced quote.
  2. Put a political party stub on the page.
  3. Add some content that assures notability.
Done, done and done! But as per Uncle G, I change my vote to merge now. --ParkerHiggins 09:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, but needs improvement JG of Borg 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could definitely use improvement, but I see absolutely no point in deleting it. --Jakes18 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 34,000+ Google hits and a BBC article make it notable enough for me. If it is in fact the first "pro-life" party in Europe then definitely notable. —Bmdavll talk 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SCZenz. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see this as a stub and not a vfd page. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current version which includes stub info and both BBC sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This is certainly notable enough for an article. AnnH (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It just needs more information, without forgetting NPOV. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable. Could those who say that this party is not notable please defend their position, as those who think it is notable have? Logophile 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Corse it's notable, and they've actually been quite controversial at times! XYaAsehShalomX 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ProLife Party, where we have covered this political party for almost two years. Uncle G 15:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Uncle G says.. -max rspct 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge ditto --Petros471 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious KEEP! Dwain 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. (Bjorn Tipling 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Obvious MERGE! per Uncle G. — Haeleth Talk 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uncle G. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A political party that has any base of support is worth having in Wikipedia. --Aleron235 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thought, after reading the comments and rest of the votes more thoroughly, Merge with the existing article.--Aleron235 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about an appearantly up-and-coming party. --Shanedidona 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why is this here? -- JJay 03:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep voters: this is a duplicate article. It already exists at ProLife Party. That might not have been why it was nominated here, but it turns out... there's no point having two articles about the same party, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise you it will be merged after this AfD in any case. A merge and redirect requires no AfD or other vote, at least not in such an obvious case. So while voting "keep" over "merge" is silly, it's not binding. -- SCZenz 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Uncle G is spot on as ever. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? per nominator?? on an AfD? Keep? --Elliskev 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    MONGO has written at the top that he votes keep, apparently based on all the new evidence, and stated that he brought it here because it was speedy-delete tagged. -- SCZenz 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Missed that. --Elliskev 14:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge' the articles together. Stifle 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT. FCYTravis 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Group 5 motorsport

Clear advertisement, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is advertising and appears to be at least partially a copyvio [6]--MONGO 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse us.. the intent is to build a HISTORY on our company. Feel free to purchase your products elsewhere. We have a LONG history in car shows, drag racing and track racing. We have edited the page. We do not feel as if this is advertising simply because we are attempting to build a history on the achievements that we have made and the contributions we've made to the industry. We have plenty of advertising so we did not intend this to be advertising. We have been a corner stone in the automotive performance and racing industry from it's inception in 1990. Many years PRIOR to the creatation of the store. We have a heavy back ground in RECORD BREAKING race cars and SHOW WINNING vehicles. It was not our intention to make this about advertising, rather to inform other enthusiasts of who we are and where we came from. Thank you for listening.--Group5motorsport 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that articles meet a standard of notability, and the article did not assert such. If you wish to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic tone, describing what makes Group 5 Motorsport an encyclopedic entity, please feel free to rewrite the article, in which case I will reopen the AfD. FCYTravis 02:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. FCYTravis 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beerty

Neologism. — A.M. 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete utter nonsense qualifies as a speedy.--MONGO 01:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. A redirect has been created, pointing to Gratis Internet. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free iPod

Spam. — A.M. 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is spam and vandalism. (Bjorn Tipling 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete scamcruft. Dear me, some poor little souls are all upset because they didn't get a free lunch, and after they were promised one, too! A nasty mean company tricked them into falling for a blatant pyramid scheme! Oh, the humanity. — Haeleth Talk 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam and a suggestion that this particular topic be barred from recreation just because it will attract this type of spamming in the future. Jtmichcock 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Clean Up: It's a notable trend in the world of the internet, and it is also a buisness model that other advertisers follow, I feel that this deserves an article, but it needs to be cleaned up. Deathawk 00:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant spam. Delete (candidate for speedy deletion) and redirect to Gratis Internet. - Mike Rosoft 10:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Cynical 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, it's certainly encyclopedic but needs to be cleaned of POV and the like. Stifle 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding...right..? -MegamanZero 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wasn't. But I don't always agree today with what I wrote yesterday. Delete, unsalvageable. Stifle 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but possibly the scam itself should be entered in some scam article. Maybe free ipods should redirect to a scam article. Skittle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gratis Internet, which seems to cover the same ground in a more neutral fashion. -Colin Kimbrell 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete(early) karmafist 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABATEJ

Advertisement, vanity, not encyclopedic at all. – ugen64 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS? CENSORSHIP IS HATEFUL...

DO NOT DELETE! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ricardo Moraes-Pinto (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article.[reply]

  • Weak Delete as it does assert some notability "an association founded by four great Brazilian jazz musicians" although I have no idea if they are verifiably regarded as great. I'd change to a "weak keep" if it was verifiable and cleaned up to a higher standard. CarbonCopy 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dear UTC: is greatness the only way to be recognized?... how to verify "greatness"? is this the poin?... what if "great" was just applied as a generic qualifier for these four people?... fine! let's take "great" off... let's leave it there so that people may offer their comments on the subject! as a matter of fact, this is one of the points in having a wiki entry - to facilitate discussion on entries so that it may become a well established truth (or not) ...

on another level, what amazes me is that a fellow national (João Ricardo), who should know about ABATEJ by this time just comes in from out of the blue sentencing ABATEJ to the discredit of havis its entry DELETED! this man should be one of the many who is daily editing the entry on our president Lula da Silva, just for the fun of it... (rmp)

unsigned comment above 16:52, 9 December 2005 Ricardo Moraes-Pinto CarbonCopy 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you mean me, CarbonCopy, not "dear UTC" - UTC is the timezone for Wikipedia times! While "greatness" is inherently subjective, one CAN provide evidence that someone is regarded as "great". Awards, reviews, published articles about an artist, academic works, even sales figures (although those are probably better evidence of popularity than greatness). Brazilian sources or international sources are fine by me - just some kind of third-party evidence. CarbonCopy 20:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The group is merely a voluntary association that invites contributions. Advertising and an effort to communicate. Geogre 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Silly with POV. Ifnord 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflict Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, non-notable and badly written. Technostalgia
  • do not delete: this looks like a banishing court, is this a symbol of our times? that's shameful! (rmp)
Wikipedia isn't an advertising billboard, it's a free encyclopedia. This non-notable trash, the article creator should try Google Adwords to get traffic, not abuse a free information system. (Bjorn Tipling 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Spam. (Bjorn Tipling 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, per all the above. The correct way to respond to an AfD on your article is by, first, checking that you know what Wikipedia is (it is not a place "to facilitate discussion on entries so that [they] may become a well established truth"), and second, if you still believe the article should be kept, by ensuring it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, e.g. by citing sources that show that the organisation in question is notable. — Haeleth Talk 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to Haeleth: pls read rsv e-mail (rmp)
    • Comment, 'pls' is actually spelled 'please.' Also, you might find it helpful to sign by typing (~~~~), not (rmp). (Bjorn Tipling 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge.  Grue  18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Father's Day

Incomplete nomination by User:Diehard2k5. This appears to be about a character from One Piece. no vote — A.M. 01:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stout

Non-notable bio of early American InvictaHOG 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. JoaoRicardo 05:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing notable whatsoever. Mat334 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoaoRicardo --Mecanismo 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio and may well be a hoax. Stifle 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Thompson

Non-notable bio of early American InvictaHOG 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a piece of geneological research. Jtmichcock 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really understand why this person is notable. Perhaps a {{nn-bio}} tag is in order. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks for all the world like your basic fiction/hoax. She lived on lichens for days after being stabbed in the abdomen and scalped? She was Dutch but named Thompson? No dates given. All over fun & goofs. Geogre 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article explains that she was born in Amsterdam of an English father. This is definitely not a hoax, but it does may be a well-intentioned mix of genealogical research and fiction (see [7]). I'm not sure how to separate the history from the fiction, or whether Thompson (or her husband Richard Stout) should count as notable. I think the article author should have a chance to make the case by adding some sources and clarifying the basis for notability. rodii 18:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment S/he has five days even if we all vote "delete"... isn't that long enough? — Haeleth Talk 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. That was intended as a don't-bite-the-newbies hint to the author, not a plea to stop the AfD. rodii 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's non-notable. --Eeee 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex G. Keeling

Suspect vanity. Orphan if you don't count the one page this link was added to recently, and google has never heard of him. -- Francs2000 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity. Google showed one site, a free web site; a good indicator of someone who has NOT made it to the big time. Chris the speller 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It could be a speedy, but only if you think about it some. The article makes claims, but all in wiggle words. A nineteen year old film maker "perhaps best known" for a student showcase. A young man with a camera, and best of luck to him. Geogre 17:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unencyclopedic as Chris Bensko. Yeltensic42.618 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, get a high-budget film and prove yourself as a notable film director than come back to Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Turnstep 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be nn-bio because of claims to notability. Too bad that they aren't very good claims. Stifle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los poco locos

NN, probably vanity ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Soared all the way to #637 and you don't think their notable? Are you a Freaking idiot!!!... I agree with you 100% Jossifresco. Definitely NN. Croat Canuck 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to satisfy WP:MUSIC and being unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't information about the band or their record. Not listed in AMG. JoaoRicardo 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bandcruft. Stifle 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity with some overtones of hoaxery: "In 2003 Lime Magazine ranked Los Poco Locos the sexiest new pseudo-Hispanic artist with a name containing the phrase “Poco Locos”. Contenders in the category included Esmeralda Fernanda Poco Locos-Rodriguez, who drove her car over Scarborough Bluffs subsequent to the announcement and remains to be found." Er, no. And, for that matter, record charts don't even compile down to 637th place. Delete. Bearcat 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Burkes

  • Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and likewise with the entire group, as a hoax. Lord Bob 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, and same with the rest. Mat334 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, can you dig up some links to back up those claims you made? I'd like to believe you, but I haven't had enough dealings with you to trust you blindly on this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no links to most of these, so none to report. That is what *INDICATES* a hoax. The Mahones from the 1990s are real, as is their album, and can be easily googled. It's the *LACK* of Mahones from the 1960s that shows this to be a hoax. Chris the speller 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was of course, referring to sources about the real Mahones. - Mgm|(talk) 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all involved in the constellation of hoaxes: I don't know about an Uppercut Records, but the rest of these are unattested anywhere else and are here as part of somoene's vision of funny. Geogre 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Yeltensic42.618 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Johnson

  • Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There does appear to be a Reggie Johnson bass player [8] but its not the guy described in the article Bill 22:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:11, Dec. 17, 2005

Uppercut Records

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:00, Dec. 17, 2005

Farley Daniels

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with no redirect. Enochlau 02:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I wrote up the real band of this name after the hoax version was deleted. The current article is not the same as the deleted version. Bearcat 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The Mahones

  • Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Pogues as I believe this was their original name, and as indicated in the talk page, the hoax appears to have been based on actual information about this band. 23skidoo 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Pogues, as it was their second name. :-) (They were called the Irish equivalent of "kiss my arse" at first.) This is a pretty well known alternate name for them. Geogre 18:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After some research I've decided that this probably is a hoax, but that really wasn't self-evident. There is no reason there couldn't have been an earlier band with the same name... but as far as I can tell, there wasn't. This group of articles seems to be about a kind of "alternate Mahones." The real Mahones really did form in Kingston, Ontario, etc. Kind of a mess, but nothing to do with The Pogues. The Pogues changed their name from Pogue Mahone, which does mean "kiss my ass," to The Pogues, but were never called The Mahones to my knowledge. rodii 18:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and then redirect the The Pogues were in fact called this. -Sean Curtin 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't REDIRECT. rodii is correct. The Pogues were Pogue Mahone. The Mahones[9][10] are a different celtic rock band; from Kingston, Ontario, Canada. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't redirect. There is a Canadian band called the Mahones, who are notable enough to have an article but are neither the Pogues nor the band described here. The Pogues, for that matter, were never called "The Mahones"; they were called Pogue Mahone...and as far as I'm concerned, a documentable, verifiable and notable band should never play second fiddle for its own article title to a rare and largely unattested nickname for a more famous band. I'll write up the real Mahones once this unverifiable version is out of the way. They were Pogues-influenced and two of the Pogues even toured with them at one point, so their article will provide a link there anyway. Bearcat 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random hoaxes. No redirect. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:01, Dec. 17, 2005

Teddy Mitchell

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:02, Dec. 17, 2005

Draggin the Days

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

The result of the debate was speedied as SPAM advert for cheap laptops. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap Laptop

I hate to nominate a page that's been around for all of 2 minutes, but this one's going nowhere -- it's an excuse to advertise a website. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, the page article is simply functioning as an advertisement. Speedy delete Ollien 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy delete as advertising, and redirect to $100 laptop. Pilatus 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even better. I probably should have let an admin speedy it; sorry if I jumped the gun. Bikeable 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, I'll take care of it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following revolution

Not notable blog, Delete abakharev 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bmdavll talk 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 11:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this appears to be just a blog about a Nintendo game. Geogre 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -^demon 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Speedy Delete. (Bjorn Tipling 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Stifle 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirected to Therianthropy. BD2412 T 08:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Theranthropy

Nonsense. 56 google hits.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varma Division

User:Robinh pointed this one out to me. Although its an interesting read, I believe it is original research. The first version of the article suggests this. I found no confirming google hits. This is especially bad, since most game theory publications are widely distributed over the internet prior to publication. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits, no Google book hits and 4 Google Scholar results all referring to Varma Divisions of Hospitals and Institutes [11] rather than Game Theory. [12] Capitalistroadster 04:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some Googling suggests that the name may refer to Gopal Das Varma at Duke University, who has certainly published articles on similar topics. Nonetheless, while the subject is interesting, I'd have to vote delete unless sources can be provided. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete OR/unverifyable, willing to change vote if some references appear. Pete.Hurd 06:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In case of deletion, remove referring sentence from fair division also. Pete.Hurd 14:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Absolutely zilch on four search engines: Engineering Village, Science Citation Index, Google, Google Scholar. Must be OR. Robinh 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • possible redirect to split the difference or fair division procedures(?). The article does feel OR - especially in the intro/conclusion, which refer to the article as a paper, etc, as if it is in a journal. OTOH this article discusses an example of a fair-division procedure, ideas which are developing quickly in the context of experimental economics. The article needs to be encyclopedia-fyed, but the information can be presented in a WP appropriate way, and under a different title (for now). Some articles in that literature discuss things like this, but I havn't found a good reference, yet. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very interesting and very good, but unreferenced and unverifiable. Stifle 23:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horse worship/Temp

This is a duplicate article. It duplicates Horse worship and is probably a sandbox for that article. Kaiserb 03:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, yes. Please read the copyvio notice at the main article carefully. Speedy keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I misunderstood the /Temp designation. I wish to withdraw this request, sorry about that. --Kaiserb 05:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD A6 (Attack pages -- Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emoetry

Delete - Questionable subject. Results of a Google search on "emoetry" largely link to the same person's website. Article contains little to no content, all of which disparages the subject. -- ChrisB 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BattleWorlds

Non-notable. 110 or so google hits, only a few of which relate to what this article is referencing.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- non-notable. LordViD 04:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam --Mecanismo 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fictioncruft, probable copyvio, and non-free. Stifle 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indianworld

A webforum, about 3000 Google hits for "indianworld", most of which refer to other sites. No Alexa ranking. JoaoRicardo 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theres a strange comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/India at the top of the list: "Nagarjuna Kommineni (currently doing for indianworld)" ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising at this point, but not spam. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Although non-English web sites will have lower Alexa ranks, this article does not argue that this is already a successful site, nor the number one site for Indians, nor does it even distinguish its subject matter clearly. Geogre 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -^demon 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never heard of it --Raghu 07:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (nothing to merge). bainer (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ryan (singer)

This is a failed contestant on Australian Idol. Failed contestants don’t seem particularly notable. No other notability for this person is asserted in the article. Is there a precedent for eliminated contestants on Australian/Canadian/American/Whatever Idol? ◎DanMS 04:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. First eliminated on Australian Idol in 2003. Unlike many on the first series of Australian Idol, had no subsequent recording career. All relevant information on Australian Idol article.Capitalistroadster 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this Peter Ryan (singer) gets deleted, then the disambig page Peter Ryan should be changed from a disambig page to a redirect to Peter Ryan (driver), as there now are only two Peter Ryans on that disambig page. ◎DanMS 05:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting comment—no longer applies, per Malo below. ◎DanMS 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the first Australian Idol season page, since Capitalist mentioned all the pertinent information regarding him is in there. Mo0[talk] 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this person isn't notable enough IMO. However I have just added another person named Peter Ryan to that page, thus, I see no reason to move Peter Ryan (driver) anywhere. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mo0. His info is listed at the Australian Idol page, so readers should be directed there if looking for him. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Ambi 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the existing disambiguation page for Peter Ryan works just fine. Change the link on that page to go to the Australian Idol page. Turnstep 15:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Australian Idol. This may be notable, but it's not long enough. Stifle 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as unverifiable hoax/nonsense - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troz

This one almost had me fooled. Almost. Looks good, reads questionably and...a myspace home page! Zero Google on the "well-publicized" lead singer. - Lucky 6.9 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSD A7. Harro5 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the sweetness of it all. Gone. - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clair De AHHH

A flash animation, no google hits for its title or for their purpoted creators. JoaoRicardo 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • To quote from the website: Hello. I am one of the sitemasters and I am working on this website with my friend. Don't think these are supposed to be really awesome animations because we are only getting the hang of animations. Some of our videos may cause seizures, and if you don't know what that means, just know that they are not good. Have a good day. A bit too new for inclusion in my humble opinion. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lucky 6.9. Movementarian 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. Bo Lindbergh 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above rationale. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity, above... take your pick. Ifnord 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Technostalgia
  • Keep, as there is nothing wrong with it. Google results have been set up, Google has not crawled it yet. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. Lexington
  • Delete as extraordinarily non-notable. Turnstep 15:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable flashcruft. Stifle 23:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titsofdeath

Aside from the apparentlackoftheuseofaspacebar, this does get a couple of Googles. No allmusic at all. Your comments, ladies and gentlemen? - Lucky 6.9 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thisgroupdoesnotmeettherequirementsof WP:MUSIC eventhoughtheyapparentlydodoabitoftouring. Mo0[talk] 05:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputs and Buddhism

A rambling stub article, seems like nonsense. Opening it up for thoughts rather than speedy deleting for lack of context and patent nonsense. Harro5 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep see [13], article just needs expansion. Ashibaka tock 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see where the guy is trying to go, but we're dealing with a non-native speaker and a really bizarre format job. The subject matter seems like a good idea, but I truly don't see how this can fit. Keep if improved by someone familiar with the subject. Ashibaka, you're up.  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like these topics could be merged into Decline of Buddhism in India, which covers the relevant time period. Bikeable 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bikeable. --Alan Au 08:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject that is not often discussed. It is directly related to India's long tradition of permitting diversity of religious thought, and India's modern secularism.

The article needs to be expanded. I will add details and references. Rajput inscriptions and copperplates are the main source of direct information on this subject.

But may I ask Harro5 why this is "patent nonsense"? Please let me know. I will address those issues.

--Malaiya 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read the article, it seemed like a rant about nothing. However, this AfD has obviously told me otherwise (like I say in the nom, I wanted input from others) and if you can write this in useful prose then I am sure I would be happy to see this article stay. Harro5 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the author appears to be in the process of expanding the article. It's not nonsense, just extremely lacking in content/context, particularly if you have no familiarity with Indian or Buddhist history. Suggest it may belong as a subsection of either Rajput or Decline of Buddhism in India. Let's not bite a newbie on this one. CarbonCopy 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but one hopes this goes in the direction of encyclopedic rather than original research. I wouldn't call it nonsense; it needs sources, context, and should focus on scholarly consensus rather than controversy. Looking forward to seeing the result, Malaiya. rodii 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete though I will ad a cleanup-context tag. If it's improved, I will change my vote. Ifnord 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this sheds light on medieval history of India. Shivraj Singh 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Difficult to understand, so I can see how it could've been viewed as patent nonsense, but I think there's a good article-in-progress here once it goes through a few more revisions. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep V1t 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nmarkets

Not enough context to find it on Google. I get a lot of stuff German. I think it's some sort of software used within the electrical power industry? Delete it unless someone can figure out what it is... stillnotelf has a talk page 05:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds like spam as written, and I'm having the same verification problems as the nom. --Alan Au 08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smells like spam --Mecanismo 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the spam. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like spam, smells like spam, I don't need to taste it to say it's spam. Ifnord 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ewww...tastes like spam too! CarbonCopy 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Nmarkets appears to be NNmarkets. Grutness...wha? 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. Stifle 23:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio.' - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baselious Gevarghese II

"This article is basically unreadable. It is very difficult to tell from the context what it is about. At first glance it appears to be a biography. It also appears to be an essay copied from a website. It's very pov and has had no edits since July 2005, except to be tagged as cleanup. It seems obvious that the anonymous creator has no interest in maintaining it, let alone improving it.DeleteTheRingess 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch. It's a text dump/copyvio from [lightoflife.com/light_of_life_ArticlesG.htm]. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete(early) karmafist 16:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

System wars

This entry is nothing but the extension of a console flame war that takes place at a gaming forum. Given time, forum users will take to flaming each other on this entry. Nonforma 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree... this is a vandalism magnet, waste of time --Valermos 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to allow a few people create a true Wikipedia entry and then have it locked to reflect just that?HAL

I think that kind of defeats the idea of a wiki... --Valermos 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. There is barely any objective information you could come up when the entry title is "System Wars" Nonforma 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, Systemwars is a great website.
I'm not saying it's a bad site, it's just something that doesn't belong here. This is a wiki, it is meant for objective information. If you'd like to post a history of the Systemwars, then by all means do so, but you need to refrain from choosing a side. GameFAQs, for example, has a very good article.

You want this deleted yet you have an article roming around that has links to last measure and goatse. And lets not forgot orgish.com Thats a website as well.

The difference is that the articles you mention have actual information documenting the topic, they aren't constant flame wars between people who just want to be immature and deface this website. --Valermos 06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a valid speedy delete, as it's a substantial recreation of an article about the same forum that's been deleted over and over again. FCYTravis 10:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vandalism article --Mecanismo 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely non-notable forum insider joke. — JIP | Talk 13:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. JoaoRicardo 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another piece of Internet forum navelgazing with no reference to WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rem Efficiency

This article is a hoax. Google returns no results for "Rem Efficiency" that don't pertain to sleep. One wanker spouting off in college does not encyclopedic make. Scott Ritchie 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page vadalised by 128.237.232.118 [14] Agnte 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke. JoaoRicardo 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NNB. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 07:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, someone must be getting bored studying for finals. Mat334 08:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax or inside joke. Ifnord 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, Rubbish. Agnte 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, comes very close to patent nonsense but let's just slowly delete it. Stifle 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Wagar

Non notable pagan high priest, founder of a non-notable organization. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Mat334 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable with a pinch of vanity (page was created by a user Samwagar)? Peeper 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable vanity. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How have you determined that the Congregationalist Witchcraft Association is non-notable? Also, if there's a limited number of High Priests in Wicca, I'd be happy to call one of them notable. - Mgm|(talk) 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From High Priest: In Wicca, the high priest is a male who has earned the 3rd Degree level of recognition within his coven. A coven may also have a high priestess, either in addition to or instead of a high priest. How many covens are there in Canada? - Mgm|(talk) 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By the lack of an article on Wikipedia and few Google hits. JoaoRicardo 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AirLex Animations

An animation company with no Google hits. Special:Contributions/Lexington makes it obvious that this is part of an advertising campaign.

Delete as advertising. Bo Lindbergh 06:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. See also Clair De AHHH, a stub for a cartoon by these animators which is also being considered for deletion. Movementarian 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SNTW. Bo Lindbergh 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Mat334 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, non-notable. Technostalgia
  • Save. Not trying to advertise. Site has been submitted to Google, and waiting for results. If wanted, I will delete the link! I just wanted to archive info about them, not advertise. And whats wrong with creating a stub about the animations? Are there not stubs for Web Comics and other cartoons? Fell free to edit the page delete what you feel is advertising, but please do not delete the page completly. Lexington
  • Comment. It is not a notable animation group and does not warrant an entry on Wikipedia. When a webcomic they produce becomes popular, then they can be listed. Movementarian 07:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the purpose of Wikipedia was to archive information, but I guess I was wrong. I did not realize that it was a large popularity contest, meant only for people who show up in Google. I mean, of course! Anything that doesn't show up in Google must not be information, eh? Well, I guess that Technostalgia shoulden't have any info on him/herself in Wikipedia, seeing as it doesnt come up in Google. I can just see the very purpose of Wikipedia crumbling right now. Lexington
  • Comment. I suggest you check out What Wikipedia is not. Some notablity should be established before entry to this encyclopaedia is allowed. As you can see Technostalgia does not have an article, but as with all Wikipedians has a user space. It is not the same thing. Please do not take this nomination as a personal attack (I am assuming by your passion for this article's inclusion you have a vested interest) and do not get discouraged from participating in Wikipedia. Movementarian 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being very non-notable. Recreate when you come back in the top 200 Google hits for "animation" Turnstep 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable group. Stifle 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I'm pointing the link at the dab page Tuner to Sport compact#Tuning, where people can read more about tuners in the appropriate sense. There are no other links to Tuner (auto), and it's not a term people will type into the search box, so no redirect is necessary. --Angr (t·c) 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tuner (auto)

Sounds like nonsense to me - or at least a mode of speach particular to a very small community. jmd 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a legit term, but I agree that it's sure hard to tell.  :) There may in fact already be an article on the subject somewhere around here. Might wind up making it a redirect if there is. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, found something. Redirect to sport compact. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think such a redirect would be confusing. To me, "Tuner (auto)" would mean a) A person who tunes the engine of an automobile; or b) The broadcast radio receiver fitted in an automobile. Create a disambig page if necessary. jmd
  • Good point. Looks like there's already a disambig at tuner and it covers the existing article. I'm going to look at this article to see if anything can be merged. - Lucky 6.9 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may well be unsalvageable now that it's formatted into something legible. Tempted to nuke it with a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this could be turned into a decent stub, I would vote to keep. As it is at the moment, I would vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 07:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anybody can rewrite and merge into Tuner. Technostalgia
  • Redirect per Lucky6.9. Stifle 23:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izowned

"Izowned" doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Not sure I can put it any other way.. JHMM13 08:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Pwn if verified to have any moderate currency of use, otherwise, delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any connection to Internet usage, so why redirect to Pwn? -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SNTW

Part of an advertising campaign. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations.

Delete as advertising. Bo Lindbergh 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Alcohol 120%. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol 52%

"This article is basically an advertisement for the software. The only external link is commercial. The author made no attempt to show why this article is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.DeleteTheRingess 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no problem with this entry as a stub. This software is the lesser known version of Alcohol 120%, which has an article that has the same advertisment argument. Nonforma 07:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Nonforma - Forbsey 08:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • M\e/r\g/e into Alcohol 120% - they're both too short as it is, so it'll do them good. BD2412 T 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Alcohol 120%. Alcohol 52% will always but always be mentioned w.r.t. its big brother 120%, and it doesn't seem as if this article can ever be more than a stub. It would be better to include it as a subsection of the 120% article. Also, people are far more familiar with 120% and are more likely to want to read up on it than 52%. Zunaid 08:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Damn these edit conflicts! I see BD2412 T has stolen my argument ;)[reply]
  • Merge per BD2412. --Alan Au 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD2412, and why would any sane person call their company "Alcohol Software"? — JIP | Talk 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alcohol 120%. Crotalus horridus 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not long enough to warrant a separate page. Technostalgia
  • Merge into Alcohol 120% as it is highly relevant to the development of its more ubiquitous successor, but as a stand alone article means nothing. Jtmichcock 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Alcohol 120% as a parent article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Technostalgia. Stifle 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. I'm a very happy Alcohol 52% user, but it's a pity the way the article is currently. Enochlau 12:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:FCYTravis. Mo0[talk] 08:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Food Fiesta

No verification (see WP:V), original research (see WP:NOR). Chick Bowen 06:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:FCYTravis. Chick Bowen 06:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete Mindmatrix 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Commerce and Industry

"The article consists of one sentence and a link. There has been only 1 edit. What is the point of keeping the article? What if the building is destroyed? Is the original author going to come back and edit the article to reflect that (at least then there would be 2 lines to the article.DeleteTheRingess 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This building is already mentioned in the architect's stub (see John Madin).
  • Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. If it were to be kept, should be renamed as Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is done with the present stub, redirect title to Chamber of commerce, as the "...and Industry" version seems to be used in other places. u p p l a n d 09:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - if for some reason the article survives, there should be a distinction between Birmingham, England and Birmington, Alabama. B.Wind 00:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above. Stifle 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Page was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for handling. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Class

"The article reads like a blurb from the jacket of a book. It's a possible copyright violation, but I'm too tired to search on google for where it might have come from. It could be expanded into a better article, but it would probably be a stub at best.DeleteTheRingess 06:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The book has an Amazon (U.S.) sales rank of 227,339 [15] and is a mass market paperback. I am not too familiar with copyvio rules, but I am pretty sure this one qualifies. The content of the article is identical to the back cover of the the book [16]. Movementarian 07:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a copyvio of [17] and has been tagged accordingly. Thanks for the heads up! --Alan Au 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Mindmatrix 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel watson

I wasn't able to verify anything in this article, so it doesn't meet WP:V. Most likely a hoax. Kevin 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I can find no poet by that name. Nonforma 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. None of the information could be verified. Movementarian 07:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Found nothing on google. Forbsey 08:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verification in Google search for "Daniel Watson" poet see [18] Two Google book results neither confirms the claim see [19]
  • Delete Two Google scholar neither confirms the result see [20]. Through the Canberra library service's online service I checked the Literature Resource Centre which contains 120,000 authors. Daniel Watson was not among them. Capitalistroadster 08:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he doesn't exist. Technostalgia
  • Delete, after extensive googling, I can't find him. Besides, if he committed treason, he would have been beheaded or hung, drawn and quartered in the 17th century, not merely hung. Jtmichcock 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this content - possibly use the article name as a redirect to Danny Watson. Grutness...wha? 04:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unverified hoax bio. I think an admin decision to close this early would be appropriate here. Turnstep 15:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Stifle 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Mindmatrix 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Kitties

Self promotional band vanity, no entry on All Music, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. Delete. Anal Kitties 07:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to comply with WP:MUSIC Forbsey 08:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Forbsey. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not notworthy or otherwise qualified for listing per above-- SusanLarson 09:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Mecanismo 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (before the two-string (!) guitarist shows up on AFD to defend it). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Technostalgia
  • Delete. not noteworthy, self promotional.--Dakota t e 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bandcruft, usual plea for speedy category on this Stifle 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodeo Carburettor

  • Delete Appears to fail under WP:MUSIC Keep After comments from Alan Au (Not to familiar with WP:MUSIC regulations - need to brush up!) Forbsey 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No AllMusic entry, but tour would qualify them under WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Only If

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - its "If And Only If", which then becomes Iff, which is a term used in mathematics and computer programming. Delete these people for having an annoying band title. If they want to be taken seriously call themselves "Iff" or "If And Only If". Otherwise you are insulting geeks everywhere. :P. Oh and they don't seem notable either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no google hits, no assertion of notability.--Alhutch 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Mecanismo 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable band. And Zordac, the band is free to call itself what it wants to. — JIP | Talk 11:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create fresh redirect to If and only if, just in case. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, usual complaint about needing a speedy for these. Stifle 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economics glossary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Specificially, Wikipedia is not a list of dictionary definitions. I know that some glossaries exist, but they are significantly more specific than "economics". A glossary on as broad a subject as economics would simply become far too big to be manageable. I believe the terms in this glossary should be moved to their own articles, then this glossary should be deleted. Mat334 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete abusive list, unworthy of encyclopedic attention --Mecanismo 11:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have merged the useful content from the list to other pages, and deleted some of the junk, such as the definition of abundance, which belongs purely in a dictionary. Now it is just a random list of a few terms. Please delete! Mat334 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JoaoRicardo 05:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a list of dicdefs. Stifle 23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but I'm adding a brief mention of the idea to Union Jack#Other proposed versions. --Angr (t·c) 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4IM Campaign to update Union Jack

The first AFD ended with a "merge" to Union Jack. I merged it there and, not entirely surprisingly, I was reverted. Apparently, merging with that article is only clutter there, and after reviewing it I tend to agree: Merging with the Union Jack article is inferior to keeping outright or deleting. Personally, I think the article's subject is too restricted, it is about part of a campaign of a fairly small organization so I recommend delete. If merged it will need to be more of a "smerge" (abbreviated merge). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The reason I did not merge this with 4IM is that that article looks set to be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards delete, but possibly merge to Flag of Wales. Mat334 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a merge is decided upon I think Welsh Nationalism would be more appropriate. Movementarian 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 4IM if it survives AfD, merge to Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism if it doesn't. Definitely don't delete. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Welsh nationalism, I don't think 4IM are the first people to suggest this. JPD (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an issue that should be raised in more depth at Union Jack, but this article should not be merged as it is not about the debate broadly but about the views of one particular non-notable organisation. (Incidentally their proposed flag alterations seem arbitrary rather than being the produce of public debate, but that's another issue). There is a link to this group on the Union Jack page, and with the inclusion of a mention about this debate, then in my opinion that would be adequate. So delete this one, and then move on to a debate on Talk:Union Jack about whether that article is comprehensive. Peeper 12:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Welsh nationalism, leave the flag pages alone. I'm slightly prejudiced by the fact that all their proposed designs are either fugly, or take up far too much of the flag implying that the UK is a colony of Wales (everyone knows it's a colony of Scotland), or both. --Last Malthusian 12:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, has anyone followed the external link? Jesus. And they use .bmps, for God's sake. Hard to believe that anyone takes these people seriously. In fact, Google suggests that no-one does outside the wacky world of British independence movements (free Slough!), so full delete. --Last Malthusian 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (Only reason I didn't vote delete before was that the previous AfD vote had left me with the mistaken impression that 4IM had been deemed notable.) --LM[reply]
  • Merge to 4IM if it survives AfD, merge to Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism if it doesn't. This is a notable topic.--Mais oui! 15:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm with Mais oui!. Technostalgia
  • Delete and padlock to avoid further edit wars. Anything salvageable can be inserted into Union Jack. B.Wind 00:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - probably worth having, but as part of the Union Jack article because its not worth one of its own Cynical 12:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per JPD above. Turnstep 15:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 4IM is gone, let's give its random campaign a graceful rest in peace. Stifle 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With 4IM deleted as non-notable by consensus, mentioning their stupid controversial flag designs in the main Union Jack article would be nonsensical. --Last Malthusian 09:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live in Wales, I follow news here, and whilst I can name a few campaign groups who are notable (here, at least :)) despite being small, this group and this campaign are complete news to me. A web search suggests that this is not my oversight; they are simply non-notable. If this didn't belong in Union Jack, it doesn't belong in Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism (these would be first Welsh nationalists I ever heard of who want to continue the use of any variation of the Union Jack!) either. Delete. --Telsa 12:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction Time

A strange combination of a dicdef and an ad for a company of little note with a link to a website that does not exist (while the url with the .com.au ending is probably a typo, the site does not exist at .au and the .com location is completely unrelated). Indrian 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete since no non-copyvio version was forthcoming. --Angr (t·c) 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Fett: Crossfire

At present, looks like info taken straight off Amazon.com or a similar source. Basically, title, author, ISBN and a copyvio of the blurb. No importance in current form. Harro5 08:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if rewritten so it's no longer a copyvio. Plenty of series have individual book articles (see James Bond). I think being a Star Wars novel is notable enough. But the copyvio has to go. 23skidoo 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a 133-page, 3.4oz. book not even a proper work of fan fiction. These books (from Scholastic) are hawked round schools as fundraisers. Their literary content is typically low to negligible (my kids have seevral in the same series). James Bond it ain't. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Literary content and notability are not the same thing. "I hate them for being terrible" is not a valid reason for deletion. The Boba Fett books are an important part of Star Wars canon. However, the article has no original content, so delete unless fixed. -LtNOWIS 17:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dispute that they are important, they are not "proper" fan fiction (as per the post-Asimov Robot and Foundation-based books), they are small pamphlets of not many pages with no real story. That's my experience of others in the same series, anyway. There are plenty of significant crap books (I hate the Brontës as well but would vote keep on them without hesitation), and probably lots of excellent but insignificant ones. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, they are not fan fiction. They are legitimate parts of the official Star Wars Expanded Universe. In fact, one book was explicitly referenced in the landmark New Essential Chronology. Out of the 7 Star Wars young adult series, this is probably the third most notable, and the others do have individual book articles. Jedi Apprentice even has a category! They Fett books aren't very long, so a single article could probably cover all six books, but they do deserve inclusion. -LtNOWIS 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless rewritten. Page count isn't everything. There's enough famous books of around 100 pages and being low on page count doesn't make them any less notable. Books don't need to be literary either as long as enough people read and enjoy them. This is official canon and thus a valid topic. - Mgm|(talk) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the book should be rewritten. / Ezeu 03:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let Wikivolution take it's course: if it is still copyvio at the end of the AfD, speedy delete it. Otherwise, seems to be a valid book stub, no need to delete. Turnstep 15:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so long as this article is not violating any copyrights. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to copyvio team. Stifle 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article has been sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand 001

Odd title, seems like a fork of some kind. -- Curps 08:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete... and a copyright violation. Mat334 09:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant copyvio and leave the external link to the original material at Talk:Thailand for future use. No need to retain a copyvio if the owner has it available as well. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the speedy tag as that calls for a 48-hour limit, but no qualms in calling Delete. Shimgray | talk | 13:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio tagged and bagged. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and move to IBM Simon. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon (phone)

If kept, could the administrator closing this AfD please also move the article to IBM Simon. Thank you. Harro5 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A poor article about the tech aspects of an old mobile phone, written as what becomes a personal essay. Unless someone can clean this up, it should be deleted. Harro5 09:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and rename IBM Simon. I cleaned this article up, but I could only find enough information to create a stub. It is doubtful that this will evolve into a full article which may also warrant deletion. Movementarian 10:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to IBM Simon. Now it's been cleaned up, it makes a decent stub which may evolve. Technostalgia
  • Keep It's notable. wikipediatrix 21:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Movementarian. Stifle 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep after rewrite. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dine and dash

A personal, original research stub about not paying at dinner. Yep, someone wrote an article about that. Nothing worth keeping in an encyclopedia here. Harro5 09:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: as of 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC), all delete votes had been cast before the article was expanded with evidence of significance and reliable references. Most comments prior to Uncle G's vote do not apply to the article as it now stands. — Haeleth Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I think this could be a valid article, the current one contains basically nothing of value. So if it's not cleaned up very soon I suggest deletion. Bergsten 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have a policy that Wikipedia is not a theft manual? Oh well, call it original research. Gazpacho 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • not a vote this might be worthy of wiktionary... --Dschor 10:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have an entry that explains what 'dine' means, and we have an entry that explains what 'dash' means. I don't think this is necessary. --Last Malthusian 12:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I don't know, Last Malthusian, dash can mean a couple different things - maybe this entry needs to be disambigued :) -- Taiichi «talk» 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spurious neologism, original research or unencyclopaedic. Take your pick. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May need to be cleaned up and/or moved to Wiktionary, I'm not sure. But it is a legitimate, widely used term, anyways - delete is likely the wrong approach. WilyD 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflict Merge to Restaurant Keep. The term is older than dirt (and in fairly common use [21] [22] [23]) and the crime itself is surely older. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Restaurant (unless there's a better place). This is as notable as shoplifting, and it's ridiculous to call it a "spurious neologism". -- 69.0.126.57 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Whoops, I wasn't logged in. That vote was me. -- Plutor 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only did someone write a Wikipedia article about it, but the British Columbia government included it in its guide to its employment law. This isn't a neologism (One reference cited in the articl is dated 1992.) and it isn't original research (It is fair to presume that if the B.C. ministry has accepted it as part of employment law, it's a concept that has gained a fair amount of traction in the world at large.). Keep. Uncle G 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Uncle G's expanded version, which makes it amply clear that this is (a) not a neologism, and (b) a subject that has significant legal context in Canada. — Haeleth Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Uncle G's rewrite. Bravo! B.Wind 00:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. --Alan Au 02:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten article. Tim Pierce 03:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent article. Rhobite 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. -Sean Curtin 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 12:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this nice rewrite. Turnstep 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now WP-worthy -- Taiichi «talk» 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version. Stifle 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business analyst

A woeful article which has been tagged for cleanup for three weeks and hasn't improved. It is written like a job fair FAQ about what a business analyst does, and won't improve unless threatened with the gun that is AfD. Hopefully someone can pull this off the scrap heap, but at present that is where it belongs. Harro5 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki. Not encyclopedic but contains substantial content and links. Durova 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to where? --Aucaman 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The name's been on the tip of my tongue: Wiki has a site for instructional articles. I'd be willing to keep if someone cleans it up to a more encyclopedic form. Durova 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems alright to me. Just needs to be cleaned up. --Aucaman 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has looked to clean it up, and at present it is only anons editing to add to its present poor form. Harro5 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, it's taking long to clean up, but it's not hopeless. All it needs is an edit for tone. Deleting would mean losing valid content not easily replaced. - Mgm|(talk) 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I agree the article should be kept, it's not like the content is difficult to replace. Any systems analysis student (or, as I believe is the case here, lecturer) could reproduce the content. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been tagged since November 2005 and we are now in erm... December 2005. Choalbaton 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the one who tagged it for cleanup. The article is important and useful, even in its current form. Needs cleanup for encyclopaedic style, but that is not sufficient for deletion, and I don't think nominating solely as a spur for cleanup is warranted or even necessarily useful. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep out the hands of those dirty immediatist scum! ;-) Kim Bruning 04:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup for encyclopedic style. Stifle 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's on my eventually-get-ropund-to-doing list ;-) The Land 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Amyl nitrite. Owen× ☎ 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POPPERS/NITRITES

Badly named page that is poorly written. Over on Talk:Alkyl nitrites, there are suggestions that there's some information that can be merged into that article, but no one seems to have the expertise/time to do it. In light of that, delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine with me, amyl nitrite is an alkyl nitrite afterall? xaosflux
  • Rename to Poppers then redirect per Jtmichcock. A bad title calls for a renaming after which it can easily be merged. - Mgm|(talk) 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article named Poppers and it is a redirect to Alkyl nitrites xaosflux T/C 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Smerge. The naming convention is off, if there is anything not duplicated in either Akyl Nitrites or Amyl nitrite the information should be mergedthen delete the entire article. xaosflux T/C 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Finishing a merger requires a redirect to retain attribution. Merge and delete is not a allowable vote. - Mgm|(talk) 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote from merge and delete to smerge to comply with GFDL. xaosflux T/C 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jtmichcock, assuming it is not a copyvio. Stifle 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete terrible text, useless redirect.--nixie 13:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS MISNAMED PAGE. Oh, that's where capslock is. David | Talk 11:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Imagery. --Angr (t·c) 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remembered and imaginary

Mental image is the same topic with more content. The page in question was linked to by Dream only. No one will type in "remembered and imaginary" actually looking for what the page is about; the name is an adjective phrase! "Mental image" has nothing to gain from this article, either. As such, I recommend a delete rather than a merge/redirect. --Mgreenbe 10:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless title. JPD (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with imagery as the article makes a distinction between two types of imagery. B.Wind 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per B.Wind. Stifle 23:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, then create a redirect to copy protection. bainer (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Software protection

Highly biased article by the creator of EXECryptor, focuses primarily on that product. With the advert removed we have a dicdef for an obvious term. If someone feels like writing a proper article right now I'll withdraw the nom, but in the mean time I don't think we should leave spam lying about. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless rewritten JPD (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article history, and then Redirect to Copy protection. Crotalus horridus 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shameless advertising as it stands. CarbonCopy 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect, per Crotalus. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (deleting first if desired) to Snake oil... I mean Copy protection. — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad that infringes a Transmeta trademark, and redirect to Copy protection. Gazpacho 12:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hard to see how a trademark infringment occurs here; trademark protection is very much different from copyright protection. Trademark protection is intended to prevent someone from passsing off one product as another, and in no way prevents mention or use of the trademark in an encyclopedia article (unless Wikipedia was trying to pass itself of as another enclopedia...) Trademarks even frequently appear in advertising by competitors! I really wish "copyright violation" "trademark infrigement" "privacy violation" were not bandied around so much to justify deletes or as disguised objections to content. CarbonCopy 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crotalus horridus. Stifle 23:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's third full-length English album

  • Keep These are confirmed producers with facts not rumors! [[]]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the album is released it should get an article, but not before. Zunaid 10:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Probably the pet project of some impatient fan --Mecanismo 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For our purposes here, there's no difference between it being already released and yet-to-come. People are always making that distinction, but it's wrong. We're talking about providing information here. Information exists regardless of whether the album is released yet or not, so we provide it. The "crystal ball" argument is completely wrong, because we should only be dealing in verifiable information—predictions other people have made, and information that has been officially confirmed. So the only question is notability. Well, I think this is a notable subject. Christina is very famous and popular and there's plenty of talk about her next album. Everyking 10:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would agree with you, if the album had a title. Movementarian 11:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that point, but then theoretically the album could generate a huge buzz and yet not get an official title until a week or two before release; I think in this case we'd still want to provide the information. The issue of the title becomes irrelevant; the question is just the notability of the topic. I would think if an upcoming album is getting a lot of attention, we'd give it an article regardless of whether it's been officially given a title. Everyking 11:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyking, as User:Crotalus horridus said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You admit that the article is based on speculation and the only justification that you can give for the keeping of that article is "theoretically the album could generate a huge buzz". If the only justification that the only supporter of the article is one solelly based on possible speculation, then it is obvious that there is no reason to keep the article. The deletion is not only the right thing to do, it is the obvious option to be taken. --Mecanismo 12:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it's based on speculation. See below. Everyking 16:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that there is, in fact, a very strong difference. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia. According to the definition, it's articles should bear important and relevant information on some subject. The article listed for deletion is purely speculation and rumors and I don't see how speculation and rumors can be considered important or relevant on any subject, let alone an encyclopedic article. Besides, I don't see how that article can ammount to something other than that: a source of rumors and speculation. When the album is released I don't see why it shouldn't be covered by a wikipedia article. Until then, I believe that it would be wise to leave the rumor-spreading and speculation-creation to webforums, blogs, IM chats and other related media of communication. --Mecanismo 11:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like everything in the article should be verifiable. Even things that can't be verified as fact can be verified as notable rumors. Everyking 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that it's the job of an encyclopedia to convey unaccountable information or even to spread rumors, being them "notable" or not. --Mecanismo 11:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not verifiable rumours. If people want advance information on an album in production they should look at other mediums, such as blogs. An article entitled Christina Aguilera's third full-length English album does not belong in Wikipedia. When a release date is announced and the album is titled an article could be created. Movementarian 11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the album has a name it shouldn't be discussed in it's own article. The mistake people make is wanting to create new articles for everything and fragment information. I'd be happy with merging into Christina's article, though. Christina's quote at the start needs sourcing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful with the main Aguilera article, otherwise let's wait till the release at least has a title before doing an article about it. Crystal ball otherwise. 23skidoo 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When/if the album is released, it might merit an article of it's own, and this article will be redundant. --StoatBringer 14:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, then we'd just move it to the new title. Everyking 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure speculation... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crotalus horridus 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of it is speculation. Think for a minute. It is, in a sense, speculation to say that there will be a U.S. presidential election in 2008. Because who knows, really? But we have an article on it...why? Because it's a notable topic and information can be verifiable whether reporting past events or reporting what other people have said about future events, and past events relating to those future events. I really get tired of the "crystal ball" stuff. Everyking 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know that there will be a U.S. Presidential Election because it is madated in the constitution. But since you bring it up, notice that there is not an article entitled 2008 Presidential Election. That is because we don't know anything beyond the fact that it will take place. We can speculate that certain political figures will run, but not in Wikipedia as encyclopaedias are no the place for speculation. Movementarian 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We report other people's speculation. Like, duh! And my first point was a philosophical one—you don't really know any future events will take place. And here's another point—even if Christina doesn't release a third album, the topic itself is still notable—she's been recording, people have been talking about it, it's acquired a significant degree of fame, and a significant amount could already be written about it. So really it has nothing to do with the album being released or not. You need to base it on the subject's notability, that is to say, on the importance attached to it by people. Everyking 05:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have to agree to disagree. You think that because someone that is notable says they will do something it should be immediately placed into Wikipedia (I hope that I am not misintrepeting your position, if I am I apologise). I think we should wait until it has happened. Movementarian 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, not necessarily. It depends on whether what is said amounts to notable information. (Also, I naturally regard saying something as an action, therefore that—the act of communicating—has already happened—it is in the past, and thus can't be speculation.) And to have an independent article you need a collection of notable info that would not fit properly into another article. It makes sense to me to have this as an independent article...I think any question about this should arise from whether to merge verifiable info, or keep it here as its own article (and we know it will eventually get one anyway, of course). I see no reason not to do the latter—I feel people are making arbitrary cut-off points, such as it having an official title, or being released. To me, what matters is that you have a collection of notable, verifiable info that works as an independent subject. Everyking 10:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from and I better understand your position, however I disagree that requiring an album to have a title is an arbitrary cut-off point. I think having a proper title is a key element to having an article. If a member of a royal family gets pregnant should we make an article called (using the House of Orange-Nassau as an example) Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Maxima New Baby or should we wait until it has a name? Movementarian 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative fancruft. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete worth at most a one-liner in the Aquilera article. I fully agree that speculation/rumour/future plans have little relevance to an encyclopedia. CarbonCopy 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, purely speculative. Andrew Levine 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article. Technostalgia
  • Merge until the album has a name and some relevance besides this. EliF 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeper EliF.--Alhutch 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Everyking - David Gerard 13:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article contains uncited rumors or info in the Christina Aguilera article, and may be considered Original Research. We should get a solid reference and more info about the album before we create an article for it. We don't even have a name (tentive or not) which we can work with. If there's cited info, it should be in the future section of the main article --unless it contains so much info that it will warrant it's own article. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fotolia

Non-notable, spam attempt and orphan article Mecanismo 10:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reads like an ad at the moment. I'm too lazy to check WP:WEB or Alexa, but if it can be rewritten and passes the Alexa rank test and/or otherwise proves importance then it should stay. If it can't, then delete. Zunaid 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparent ad. Even if it weren't an promotional, there's nothing really there in the article. B.Wind 00:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit and Notability I made edits to make the site description appear less like an ad. I have nothing to do with Fotolia, I just think it's an innovative concept and deserves inclusion. Also added Alexa data (it's ranked 8,628) to address the "non-notable" issue. Kanamekun 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it appears somewhat notable now. However, if mine is the only vote to keep, then the closing admin has my permission to discount it. Stifle 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Weak keep Added some more detail around Strategy, to bolster the entry and make it clear why I think the concept is interesting. --Kanamekun 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige World Properties

Non-notable company, fails the google test, probably spam attempt Mecanismo 10:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TB comics

Unverified: no Google hits. Either hoax or promo for as-yet-nonexistent comic. Compare Off-white comic by same editor. Tearlach 10:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Zabdai

Poorly written article, bordering nonsence. Article is orphan and untouched for more than a year. The google test on "Beth Zabdai" returns 360 results. Mecanismo 10:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Aucaman 12:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Real place (at least in a historical sense), and apparently the birthplace of Babai the Great, just as the article states. Absolutely nothing nonsensical about that. u p p l a n d 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already mentioned in Babai the Great and this article adds very little. CarbonCopy 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's an actual place, it should have an article of its own. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's cleaned up. If someone wants to write a good article later, they can. -- Kjkolb 05:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a place and can stay. Needs to be expanded, of course. Stifle 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. --Angr (t·c) 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Driver's Seat

Orphan article filled with poorly written nonsence, probably copyvio Mecanismo 11:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup. It's an actual film starring Elizabeth Taylor. Durova 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrape clean and start anew - article reads like a promotional script... at first. Then "this film is too hard to describe." It's best to delete with a request for someone to start again from scratch. B.Wind 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What B.Wind said. Stifle 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (5d; 4 do not delete, three of which were from first-time editors). Mindmatrix 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Face

Not notable. —jiy (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable and probably vanity --Mecanismo 11:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteBand is notable a good contribution.--MOina 16:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. You can call me Al 19:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. A lot of time and effort went in to this page, and it is obvious that MF has a devoted following considering that there is a link to their Myspace which has credible songs listed for playing.--Zeegloo 10:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Everyone can create a MySpace account, so that's no proof of notoriety. The ammount of time and efford which a user invests in a wikipedia article isn't proof of notoriety. Everything indicates that the page is pure vanity. The existence of an account in a social networking site and the fact that the article is some unlisted wikipedia user's pet project aren't at all justifications for not deleting the article. --Mecanismo | Talk 15:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to MecanismoSweet, fag. --Nelson,P 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, more bandcruft. Meets the most important criterion for non-notability: a myspace page. Stifle 23:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of notable groups have myspace accounts, such as Sigur Rós, Hawthorne Heights...what's your point?--Zeegloo 00:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being new to Wikipedia, I have not A) had the time to make a profile for myself and B) Do not know its benefits.--Zeegloo 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Metal Face is notable and should be left alone. Dox 2005 was a progressive leap for alternative rock and is definitely significant. --Kiomana 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment By the way, I am not a member of the band, just a loyal fan who wants to spread the love.--Zeegloo 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Give me time to make this more of a "neurtal" article.
  • Don't Delete notable band with significant contributions to the music scene--LABrun 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 21:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (8d, 5 do not delete votes, some from sock- and meat-puppets). Mindmatrix 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El Fhat

6 Google hits. —jiy (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not meet criteria set forth in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 11:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and it looks like a vanity article --Mecanismo 11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! Useful article about notable music group.--Chuck555 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please tell us more as to why this band is notable, and moreover details of its albums/tours/etc. Stifle 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Movementarian. Andrew Levine 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I have at least 20 google hits, and I'm only one person. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more non-notable bandcruft. And it meets the main criterion for non-notability: a myspace page. Stifle 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The fact that the band has a myspace profile doesn't take away from it's notability at all. Neil Diamond has a myspace profile; does that make him not notable? (Unsigned by Apollu, the user's first edit.—jiy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • But Neil Diamond's myspace profile is supplementary to the 120 million records he has sold, his presence in the mass media, the critical reception he has recieved, etc. El Fhat's myspace profile is the only claim to fame El Fhat has, and that alone is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia.—jiy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • El Fhat's myspace profile is supplementary to the successful northwest tour they had, the following they have built, and the successful album they have released. Just because they have not gained world-wide reception does not prove their non-notability.--Tuscon6 04:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Like I said, many notable bands have myspace accounts. I personally found this article to be very insightful and the fact of the matter is that if were to go undeleted, it would literally make no difference to you guys. Let it stay up for those who enjoy it and for those who have a decent taste in music.--Zeegloo 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point isn't whether they have a myspace account or not, it's whether that's the extent of their web presence. Unless evidence is given that they qualify under WP:MUSIC, I say delete. Confusing Manifestation 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete What evidence is given that the band does not meet the WP:MUSIC standards?--Tuscon6 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I myself am a fan of the band's music and would appreciate it if the page was left intact. El Fhat is one of the most influential and loved underground acts of the northern U.S.--Tuscon6 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (The only edits this user has made is to this AfD request.—jiy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Do not delete. This band has a vast underground following. By the way stifel, who the hell are you? Wouldn't you meet the criteria for non-notability as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.197.148 (talk • contribs) 17:35, December 14, 2005 24.72.197.148
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 17:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Cano

This article is in a foreign language (Spanish I believe) and seems to have no encyclopaedic content anyway. Ben W Bell 11:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is a small biography on some mexican man who graduated from civil engineering in 2003 and married in 2005. It's obviously a vanity page. You can check it out on babelfish, if you like --Mecanismo 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further review this article should be deleted as a vanity page. I have removed the translation tag. Movementarian 11:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (2k/6d). Mindmatrix 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa L. Miller

Does not appear verifiably notable. The article claims she is nationally famous but fails to back this up. Weak delete. Stifle 11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, classic schoolchild vanity. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, vanity --Mecanismo 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nn-bio. Joyous | Talk 12:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepLOL She was my old debate coach from my HS days 9-10 years ago! Hysterical! She's (statewide) well known debate coach and teacher for MANY years, past president of th Florida Forensic League, her teams always do well in EVERY event, which lends to her reputation. Every active HS debate coach in the state and, possibly, in the region has heard and, likely, has come in contact with her or her teams. She's loved by her students (past and present). I'm bias, but I'd say she's notable enough (barely) to say in.Gator (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Around 4p CST Friday, Evinem put up a couple vanity bios. He was removing db tags and being a total ass. This article is a continuation of those two articles, which focused on the debate team et cetera. Mecanismo is dead on; this is vanity. Especially since there's a _notable_ person by that name. (I know the "don't bite the newbies" policy; however, this guy was asking to be bitten.) AND ON TOP OF THAT, Evinem has AGAIN attempted to remove vfd tags! D.valued 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that a wikipedia's user knows the said person and admires her doesn't justify an encyclopedia article on that said person. We all know people we admire but that doesn't earn them the right to be listed in an encyclopedia --Mecanismo | Talk 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now now, I never said keep her because I admitred her, I said keep (barely) because I blieve she is notably apart from my own biases. I didn't like your implication. I know what notable is and I would never vote keep just because "a wikipedia's user knows the said person and admires her." Please re-read my comments. Delete or don't, it's no skin off my back.Gator (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gator as Miller seems notable. If not merge somewhere. -- JJay 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be WP:V verified. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 22:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mineva Loa Zabi

Not notable and I can barely make sense of it. Stifle 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's about some obscure character seen on some Gundam anime series. Why does Wikipedia have to include every minor detail on Gundam? Will every screw on every Gundam robot get its own article? They're not real, people! Delete post-haste. — JIP | Talk 11:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably Merge to List of minor characters from Gundam ZZ or something similar, but I can't follow the text well enough to really know for sure. Given the quality of the writing, a Delete wouldn't break my heart, either. -Colin Kimbrell 17:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Blood (Band)

It was tagged as a speedy as "lack of relevancy", but claiming to have three albums out meets band inclusion guidelines. Can anyone verify they're not just a garage band with self-released stuff? Abstain - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless more evidence turns up. They are not listed at Allmusic.com or Amazon.com and I could not find any reference to them on Google. Movementarian 12:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I also tried to find them on Google and could not find anything at all. They're evidently not well known. --Eeee 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything on them either. PJM 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Three albums" is likely a calculated claim, for the purpose of circumventing speedy deletion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have searched, and can find a movie, a book and more about menstration than anyone wants to know. Nothing on the band. Unless someone can add more to this article (a band home page? name of members? ANYTHING?). EliF 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, off you go, where's our band speedy category yet? Stifle 23:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly make a nice stocking stuffer. PJM 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was Speedily Deleted independently of this AFD. - SoM 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faux-elitism

Tagged as NPOV, actually I think very close to speediable as nonsense. I can't think of anything properly encyclopaedic which could exist under this title. Current content is POV and original "research" (in the loosest sense of the word). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely appears to be nonsense, but at the very least it is a neologism. Movementarian 12:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Julius Vogel. The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so copyright is not an issue. I have added the {{JewishEncyclopedia}} tag to Julius Vogel. --Angr (t·c) 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Julius Vogel K.C.M.G

Duplicate of Julius Vogel , just content from the Jewish Encyclopedia - SimonLyall 11:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per Capitalistroadster. No need to lose the reference. - Mgm|(talk) 00:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Cap. It would be a shame not to keep the extra information (given that I work part time for a company co-founded by Vogel and am a former winner of the Sir Julius Vogel Award I should be able to add some more there, too!). If I'm not mistaken the article name is incorrect anyway - surely it isn't both "Sir" and KCMG"? Grutness...wha? 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - the title is a variant someone may actually search on - David Gerard 13:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Sir Julius Vogel already redirects to the main page. I've added KCMG to the main page. I really don't think people are going to search on the exact title of this artcle and if they do they will get the main one anyway, hench I didn't go for redirect. SimonLyall 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Capitalistroadster, but check copyright status first. Stifle 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - especially keep references to Otago Daily Times. --LesleyW 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inside In/Inside Out

An album that should have been released last January? No thanks. Stifle 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's next January (2006). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinks have been notable for 40 years, definite album title and lineup, firm anticipated release time from a major label. It's a keeper with the appropriate tag that will be removed upon release next month. B.Wind 00:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, bearing in mind that the 2005 was a typo, I'm happy to close this as a speedy keep. Stifle 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 22:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Leaf Green

Appears to be a review rather than an article, Their site seems to indicate multiple albums. Do these meet WP:MUSIC enough to be rewritten? - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is promotional in nature, rather than encyclopedic. Band tours primarily the western US and seems to have a following west of the Rocky Mountains. Their albums are on independent labels (or home grown) and sold through their web site. Unless there's more to them, they seem to just miss the notability threshold, but the right piece of verifiable information can convince me to change my vote (after all, the Grateful Dead were notable before they sold records). But for now, very weak delete. B.Wind 01:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept per WP:IAR. No sense wasting more bandwidth on this well-intentioned but unnecessary AfD. This does *not* imply anything about the nominator, only that the subject is notable and no more time need be spent here. FCYTravis 08:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Welsh Hemingway

bio, notable only for being Ernest Hemingway's wife. Eligible for merge but recommend delete. Stifle 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject had a career as a national journalist, wrote an autobiography regarding her life with Hemingway and was maried to Hemingway. I would argue these points make her notable enough. If we delete articles like this, which are created by new users, what message are we sending to those users? Your contribution is not welcome? Hiding talk 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Hiding, I can imagine readers being interested in the wife of Ernest Hemingway during his bouts of depression and suicide. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a speedy keep. She covered the war for the Daily Express and Time, well before she married Hemingway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps only happen either if the nomination is vandalism or is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, or if the nominator withdraws and the only votes have been to keep. You may wish to vote "strong keep" instead. Stifle 15:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could withdraw your nom. Hiding talk 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't appear to be a bad faith nomination. A speedy keep implies that the nominator is a vandal, newbie or just plain stupid. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just jawdroppingly wrong. It happens - David Gerard 13:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but "speedy keep" is a loaded term and should not be used lightly. -- Kjkolb 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keeps happen, as far as I'm concerned, when a grossly inappropriate nomination is made. I know this wasn't an attempt to disrupt wikipedia, but the chance of it prevailing are zero. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as being married to Hemingway, she was a notable journalist and wrote an autobiography of her life. Capitalistroadster 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in her own right as reasoned above. - Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 03:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talize

Delete. Blatant advert. Business with 2 stores in Canada. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. -Colin Kimbrell 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. --maclean25 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran hurley

Was tagged as speedy, but lecturers can be notable. This appears to be a resume, so I'll vote delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as advertisement of oneself, i.e. a résumé. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I tagged it originally and stand by my original call. Stifle 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this is basically just a resume. In general, I think borderline speedies like this one are a better fit on AFD, since the greater transparency and community feedback lessen the chance of accidental newbie-biting. -Colin Kimbrell 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Computerjoe 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article has been speedily redirected. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian Street

Essentially a dictionary definition, but there may be some famous streets by the name Pedestrian Street. x42bn6 Talk 12:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge with Vestavia Hills, Alabama Louis Pizitz Middle School. --Angr (t·c) 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pizitz

Article is nearly empty, has nothing linking to it, and is for a non-notable US middle school StuffOfInterest 13:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote. Real place (per website which notes some achievements) - if kept, should be moved to Pizitz Middle School. BD2412 T 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Achievements like "Classroom access to a Pentium computer on the school network"? Neat, it's some kind of archaeology school then? :P

      More seriously, it seems to be more notable than the average schoolcruft (highest SAT scores in Alabama in 2003, apparently), so if some of that stuff can be verified from sources other than the school's own website, it would easily score a keep according to the growing consensus at WP:SCH. This is doubtless going to be kept in some form. But someone who cares about school articles will need to clean up the current article pretty radically and move it to the proper place. — Haeleth Talk 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Relisted for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, Cleanup and Rename. Well, WP:SCH will have a fit if they find out we deleted a school, heh. -^demon 14:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. If the school is utterly without redeeming merit, and the article sucks, is there any reason for keeping it? Note that this is not a vote, but I have some real issues about schools that would not be kept if they were people. Denni ☯ 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry to rant, but I expect anyone voting keep or delete to provide a decent *reason* for their vote. Quoting from WP:SCH's list of arguments isn't good enough. AfD is a debate, not a vote. That's why it was renamed. Quoting from both sides of the arguments subpage in WP:SCH does not constitute a debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, no references or verifiability. They can recreate it once these are covered. Stifle 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelers

Not notable as far as I can see - nothing found on Google. First seven words says it all. A bit iffy 12:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's more like the second sentence is a giveaway. Does not meet WP:MUSIC - delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite funny, the article starts off by writing its own suicide note ;) Delete. Zunaid 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the first two sentences. Fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours. Stifle 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. I, the nominator of the article, withdraw my nomination, and there are no delete votes in evidence. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Landshark

This is an unusual nomination. I am the original creator of this page, but I am not (repeat, not) saying it should be deleted. Nor am I saying it should be kept. I am abstaining from voting on this page. I am submitting it to AfD because it is the only page I have created where I feel a slight twinge of guilt for having done so. Some days I think it's a perfectly valid article that needs a little cleanup. Other days I suspect it probably should be deleted altogether. Since I can't objectively decide, I submit it to AfD's tender mercies. Debate on it as ye will. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even if you are the article creator, the reason you're nominating it would be nice. It seems like a perfectly good article to me, the only problem being the lack of sources. Leaning towards Keep at the moment. --Last Malthusian 13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apparently we have an entire category of SNL sketches. —Cryptic (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The injustice

Highly POV, bad article title. Not encyclopedic. --^demon 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for obvious reasons. See also KART SABZ and Fayli Kurds - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Article title. Agnte 14:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. Unencyclopedic. Bhumiya/[[User_talk:Bhumiya|Talk]] 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Crotalus horridus 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsalvagable essay. But the subtitle "What a miserable fate this people suffer from!".... Punkmorten 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Clearly this is a essay by an middle-schooler saved in the wrong location :)-MegamanZero 17:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite POV. The Kurdish people article is quite thorough as it is. However, I encourage anyone who can find salvageable information to put it in that article.--Aleron235 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Freakofnurture. Stifle 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KART SABZ

Obviously has no place on WP but I can't think of the appropriate speedy criterion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lostcast

A list, a neologism, and a whole collection of non-notable podcasts, all rolled up into "reality" TV fancruft. An abomination unto Nuggan. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • should wiki be used as a portal for blogs - a lostcast could be defined in general terms such as "fans of tv programmes etc often have podcasts dedicated to their fanaticism eg lostcast for the ABC series lost" under podcast
  • At the moment, the article is a simple, Yahoo!-style, web directory, containing a list of external hyperlinks to podcasts and short accompanying blurbs from their authors written in the first person. The place to write this sort of thing is Yahoo! Directory or the Open Directory Project. Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete podcruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia articles are not lists of external links. - Mgm|(talk) 00:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Freakofnurture. Stifle 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a podcast directory. Gamaliel 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Padron

This page is very close to being a CSD, but I've decided to go the slow route. At first it looks like a NN-bio (collector of pop music and culture), but the last sentence seems to indicate that he's a writer. If that's the case though, I can't find a work he's published or a periodical that employs him. This page is going to either need a serious rewrite (starting with some context in which to place this person), or be deleted. Bachrach44 14:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN-bio. I found a reference to him at [24] which seems to fit the description of the Oscar Padron in the article, but there's a few people with that name involved in baseball. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its the same person mentioned by Howcheng, he is self-published and therefore doesn't meet WP:BIO. DeleteCapitalistroadster 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Stifle 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiles

A nice story of an ordinary family living in the UK. Doesn't assert the notability of the family in question. Doesn't exactly fall under A7 either, I think, because it is about a bunch of people, not just a person. Mysid 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this completely remade article. –Mysid 14:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN. It's just that, an ordinary family, nobody of real importance. -^demon 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • nn - either delete or, perhaps, redirect to the extremely notable Andrew Wiles. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do hope Paul Wiles is over his accident but this is really blog stuff. Keresaspa 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy if the user wants it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UncleG's New! IMPROVED! version. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RobertG was on the right track, but hadn't gone far enough. Deletion wasn't the way to fix the problem with this article, which was an unsourced firsthand personal history of a person who failed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies by a wide margin. Turning it into a family name disambiguation article, like the many other such articles we have, was. Keep. Uncle G 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the disambig. Brilliant work. BD2412 T 17:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is now a dab page. / Ezeu 03:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G's new page. All credit to Uncle G for being bold. Stifle 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change my vote to keep. Great work. Keresaspa 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic world and the Western world

POV and unencyclopaedic in concept and execution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, delete it. It's not only pov, it makes no sense at all. A worthy achievement indeed. XYaAsehShalomX 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a capital D for POV. Croat Canuck 02:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and probably original research too. Stifle 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Design

Obvious and trivial neologism. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Stifle 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Blog. --RayaruB 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -^demon 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put the suggested redirect at Blog design with a non-capital 'd'. - Mgm|(talk) 00:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Civilian

This has been previously deleted as a copyvio, but I don't know for sure if it can be speedied now. Stifle 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I typed this page in my own words with the info I gathered this page shouldn't be deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dude57 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Max Cantor

Non-notable. Delete. Google searches [[25]] [[26]] return under 1000 results. worthawholebean talkcontribs 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a relevant article for an encyclopaedia. His is an interesting story. Carrowheel 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Why delete it? Good thing about Wikipedia is its huge repository of information. -carrowheel[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and disambiguate. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rockets

Non-notable band, my fourth such nomination today and comes with my usual request for a speedy category. Stifle 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. NN. worthawholebean talkcontribs 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Per above.
  • Keep but turn into a disambig page. There have been at least two notable bands called the Rockets. One, as Neil Young's backing band, was later known as Crazy Horse. The other, a well-known Detroit band of the 19780s and 80s, had several albums out on major labels, backed Lou Reed, and and members do various stints with Mitch Ryder, Bob Seger, Buddy Miles, and Cactus. The Rockville band described on this page doesn't seem notable, but the others are. rodii 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then disambiguate per rodii. -Sean Curtin 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to delete to make it into a disambig; the point of doing so is not clear - David Gerard 13:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make dab. I can think of three more Rockets - David Gerard 13:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as google searches for any of the keywords [27] [28] [29] [30] yields no related results at all.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saela

Non-notable musicians. Stifle 15:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raiuk Tapartah Myth

NN & nonsense. Delete. worthawholebean talkcontribs 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. See duplicate nomination just below. jni 16:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpeedy Delete. What is it with dumb articles today? -^demon 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its friday, I suspect bourbon is involved. / Ezeu 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this fictional material is not notable since the band that permforms it is not notable. -Meegs 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. / Ezeu 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense. Stifle 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godofe keios

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google's got 18 hits, only one or two are this band.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE GODOFE KEIOS AND ITS MYTHOLOGY !!!! THEY ARE GREAT !!!!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 217.129.81.122 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable band. Stifle 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raiuk Tapartah Mythology

Made up by the guys from Godofe keios. Not notable. Exactly one google hit.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it DID exist until a few minutes ago. Now it's a redirect to a blank page containing the nocontent tag.
  • Delete like with duplicate Raiuk Tapartah Myth. jni 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , sounds like pure chat-room material, but some of the information is supported by fact.-MegamanZero 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable bandcruft. Stifle 00:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catboxer

Self-promotion (created by User:Perry Normal which is the alias of one of the band members. Wikipedia is not self-promotion). At any rate, 2-self released albums... not on AMG... no evidence they meet WP:MUSIC's guidelines for notability --W.marsh 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I helped clean up the article a little and decided to let it sit for a while to see if any kind of notability might be established. Unfortunately, it has not, and I'm voting to delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-09 19:53:32Z
  • Delete non-notable. I strongly wish these were speediable. Stifle 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pakingan

Probably a hoax. Google has not heard of the name, which seems unlikely for someone who would, if this were true, have been the first non-European immigrant to become a British MP. The article was blanked by its creator a couple of days ago, which makes it difficult for me to assume good faith... — Haeleth Talk 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unverified, seems to be a hoax. Blanking by the author can be considiered a request for deletion, so let's grant him the wish. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of Google's this was before computers were even invented. - Mgm|(talk) 00:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's bow to the will of the author on this one - Speedy Delete, despite after-blanking reversion. B.Wind 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Howard Taff

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, non-notable. Delete. worthawholebean talkcontribs 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not meeting WP:NMG. BJAODN for the comparison: "William Howard Taff is a band similar to: "Weird Al" Yankovic, Stephen Lynch, Iron Maiden, and Van Halen." Unfortunately, unlike those acts, this band is not yet notable. Capitalistroadster 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:RoyBoy. Pilatus 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views of evolution

User:Ed Poor has made a POV fork of content already included in Wikipedia at other articles. In particular, the "religious views of evolution" are found at theistic evolution and creationism for example. More than this, much of this content is simply recreation from his other forks such as Definitions of evolution, Evolution poll, etc. --ScienceApologist 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Creation-evolution controversy - POV fork --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems appropriate, yes. Alternately, move Creation-evolution controversy to Religious views of evolution and expand treatment of non-Christian religions ... it may actually be a better title, but we don't need both and we don't need POV forking. --FOo 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto no reason not to, it seems. karmafist 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the current article at Creation-evolution controversy describes a particular aspect of religious views of evolution, while theistic evolution (the article is at evolutionary creationism) mostly explains and explores how religions support evolution. Although I'm concerned about such an article being a breeding ground for non-neutrality, I don't think that's reason enough to delete, and it has the potential of covering material not covered in either article. If it never does, we can redirect it later. Demi T/C 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Evolutionary creationism, which deals with Jewish, Islamic and Hindu traditions as well as Christian. The Creation-evolution controversy page is too specifically Christian, and is about a debate which is only a big issue in the US (AFAIK). --Squiddy 17:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation-evolution controversy - POV fork -- WAS 4.250 17:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Speedy Delete per above Pilatus. Yet one more POV fork from Ed on AFD. How many is that now? FeloniousMonk 18:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. This is material from the Evolution poll page. Pilatus 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Cydeweys. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the controversy. Gazpacho 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This POV fork barrage that is getting quite disruptive. Vsmith 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this covers a specific area of the debate that deserves its subtopic.Trilemma 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too restrictive in its present formulation (if someone can come up with a sensible draft then it could be a reasonable topic). A neutral article would mention the non-overlapping magisteria between religion and science and the fact that most mainline churches and do not reject science and only fundamentalists and certain religious cults do. — Dunc|☺ 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antireality

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is a neologism. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either a dicdef or a neologism, either way nothign encyclopaedic in the article as written. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one sentence does not an encyclopedia entry make, especially when the text itself doesn't use the term. B.Wind 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete neologism/dicdef. Stifle 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 07:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asfyxia

This page does not deserve to be deleted. There needs to be a page about this band on Wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Xclandestinex (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prove this is a notable band, see WP:MUSIC. I cannot find anything to prove it is, but I wont say definately delete it without knowing all the facts, because theres actually some reasonable content there. StealthFox 06:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://myspace.com/asfyxiatheband and http://www.purevolume.com/asfyxia


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamian American

There's not enough information here to warrant an article. This should be a wiktionary entry, and maybe also split it into a list of famous Bahamia Americans. Please share your vote below. CrypticBacon 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, agreed. This is clearly a stub (or wikidictonary material), but seems written in good faith; merge in to some nationalities page, etc.-MegamanZero 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems to be a reasonable stub with potential for growth. - SimonP 00:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this could turn into a reasonable article, a-la Greek American (which seens to be constructed along a similar template). -Colin Kimbrell 17:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (20/1). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concept album

Reason why the page should be deleted The word "concept" can be applied to any invention in history. All music has an underriding concept, even if the concept is to please the audience. The list of concept albums will always be ridiculous. Is Bob Dylan a concept? What about Jimi Hendrix? Or Britney Spears? Don't get me wrong, this article is very cool, but it seems that's what everybody thinks a concept album is, cool. The devision is just far two subjective. I nominate for immediate deletion. -ShadowyCabal

Strong keep on the grounds that it is the first Google hit for "concept album". —BenFrantzDale 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The reason it's the first hit is because Wikipedia has made-up the concept of a concept album. There is no objective way to explain the difference between a concept album and a non-concept album. If so, I'd like to see this list of non-concept albums. -ShadowyCabal 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The idea of a concept album exists outside of Wikipedia. Any album that does not have a story running from one song to the next across the entire album is not a concept album. For example, Back in Black by AC/DC is not; it's just a collection of songs. On the other hand Operation: Mindcrime is, as AllMusic says; it tells a story from start to finish. —BenFrantzDale 21:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first paragraph pretty much explains that a concept album is an album in which the songs are tied together with an overall concept. It also says rightly that there isn't a precise definition. There are a lot of albums that aren't concept albums, because although the artist may have 'conceived' of the album and the individual songs, the songs deal with unrelated concepts. Asking for a list of non-concept albums is like asking for a list of all non-christmas oriented albums. This specific term has been around since at least the 1970's. It's a great article and a real category of music/albums. -Cranialhotfudge 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this term has been in use for quite some time, and the article looks to be properly representing the usage of the term. Now the list may be another issue... CarbonCopy 17:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as widely-used term with at least 30 years of currency. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as User:Just zis Guy, you know? The JPS 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Surely you're joking? This term has been in use for musical albums for decades. :) — RJH 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable term in use for decades with a lot of historical equity. 23skidoo 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article covers a well-known subject in a familiar way. The only thing it needs is better citations. Nomination seems highly POV. Durova 18:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 659,000 Google references for concept album [31].

Plenty of Google book entries [32]. 139 Google news references indicate that the term gets plenty of exposure in the general media [33]. 106 Google Scholar results [34]. Capitalistroadster 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Guy and others. rodii 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added some references. Could do with some more.Capitalistroadster 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable term, well written article, over 7 million 6 hundred thousand Google hits, FCOL. Why was this AfD'd at all? — JIP | Talk 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with strength and speed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable concept. Hiding talk 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep - term has been in use since the Pretty Things released the first concept album (S.F. Sorrow) just before Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The Kinks made a second career out of concept albums. B.Wind 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Concept albums were commonly known as such decades before Wikipedia was founded. --Metropolitan90 01:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep. Smerdis of Tlön 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. ShadowyCaballero's claims that Wikipedia invented this term are blatantly false and their claim that the definition is too subjective to be meaningful applies only to their own incorrect definition, not to the one given by the article. In combination with the username "ShadowyCabal", I am strongly tempted to suspect that this is a bad-faith nomination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I have to assume there is either some element of bad faith to this nom, or a strange detachment from reality. In both cases, this article has no place on AfD. -- JJay 19:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.—thegreentrilby 22:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It goes without saying that every album has some type of underlying theme, even if it is that the songs happen to be on the same album together. This is simply common sense. The idea of a concept album has been widely used since Sgt. Pepper's, and although I think some albums on the list are somewhat of a stretch to qualify as a true concept album, that does not mean that it should be deleted.
  • Strong Keep. I'm trying to avoid an ad hominem attack by finding any reason why the deletion idea has merit. I can't. I can only suggest that "the lunatic is on the grass". :-) Geno Z Heinlein 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connect direct

Advertising. Jackk 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Chris Allen

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is DJ vanity. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio from [35]. Tagged and bagged. Closing AfD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Homemade Hydroponics System

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is a how-to. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "how-to" guide. B.Wind 01:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how-to guide, Wikibooks doesn't want it either I hear. Stifle 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to SeaMonkey. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SeaMonkey Council

I have merged the information with the SeaMonkey entry. I'm undecided as to whether the entry should be deleted or redirected. Nonforma 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It should be redirected, because there should be some source for where the merged info came from. JoaoRicardo 05:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect in place. Closing this AfD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wor-king

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see no use for this. Borderline Nonsense. -^demon 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attempt at a joke. B.Wind 01:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as superfluous. Might be proper at UrbanDictionary though. They'll take almost anything. Haikupoet 03:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possible BJAODN. Stifle 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a clear and present hoax. FCYTravis 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catchbasin, California

This article appears to be completely unverifiable. "Catchbasin" or "Catch Basin" is not to be found in any online directory of Californian cities and towns, including the National Atlas. There is a Catch Basin well in Arizona and a Catch Basin dam in Pennsylvania, but no town. Googling for the name plus "1898", the supposed year of founding, yields nothing (that is, plenty of catch basins, but no towns). The assertion that this small town is a "sister city" of Pensacola, Florida seems to be plainly false, if the information at [36] is correct. This is either an article about a very small and hard to find town, or a Nihilartikel. I'd like to find out the former is the case, but I wouldn't want this article to stick around indefinitely while we wait. JRM · Talk 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added the cleanup-verify tag after a quick attempt to verify with Google failed. The above evidence is compelling, we don't need uncited articles on non-existant towns. The guy who created this article, User:Sawbones Jerrymanderer, should be noted as well... from his user page: "I will continue to spread truth throughout Wikipedia, despite the revisions of the nonbelievers". Catchbasin, California seems like a hoax the more I look at it.--W.marsh 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay man's fifty

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Also, no google hits on this particular slang Bill 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is non-notable as hell, and the oringinal thesis and "research" doesn't help; smite this article, Oh, Zeus!-MegamanZero 17:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, scores the amazing ZERO Google hits. Not only have I never heard of this term, it appears no one else has either. (Also, "Marijuana addicts"??? WTF???)Regina0613 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by nominator and Regina0613. — JIP | Talk 19:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete anything with zero google hits. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Erm, what? -^demon 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete nonsense. Stifle 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hope Alive I disagree with all of you, the 'Gay Man's fifty' is a well used saying in the southern hemisphere. I myself, do not smoke marijuana, but to take this off wikipedia is a volation of free speech. If this definition gets taken off the website how are people going to express themselves when they purchase a 50 dollar amount of excessively taxed marijuana through a middle man? Answer me that. Daneil 10:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. JRM · Talk 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Barrie

This page is nonsense and should not stay on the Wikipedia D2K 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 generations

Not on AMG, No evidence of releases or a label. No evidence they meet WP:MUSIC. W.marsh 16:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. B.Wind 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with my usual shout for speedy deletion capability for non-notable bands. Stifle 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - toast it. --Icenine0 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, thus it is kept. Be bold and move, redirect, or merge it as you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:06, Dec. 17, 2005

9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers

Previously AfD'd; result was merge; merge delayed, since completed. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingoolemo talk 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Yeah the 9/11 conspiracy theories bit at least recognises the Saddam Hussein theory. I said it was Saddam Hussein from the moment the planes flew in, and I don't get why people think its so hard to believe. The 9/11 one mentions it, whilst this other one doesn't. That theory should be expanded a fair bit though. Oh, also, I saw no mention of anti-globalisation terrorist group S11 being a theory. They were widely blamed, and the group was totally destroyed as a result. Oh and don't forget China. China had a motive to do it, so as to destroy the American economy to precipitate an invasion at a later date. After all, China was very annoyed at America then after they had shot down one of China's spy planes, and China is America's biggest challenge to world dominance, and the most likely country to take over control. These 2 theories do need to be mentioned. But since I personally believe the Saddam Hussein theory, I think that that needs to be explored an awful lot more than it is.Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it was China that shot down an American spy plane, not the other way around Cynical 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Move! The results of the old VFD wasn't even a clear concensus, and the listings have grown and become a lot more detailed since then. For example, it now includes physicist Steven Jones. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article is way too long at 76 KB, so there's no good reason for the list not to be split off as a separate article (not a section or a subpage). I propose that it be moved to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, as this is an NPOV title, and it also avoids the concerns that some had about the old "September 11 researchers" title. This title makes it clear that it's a listing of researchers with a common basic position about 9/11 which questions the official account. Blackcats 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should never have been a sub namespace article, how about September 11 reappraisal or some such (if scope is larger than just a bio of the researchers themselves)? zen master T 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: The Wiki is all about dissemination of knowledge, not the suppression thereof. That said, the articlle title needs revision to delete the loaded term conspiracy, which in this case amounts to discounting the credibility of researcers. Ombudsman 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify - the researchers are not the notable part of this endeavor: their hypotheses and conjectures are. I'd strongly suggest replacing their biographies with their conclusions about 9/11 as the conclusions are much more relevant to the rest of the article. B.Wind 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: That's exactly why the two articles never should have been merged, disingenuously, especially many months after a muddled debate. Ombudsman 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: After the original AfD resulted in merge, why was it not merged? Tom Harrison (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably because no one did it. zen master T 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-amazingly refernced and well-formatted, however if this information is already inserted (ie.merged) into another article elsewhere, then delete. Still, it sould be noted with the thesis that this article is quite informative.-MegamanZero|Talk 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the fact that it's merged.Gator (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is merged...use MOAB to complete deletion process.--MONGO 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm relisting this one to get more input. The previous VFD several months ago was interpreted as a vote to merge, but there was no definate concensus. Then nobody merged it until several months later - when the article was bigger and the article it was being merged into was bigger. Now the combined article is 76 KB - over twice the size as the suggested maximum. Blackcats
  • Delete if merged. Arkon 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge is done, goodbye fork. If the combined article is too big, trim it. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wherever it got merged to. Note that to preserve authorship attribution under the GFDL, "merge and delete" is NOT an option. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Move I have to agree with an above comment that the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is too long at over 76 KB. I also think that the list should be split off as a separate article (not a section or a subpage). It seems inappropriate to have this list set into the middle of the article. I also think that it should be moved to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, which is a good NPOV title. Everyday there are more researchers joining the 9/11 truth movement and getting the courage to speak up, particuarly academics, like Steven Jones. I would expect that this section on the researchers will only grow.Bov 07:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD A7. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Litafik

Listed on cfd by mistake by User:Jabencarsey, given reason was "Proposal: T._J._Litafik feels more like a resume than a article. no outside references or outside material." - Bobet 17:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while he does show up on google and these things might all be verifiable, none of them make him notable. - Bobet 17:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is no claim of notability in this article. --Quintin3265 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promising but not yet notable JoJan 19:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon Buertoen

Original research. Unverifiable. Only two google hits, both of which refer to wikipedia. Looks like a neologism dreamed up by a group of IRC buddies : see [37] The JPS 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, hilarious, but written in an very-NOPV-type manner, with proper links even. Merge it with Bacon, Pork, or someother related food article.-MegamanZero 17:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge? There is no evidence that this actually exists?! The JPS 18:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If no info can be located to back up the article, then delete. Still very funny, however.-MegamanZero 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just because search engines cannot find information about it, doesn't mean it does not exist. M3Plus 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the Bacon Buertoen, a truly lip-smacking delicacy from what i've heard. I thank the originator. GeneralManager 03:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet alert! I've had dealings with this user on another article, and I have evidence of sockpuppettry. Expect random people without accounts to suddenly pop up out of nowhere. The JPS 10:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This sockpuppetry is not true, I am not the same person as other people. M3Plus 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either a hoax or a non-notable recipe. Either way, not encyclopedic. Durova 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, clearly. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Bart133 01:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Freakofnurture. Stifle 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Monceau

Appears to be a non-notable entry copied from a tourist's guide Snurks 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears to be a slightly altered version of http://www.traveltradeint.com/royalmonceau.html. Punkmorten 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a noteworthy hotel. I've done some rewriting for NPOV and added links. The travel industry's gushy prose makes it hard to write an objective article when a historically and architecturally significant building happens to be a hotel. Durova 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I put a bit of work into the Hotel del Coronado yesterday and found similar difficulties. The problem seems endemic to the hospitality industry. Durova 04:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Durova, and lots of google hits. --Interiot 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as submitter: it appeared to be an advertisement in its original form, I didn't realize that it had notable history. Snurks 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator has voted to keep, this is now eligible for a speedy keep. Stifle 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FeelTheDeal

Spam. Creator User:Azoomee also removed the AFD tag. This page has also been vandalised 1 time by User:Azoomee. --Shawnc 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Shawnc--File Éireann 17:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. The site is either too new or has too little traffic to generate an Alexa rating.[38] A Google search turns up a handful of mentions to the site in chatrooms, but nothing resembling a reliable source for the information in the article. --Allen3 talk 17:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than claiming to be created by a 10-year-old, this article asserts no notability whatsoever. Websites are a dime-a-dozen. — JIP | Talk 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Late night web infomercial. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Newby

Does not appear notable [39] - Delete. Ze miguel -- was 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete hoax/joke/attack page. B.Wind 01:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Powder Fuzzbox

Band vanity, nothing on AMG, no evidence of releases or that they meet WP:MUSIC. So very little on Google [40] that it is also pretty much unverifiable that they even are a band. W.marsh 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable nn band. Stifle 00:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup poll on creationism and evolution

Closer's notes
Some editors said both delete and redirect; ultimately the consensus was that the content already existed in the relevant article (creation-evolution controversy), and that the poll did not warrant its own article. Thus no merge or redirect was performed, and these comments tended to be counted as deletes.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation-evolution poll and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution poll.

  • Redirect Delete to creation-evolution controversy. Someone has a genuine problem with POV forks and POV in general. How many AFD'd POV forks is this now? Amazing. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zero. It's an article spin-off, as described in the guidelines of Wikipedia:Content forking. See the third section which distinguishes between good and "POV" forks. This is the good kind. Uncle Ed 13:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What gives you that idea? How do you describe yourself as -- what was it, "Wikipedia's foremost expert on NPOV"? -- and not realize that proportion plays a role? What you are quoting states that spinout articles are not necessarily POV forks. It was never meant to grant anyone carte blanche to hand-pick the factoids they prefer out of an overview and spin entire articles around them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now Delete. If it were fleshed out and could (heh) evolve into a better article it would be worth keeping. If this is all it will ever be then delete. I don't see it having any ability to expand. - Tεxτurε 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is this good fpr? 129.215.194.206 Pilatus 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is best. A redirect is OK by me also, if it helps build consensus. At any rate, this should not have its own article, as I've been saying on various talk pages for a while now. See Category talk:Evolution polls for more discussion on single-poll-articles in general. Friday (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until and unless someone does a successful merge. This is a perfectly good example of Wikipedia:Content forking not a "POV fork" (if by that FM means a page created to promote a particular point of view). Uncle Ed 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been saying you're going to merge it for a while now. I've tolerated it so far, but how long with this go on? Please use your User space, not article space, for works-in-progress. A single poll way well be a useful source for an article, but it doesn't make an article by itself. Friday (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall ever saying I would merge it. I prefer it to stand alone, for easier reference. I've amended my words above to clarify this. Uncle Ed 18:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. Minimal content, belongs in the context of a larger article. Durova 18:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a redirect is useless because nobody will look it up under this name. Andrew Levine 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, two people already have! One came all the way to my talk page just to ask me where to find this information. Uncle Ed 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure why we need a running tally, but it sure seems misleading to me to count the redirect voters as a keep. By saying redirect, some editors are saying that this article should not exist on its own. Interpreting that as "keep" is extremely questionable in my opinion. I'm clarifying my comments for the benefit of whoever closes this Afd. Friday (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There is still no consensus but the "score" is 1 keep, 2 redirect, 2 delete. - Tεxτurε 19:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If policy has changed from "redirects count as keep", then I owe someone an apology. Last time I read the deletion guidelines, the only choices were Keep or Delete. (When did it change?) Uncle Ed 19:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lately, those who are good at closing Afds have been using actual human judgement and common sense, not simple vote counting, to interpret the results. Friday (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ed, saying "redirect" cannot be read as "keep" although it is clearly not "delete". Make sense? Otherwise, you would read my "neutral" as "keep" merely because it isn't "delete", right? Of course not. The result as of now is no consensus to delete (this is "for deletion", after all and not "AfK"). You could always rework it as: "Delete: 2, Not for Deletion: 3" or some such to be accurate but I don't think adding a tally is appropriate to any AfD. - Tεxτurε 19:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope the people who do close this take into consideration the nature of my vote. Gallup is a respected polling organization and its findings are usually meaningful. I don't think this is worthy of an article on its own, but I do agree the material is encyclopedic within the context of a larger piece. Durova 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia cannot possibly list all polls on all subjects. If the material is relevant, then encorporate it elsewhere. -^demon 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV forkism is disruptive Vsmith 20:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Why not an article on either this specific poll or this and similar polls? Ed, why not voluntarily withdraw it to your user space until you add enough to it to show it has value? WAS 4.250 22:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, the title and subject matter are too ambiguous and specific. (meaning, why is a 2001 poll notable/large enough to get an article?) It could stand on its own if moved, rewritten (expanded big time) and notable as a historical analysis of polls (not just gallup) on this subject. - RoyBoy 800 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The poll itself is not noteworthy outside of the article creation-evolution controversy. Polls are inately superfulous because they only gauge sentiment at one particular time. The actual votes (in Kansas, Pennsylvania, etc., where school boards have been displaced) are news, opinion polls before the fact become instantly irrelevant. Jtmichcock 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sub-trivial, better handled in the main article and the reason for its creation is unclear (we don't have articles for most of the other polls Gallup conduct - there are thousands every year and many of them have an outcome designed in from the outset by the questions used). This seems to endow one small poll with a wholly disproportionate weight. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is notable, but an entire article it isn't. Poll results can be (and are) mentioned on the relevant pages. (forgot the sig the first time) -Parallel or Together ? 01:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A data dump. (Wikipedia is not a collection of raw data.) Worse, a POV-selective data dump. Cherry-picked data is actively misleading. And an article on a poll suggests that the poll is particularly meaningful or pertinent. This poll has no particular meaning with regard to fact as opposed to belief. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this was previously deleted here, but I can't view deleted pages. -- Kjkolb 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect but certainly not Keep. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the creation-evolution controversy article Cynical 12:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if majorly rewritten: this is actual a fairly famous poll, in that it has been given over the course of many years (starting in 1982 I think). I'm not sure why this article only focuses on the 2001 version, because there was a more recent one given (with the same questions) in August of 2005. I even updated one of the articles here on WP (that Uncle Ed was involved in) that was using these 2001 numbers with the more recent version. It might be nice to have a page that shows this poll in historical context as well, which is much more valuable than a single snapshot point in time. A page discussing creationism polls in general might be even more useful. for example, this page is nicely done, and adds some nice context to the Gallup poll. Turnstep 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all polls. They are not votes; they are transitory states of opinion. A page such as this needs to demonstrate a specific and decisive influence on policy in order to be even remotely notable. — RJH 17:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nunh-huh. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator
  • Keep. -- JJay 05:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an article; it is a piece of disruptive behavior. --FOo 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At this point, I see little reason to indulge EdPoor. -- Ec5618 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic and WP:POINT. Can't transwiki to WikiNews because of licence incompatibility. Stifle 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. This is getting out of hand. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per other delete votes. CarbonCopy 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ec5618 et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is already covered on the creation-evolution controversy and as I can hardly imagine anyone ever looking up this particular article name, it shouldn't be redirected, but rather deleted. --ScienceApologist 18:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were at least two different links to it, before someone saw this AFD and then deliberately deleted those links. Please be honest and not disruptive. Uncle Ed 13:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PFAW poll on creationism and evolution. Pilatus 18:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? A censorship campaign against any Wikipedia article which sheds doubt on the POV that "around half of Americans support evolution"? All I'm asking is that Wikipedia report EXACTLY what polls say on this subject. Uncle Ed 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say that such-and-such a proportion of Americans supports such-and-such a view on evolution, the data to support this should go into the creationism article. I really don't know what you hope to achieve by continuously creating articles that do nothing but report the fact that some poll has been conducted. Pilatus 20:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the EXACT poll numbers, please use the 2005 poll, not the 2001 one. Better yet, write an article as suggested above that mentions all the years and why this poll is important. Turnstep 23:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rasely

Delete, because it's a mess and doesn't seem to fulfil the criteria on WP:MUSIC - Petros471 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)*[reply]

  • Keep. This would fall under WP:BIO. His Mel Bay book is legit and many of his accomplishments can be found via Google [41]. PJM 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utter mess. Stifle 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No doubt it needs a serious clean up, if kept. PJM 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PFAW poll on creationism and evolution

Note: Also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallup poll on creationism and evolution Pilatus 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much wrong with this page. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or repository of survey data. The results themselves are suitable in the article on creationism to give an idea how much it is supported in the US. However, we don't need n articles that state that it has a following in certain countries. Pilatus 18:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Creation-evolution controversy just like Gallup poll on creationism and evolution. There's discussion on Category talk:Evolution polls about why single-poll articles are undesirable. Friday (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with cleanup. Fails to give a date for the poll, syntax is very hard to follow. Durova 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect would be useless as nobody will look up the article under this name. Andrew Levine 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Another Ed Poor mess for others to clean up. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish he would stop his POV mess. -^demon 20:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems all these absurd spin-off POV forks are rather disrupting. - Vsmith 20:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete standing alone, not very useful without date and real information about poll (questions? sample size? Error?) In context of POV warrior forking, Strong Delete CarbonCopy 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or move to user space - See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallup poll on creationism and evolution - move both to your user space, merge and add to it until it convinces people. I don't know that it would hurt to have an article on polls and polling data in America. And you have to start somewhere; why not with these two polls? WAS 4.250 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge information into a central article about polling of the creation/evolution debate. - RoyBoy 800 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've lost track of how many of Ed Poor's evolution articles have been deleted in the past couple weeks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with RoyBoy. A general article on creation/evolution polling in America would be okay. -Parallel or Together ? 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A data dump. (Wikipedia is not a collection of raw data.) Worse, a POV-selective data dump. Cherry-picked data is actively misleading. And an article on a poll suggests that the poll is particularly meaningful or pertinent. This poll has no particular meaning with regard to fact as opposed to belief. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are hundreds of thousands of poll data out there and none of them deserves its own article. Find an external link that has this data and just put that into the "External Links" section of whatever page you choose to reference it from. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the creationism-evolutionism controversy article Cynical 12:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nunh-huh. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — there are very few polls that are in any way significant. More agitprop from the creationist agenda. — RJH 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed a data dump, not an encyclopedic article. -- Ec5618 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POINT. Stifle 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per so many reasons I cannot even count. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batman on Film

vanity, advertising Calm 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, advertising. LordViD 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as above. 23skidoo 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify - if it is really the longest running website of its kind, then it might be sufficiently notable. Note Alexa ranking of 130,000, which is a fair bit behind the 10,000 qualification. Its going to have to go with uniqueness to make it. But as it is a 1998 web site, it doesn't qualify for speedy for vanity. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and their 2,120 forum members [42] is a bit behind the 5,000 recommendation. I still think its worth checking out though. Should go through the 1 week process at a minimum. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very heavily leaning towards keep here, but am too tired to research it enough to say for sure. Would like some more investigation thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- flunks notability. Reyk 22:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as per the wonderful reasoning of the deletionists above. Croat Canuck 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zordrac. Stifle 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, or keep in any event. bainer (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incrementalism

Seems to be a neologism. Wcquidditch | Talk 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --Wcquidditch | Talk 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) After seeing some reaction, I have changed my vote. See below. Vote restored (for a different reason) per Haseler. --WCQuidditch ☎ contribs 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Changed again! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've certainly never heard of it. -^demon 20:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as common term in widespread use. [43]. I've heard of it. It is used in mathematics, computer programming and can even be used in philosophy. I guess someone will try to argue its a dic def, but I disagree whoeheartedly. Its a belief system, a way of doing things, and that makes it encyclopaedic. Here is an example of the philosophy of incrementalism [44]. Needs a bit of a rewrite though. Its rather over-simplified the whole concept. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. It is actually a word , often used as a synomyn to "creeping socialism," among others, but it is a dictionary word, not an encyclopedia article. Jtmichcock 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A good article could be made from this. At the moment, it is speediable. Would vote to keep if improved.Capitalistroadster 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been bold and added wikification and cleanup tags to the article. I now admit this can use an article, but it needs improving. Keep, but clean and wikify it (again, the templates are now on the article). (Anyone who reads this as a withdrawl can call it that, I won't, but I have no objections if it is treated as such.) --Wcquidditch | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wrote the article but have decided that it should be deleted - work in progress i.e. incrementalism doesn't seem to be part of the philosophy of Wiki - and on day 2 I'm pretty disallusioned with Wiki anyway! You may note that it was the US and UK (in wind energy) that couldn't understand the concept of incrementalism and whilst laughing at the clumsy Danish machines failed to develop any of own fantastic concepts to viability! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 16:35 December 10, 2005
  • All, right then, delete, but I still think this should have an article judging by what others have said. The article as it stands now can go, however. Is this a speedy delete candidate as a G7? --WCQuidditch ☎ contribs 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look up "incremantlism" it says "do you wish to edit", I think maybe it would be a good idea to have an entry, I see get a first line out, then ten bikers jump on me - out of the darkness! If you don't want people to contribute then why invite them to join you? You'd thought people would want to help develop good articles rather than abort them at birth ---- The point I'm making is that whether or not "incrementalism" is a worthwhile entry, if this is the way you treat newcomers, then I am horrified. I personally don't like putting myself up as a tin-can to be shot at - it may not seem like that to you - but it does to me - and I presume to 100s of other people who could make worthwhile contributions. I don't see any way to make progress so I'd have to agree to 'delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 December 2005
  • I don't know what that means? I was going to put my entry in context. I heard on radio4 today, about Wiki, I'd come across it quite a few times, but I think the comments on radio 4 that "every page ought to have a 'under construction'" badge gave me the impression that I might be able to in some contributions. One under "Bliar", I in retrospect was inappropriate - but I still hadn't a clue why someone kept wiping it! I would have thought that new articles would be categorised as "under construction" - then "for review" then finally "for publication". I've found it very difficult to find my way around this site - and the tutorials weren't much help (but I never read instruction manuals so its probably me). As for "incrementalism", it is years since I was last involved in this type of work & perhaps I'm taking on too much trying to put together an entry that will satisfy the critics! I REALLY DO MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROCEED - SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE WELCOME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2005
  • Keep, the article has undergone incremental improvement. Kappa 12:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a dicdef, not a neologism, but it could use some references so it won't look like original research. (And wait more than 6 minutes before afding a new article!) - Bobet 21:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per ^demon. Stifle 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no problems severe enough to justify deletion at the moment. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, keep. The only problems with it now are just to fix it up. I do not see any consensus developing, but that's okay. The article I nominated is not the current one. It can stay. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of evolution

This is a Wikipedia:POV fork of the evolution page written from the original research perspective of User:Ed_Poor. As such, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, User:Ed_Poor moved the article to a different namespace. This is very disrespectful of the Wikipedia community. --Joshuaschroeder 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved it back - pending resolution of this afd. Vsmith 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And now it is gone? Looks like Ed has created a new Wikipedia:WikiProject aspects of evolution hmm... and deleted the original Aspects of evolution? Most irregular I'd say. Vsmith 18:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this allowed? --Joshuaschroeder 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not the last of the self-appointed expert on WP:NPOV Ed's attempts to contravene WP:NPOV to promote pseudoscience. Dunc|☺ 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this was a good-faith effort (and not intentionally POV), but as a practical matter it is written from a specific point of view and is original research, and as such should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. More silliness by Ed Vsmith 02:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with regret, unless fixed. Although the nominator is correct, in theory I think this could be fixed if the author could supply good source citations to show that the distinctions he's making are not original. I think it is possible that one could tell almost the same story essentially in the form of linked quotations from recognized authorities. The current debate on evolution is my worst nightmare because it is characterized by dogma and lack of clear thinking and intellectual honesty on both sides. The evolution of animals does not necessarily mean they evolved in exactly the way Charles Darwin, or George Gaylord Simpson, or Stephen Jay Gould said they did, just as the existence of God does not necessarily mean that everything the Bible says about God is true. I guess what I'm saying is that I hate to vote delete on a very good, clear, reasonably neutral essay. In its present state though, it should be deleted for the reason the nominator gives. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An absolutely textbook case of content forking and it's shameful to see this editor still prone to them. Delete without merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV brainstorm. Gazpacho 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A Man In Black. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zakuski

It looks like it's just a (Russian) dicdef. JPD (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a dicdef combined with external link listing. — JIP | Talk 19:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks Cookbook project Delete, who am I kidding? Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hero xp

Jack Iron,Atomancer, Hero xp, and Feverov hero station are all tied to Sunslayer, a webcomic that does not appear to exist, at least as far as Google is concerned. Jasmol 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lack of Google presence does not signify non-existance RoryKillhorn
  • Delete all per nom.  Grue  16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomancer

Jack Iron,Atomancer, Hero xp, and Feverov hero station are all tied to Sunslayer, a webcomic that does not appear to exist, at least as far as Google is concerned. Jasmol 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom.  Grue  16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Iron

Jack Iron,Atomancer, Hero xp, and Feverov hero station are all tied to Sunslayer, a webcomic that does not appear to exist, at least as far as Google is concerned. Jasmol 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom.  Grue  16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunslayer

Jack Iron,Atomancer, Hero xp, and Feverov hero station are all tied to Sunslayer, a webcomic that does not appear to exist, at least as far as Google is concerned. Jasmol 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Jasmol 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The whole lot of them, in my opinion. -^demon 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.  Grue  16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was inconclusive and needs more substantial contributions since the professor is a Wikipedia project colaborator. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos E Nemer

Nn-bio; university professor with several degress.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abstain - Subject is probably notable for writing books on such diverse subjects... unfortunatly the article currently provides no details. Nevertheless one of the two authors has continued to improve the article since it was flagged. -Meegs 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, the authors have continued adding content to the article since I the nom for AfD, and at least seem genuinely interested in making it encyclopaedic. I'm still unconvinced that the subject is necessarily noteworthy, but I'm quite willing to give it some time to see. For the moment, my vote should be considered Abstain. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since it has been several days, and I've not seen any significant efforts to add any true assertions of notability, or even plain references to this man's existence. I find it odd that each [45] of [46] the [47] items [48] listed under the Biography section turn up no Google results. I'm also put off by the fact that Google searches for "Carlos Nemer", [49] and "Carlos E* Nemer", [50] do not give promising results. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the publication claims made in the article would certainly satisfy notability. However, I have not been able to verify any of the publications with search engines either. I don't understand much Portuguese, but I'm pretty sure this is a list of the faculty of the DEI department of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and this is a list of the DEIN faculty at the Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro. Carlos Nemer is not on either list. Despite overwhelming evidence, this just doesn't smell like a hoax. Nevertheless, I changed my vote above from keep to abstain, but I'm not strongly opposed to a delete any more. -Meegs 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYes, the article is improving, but currently no sources are sited and it includes references to Mr. Nemer's hobbies and interests, which are practically impossible to verify. Also, is the original author going to take ownership and continue maintaining the article? So my vote should also be Abstain.TheRingess 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus. There are only two votes other than "abstain" which I think is too few. Relisting. Please add comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although subject gets almost no Google hits and his short bibliography is incomplete: nearly all university professors publish papers of some sort, in his case they must not be in English. This absolutely does not fail to state share of authorship or distinguish type of publication. The subject's home country may have different academic standards from the United States and perhaps all his work was written in his mother tongue: Portuguese, however from my little knowledge of academia three baccalaureate degrees and two master's degrees is particularly impressive even in the absence of a doctoral degree. Durova 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Google hits there are Wikipedia and mirrors. No Google book results and the only reference in Google Scholar was a reference to a chap by the name of Carlos Nemer Vieria here [51]

Not verifiable. Capitalistroadster 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central Motorcycle Racing Association

I goofed and didn't realize it was Roadracing instead of Racing. There was already a page for Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association. My mistake completely. -wadems 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duplicate article of Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association. Redirect one to point to the other, whichever is the correct title. Could we get a speedy keep on this? Saberwyn - 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect in place. Closing AfD. FYI, you could have done the redirect yourself, Wadems, or tagged it for a speedy deletion under criteria G7 (original author requests deletion). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Buddhism. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism References and Links

I wanted to speedy delete this page, but to be on the safe side, I nominated it. This page was merged whith Buddhism, so it's no longer useful. CG 19:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merged page should not be deleted, it should be redirected. I am doing exactly that. - Mike Rosoft 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm sorry about reverting your edit, but I prefer that this page remains as it is before any consensus is made. Second, why do we need it redirected? it doesn't have any of the reasons for redirecting, and it isn't even an article. CG 09:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain contributor attribution as required by the GFDL, articles that merged into other articles are always converted to redirects. "Merge and delete" is not a valid course of action. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (anonymous votes ignored). mikka (t) 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TVrage.com

"Blatant spamvertisement" -- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Thank you, and only post if you have "good opinions"'.


  • Delete, per nom. Oh, and addition to their FAQ..."Why was I deleted from Wikipedia?" -^demon 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Upcoming site. The next tv.com....even better. don't delete and there is nothing wrong with it. If it sounds like it is advertising it, change it a bit, so i doesnt sound like it. If tv.com can stay at wiki, why cant tvrage. Amaas120 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. B.Wind 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a real site! Why would it be deleted?! TV.com and TV Tome are allowed to stay.
  • Keep: Delete? No. There are only two or three pages linking to the article - if that's considered "spamvertisement", this happens on a much larger scale to sites like tv.com. I do think it needs a cleanup/rewrite appelsap 4:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: There's nothing wrong with it. It deserves to be here with tv.com and tvtome. don't delete this off of here!
  • Comment Please consider voting on the article's merit as per established inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB, not because of its tone. If it reads like an advertisement, then either copyedit it or put {{advertisement}} tag and move on. That's it. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ Thank you. -- Perfecto 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The site generates no money, and therefore, cannot be considered a giant advertisement! It is an information site. The site's focus is on cataloging television shows from the birth of television to now. It's database is fast and growing. It is what many consider the best alternative to Tv.com's highly inaccurate guide. Tv.com I might add, is filled with flash ads. Tv.com is the site that should be deleted from wikipedia, for being one giant ad site with bad information. There is no reason for TVRage to be deleted. The only reason it's even up for consideration is because people from CNET probably complained until someone finally gave in and said yes.
  • Keep: There is nothing wrong with it.
  • Comment 170.20.11.116 did it again. This IP removed the AfD tag, and the article went without it for 30 hours. Your disrespectful behaviour is not welcome here. Please go away. You guys asked, "If tv.com can stay at wiki, why cant tvrage." Answer: TV.com has 726 Alexa rank, 89 million Google hits, and has mention in various reliable sources and over 500 wikipedia articles. TVrage? What's that? I ask: "Is the article a contribution? Will Wikipedia gain from an article from the site, or the other way around?" Answer this before saying "keep" again. -- Perfecto 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I say keep. I don't represent either site, I'm justa former editor for TvTome who is retired. To reply to the above, the only reason TV.com has the hits it gets is because for months, it was the ONLY television site on the net, coped with the fact that it started off with TvTome's share of frequent visitors. And if you were to break down those hits, most of them are from people who are clicking the old TvTome links. PLUS, it's membership system is linked to the rest of Cnet's sites, generating 1/3rd of it's usership by force alone. If that site were to have started cold, it would be low in numbers as well. Plus, TVrage is not the only small televison website you've allowed to remain here. Sites like EPGuides and TV IV get just as low of visitorship, and you keep them around. TVrage is in the exact same place TvTome was 3 years ago. In time, it will be competing with TV.com on a major level. As far as benefits go, in full honesty, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits from ANY of the info on its site. Nor do I see how TV.com's listing benefits you. I'd really like to see if you're getting 89 million hits through your listing of them here. You don't charge, there are little to no ads... this place is one giant reference library for the world. To deny information based on Google hits and how it benefits you in the longrun is just plain biast. If TVrage were a porno site, I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's a television library and archive that is growing twice as fast in info as TV.com is daily. Yeah, they have a large library to catch up on, but TV.com's submission process and constant problems isn't helping them stay on top either. Give it three months and watch the site grow. If it doesn't do anything for you, put it back up for deletion and see how that goes. If it keeps growing, leave it be. I really don't see what the problem here is. --GenuineMind--
  • Keep: We are not at tv rage to seek salvation nor are we their to mock tv.com, even though it should be... TV Rage is a user friendly site, and for wiki to just delete it off of this site, well it's just demeaning. -Batman Beyonder.
  • Keep: Why should this be deleted? It's a real site with real information!
  • Comment- When are you guys deciding to keep or deleting this, or are you waiting for more "Deletes". (Perfecto probably works at Tv.com)
  • Well, Epguides has no article here. TV IV barely survived deletion last month. (It had one major media coverage.) Your other points get no argument from me, though. But now that I've put time to examine the site for merit, I'll put my vote. Delete — fails WP:WEB: no national or international media attention; zero verifiable impact outside its user community; Alexa rank 1,560,223; "link:tvrage.com" give nn results; finally, article itself does not assert any notability. -- Perfecto 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The site is one month old and is establishing itself. How do you expect international attention when they've barely had time to establish national attention? But it does catalog international shows, which will bring in international appeal. Impact, again, needs time. And the article is notable from a legal standpoint. Tv.com announced they owned all the rights to information posted on its site. AND, that they would seek legal action against any further websites who tried to start up. In other words, they wanted to cover the market. However, the site is an information site and is posting OTHER people's copyrighted material. TVrage is the first site to defy them and point out that they have no legal ground to stand on. If they hadn't stood up for themselves and other sites existing, they'd be dead by now. Again, give them three months and let them grow. See where they stand after that time. --GenuineMind--
    Hi there! Wikipedia is not to be used to ESTABLISH notoriety, as your post seems to suggest. Please review WP:WEB to see why this website does not belong, at least, not yet. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- On the contrary, several articles on your site have been used to establish notoriety. Tv.com in itself is a perfect example. Only up for 6 months, popularity only driven by it's predicessor, and it's staying? Don't tell me that site came under review and stayed. Pretend Wikipedia was back in 1994, and Nirvana just ended. Would you have posted an artticle on the Foo Fighters 6 months after Cobain's death? I think not. I've reviewed the WP:WEB three times now. And every time a new argument is presented, I counter act it. Then a new set of them come up, as if you're reaching for straws hoping to find the right one. It just feels as if this page was singeled out for deletion, and nothing we say can prevent it. Despite the 3-1 ratio of "Keep" votes from people not working for Wikipedia. Despite the fact that you agreed with me on many of my points. And despite the fact that no matter what what we say, you're not giving the website a chance to grow for a while and come under review. I know someone brought this site to your attention and demanded it be deleted. Even I can't believe you would just happen to trip over it and decide this rock needs to go. It just feels a little too suspicious, especially after Tv.com's director declaired they were raging war on TVrage. --GenuineMind--
    Hi there! We love conspiracy theories here at Wikipedia, so if you could provide more details, we'd appreciate it! Your post suggests that you're not familiar with WP:TINC, I hope you find value! As a note, anonymous votes from users who have not created accounts or have few edits are usually disregarded, so the 3:1 ratio you mentioned isn't going to be as helpful as you think. I hope you can come out the other side of this matter intact and continue to contribute to Wikipedia! Your passion can be focused, and I look forward to seeing your future articles on subjects that meet notability requirements. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I really wish I could, but my heart lies with my real job and other projects I'm more passionate about. If you paid me, I'd join in a heartbeat, but I doubt you pay. And even if you did, at this point I'm really disheartened by this. I'm hard working and very accurate, but I can't put my energy behind a site that seems biast. I mean, why not examine every TV related site? In essence, aren't all of them using you as a promotion site to gain notoriety? Especially when TV.com is one giant ad, and has done nothing to help you back. I'm not accusing anyone of being bribed, more along the lines of someone being harrassed or persuaded by someone over there. Plus, you haven't really given an indication that the site would be allowed back, or given any options to them on how they can come back or stay. Further supporting the idea that this site was picked to be removed for good. It's just wrong. And if this is how your website is going to be, I don't see a point in supporting it or adding to it. And the real shame of that is, no one will see this poor example of management. This conversation will be deleted right along with it and no one will see why it was removed or how this conversation went. So not only will it be deleted, but there will be no record of why it was deleted, and how it went down. Again, it's just wrong. --GenuineMind--
  • Delete as spam. Pilatus 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why didn't you answer my last question? Amaas120 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know why this would be deleted. It exists therefore can be included in Wikipedia. As a member of both tv.com and tvrage.com , I can attest to the fact everything mentioned by the author of the Wikipedia entry is accurate.
  • Delete as spam. Khan44 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TV.com deserves the article, this doesn't. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Jacoplane 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I know this is impossible to ask, but could we get one single comment from someone who isn't involved with either of the feuding websites, and just give an honest opinion of the page and the site posted? And again, how does the site qualify as Spam? We make no money, we don't advertise, we don't sell products, no pop-ups, and no email scams. It's a media library, without the media.
  • Keep: TVRage is getting more and more known by the day and in time will surpass TV.com TV.com isn't a very valuable tool if you are looking for guides on TV series, but TVRage is. It isn't fair to keep TV.com and remove TVRage. If you want to remove Rage, they both should go.
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 22:50, 15 December 2005
  • Keep: TVRage is one of the most informative television sites around these days, and while the forum moderators are lenient, that doesn't mean they allow spam. They just have a better way of going about it by locking the spam threads, rather than deleting them and taking them into Area 51 like they never happened. Some, of course, are deleted if a spammer makes threads that cover the whole first page, but other than that, they confront spam, not ignore it. TV.com could learn from TVRage.

(UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dohertymark.co.uk

Appears to be a vanity entry for a personal website. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteI agree with the above assessment.TheRingess 20:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above and because "the creator, Mark Doherty, prefers a more down-to-earth website" (ie: too cheap to purchase 'real' webhost services and domains so uses his ISP's freespace). Eddie.willers 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Eddie.willers abakharev 06:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 08:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Sergio Mendez

  • Delete NN person, unless being 226 years old is notable. Chris the speller 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, {{db-bio}}, 226 years old isn't a claim of notability. --Interiot 21:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI would have speedied it, but thought that having his house on a tourist map might be taken as a claim of notability. But I'm with you 100%. Chris the speller 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, being 226 years certainly WOULD be notable. However, human beings do not live to 226, and if one did, it would be making worldwide headlines. wikipediatrix 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Article is factually incorrect. Even if we assume the date is supposed to be 1879 instead of 1779, it's still not likely to be true. This reeks of a hoax. Reyk 22:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism. Living to 226 would be notable because it would be 100 years older than anyone else., However, lack of verification of his existence leads me to believe this is a hoax. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - hoax. B.Wind 01:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hoax and nn-bio. Stifle 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Gandalf. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stormcrow

Very brief article on a subject already covered in Gandalf, not likely to be expanded. Suggest merge and redirect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per nominator. However, it doesn't need to come here. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not, but I thought I should bring it here anyway on the off-chance someone wanted to dump it altogether, which was my first impulse when I noticed it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nominator. Do be bold when you want to do this. Stifle 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be, but as I said my first impulse was that it should be deleted. I actually changed my mind as I was entering the nom. I suppose I could just withdraw it and to the merge. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged and redirected. Closing AfD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Viral Syndicate

  • Delete - doesn't seem to exist. Found while looking at same IPs other edits (vandalism) -Tεxτurε 20:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bandcruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another nn band. Stifle 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greattastic

"This is a very poorly written article that cites no references or sources and has only one link, to the website it purports to describe. The original author has not edited it since it was created. He/She made no attempt to show why it was worthy of an encyclopedia entry.DeleteTheRingess 20:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and for non-notability. Eddie.willers 22:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons Roar structure deck, Starter Deck Pegasus, Starter Deck Yugi

Looks like poorly written Yu-Gi-Cruft. Delete — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keep an eye out for removal of the {{afd}} notice by the article's author [52]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remove the NNPOV bit about it being the "worst" of the decks, and I see no reason why it isn't notable. Stupid, yes, but notable nonetheless. wikipediatrix 21:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How does a list of cards, out of context, fit? On top of that, this information would be available elsewhere, in more appropriate forums (like, say, ude's website..?) D.valued 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft. Cruft. Cruft. Reyk 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meaningless to newcomers. --Apostrophe 06:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per D.valued. Stifle 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing but a useless list of cards. 132.162.213.109 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopædic fancruft. On a fan site, maybe, but not on Wikipædia
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (only 4 delete, 4 redirect, 1 non-vote). Be bold and merge/redirect if you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:10, Dec. 17, 2005

Google war

dictionary definition Oberwolfach 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It makes no coherent sense. wikipediatrix 21:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Googlefight. Nezbie 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above and how does this make no sense. If you can read English than this should make sense. It is also a common event in message forums etc.Lazylizards8 23:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial or nonencyclopedic. Googlefight doesn't hold up much better as it appears to be an ad. B.Wind 01:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it don't make sense. Whatever happened to taking it outside and duking it out? Croat Canuck 02:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectHow does this not make since. It is a contest in which two people google a name or idea they stand for. Lazylizards8 04:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's all try and remain civil, no personal attacks. Comment: I remember seeing Googlefight being mentioned in Wired News and on the Bbc website some time ago. There's also Googlefight eggdrop tcl scripts freely available. Completely inane, but this used to be somewhat popular in some chat rooms. Nezbie 08:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Googlefight. -Sean Curtin 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sean Curtin. Stifle 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 14:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Maria Rain

Non-notable biography File Éireann 20:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking at her blog, it does not appear to have many visitors. So I assume she is probably not well known. le petit vagabond 21:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 14:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ILUIANHW

neologism Oberwolfach 20:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; probable joke. B.Wind 01:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per B.Wind. Stifle 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To know

dictionary entry. (possibly also copyrighted) Oberwolfach 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - copyvio. B.Wind 02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - encyclo it is not. Croat Canuck 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef and possible copyvio. Stifle 00:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (6 keep, 4 delete, 1 non-vote), defaulting to keep. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:13, Dec. 17, 2005

Lithium Technologies

"This is a very poorly written stub. The original author used a lot of passive voice, and therefore cited no sources. The only links were to the different pages on the commercial website (I went ahead and deleted those). None of the other editors have attempted to cite any sources or rework the passive voice comments. It seems to me that no one is really interested in expanding and/or improving this stub, so why keep it? DeleteTheRingess 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It isn't a great article, but it's adequate enough for now. Boring, but notable nonetheless. wikipediatrix 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how this article meets WP:CORP in any way. I'm happy to change my vote if it does. Agnte 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it is poorly written. But if we were to delete all articles not generating sufficient interest, we would end up with a pretty bare bones encyclopedia. Nezbie 22:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't accept that as an argument for keeping the article. Quantity does not equal quality in an encyclopedia.TheRingess 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but a search seems to indicate that this clears the notability threshold. Adhering strictly to immediatism and deleting all poorly maintained articles will stifle Wikipedia's growth and eventual quality. Obviously, a rewrite is in order. Nezbie 07:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- does not, in my opinion, meet WP:CORP. Doesn't even come close. Reyk 22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 55,900 hits for Lithium Technologies. Two Google news hits show compliance with WP:CORP see [53]. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are incidental mentions, comes under 'trivial coverage' in WP:CORP. The google hits mostly have nothing to do with the company [54] the top google hits are the wikipedia entry and its clones. Agnte 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the one report that Google News throws up when I try the search is about a battery manufacturer, not a company providing tech support. Pilatus 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster, even incidental mentions like those show that people would want to research the term. Kappa 12:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reyk. Stifle 00:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing that can't be improved. -- JJay 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. Pilatus 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cleaned it up a bit and deleted the worst parts. It's not a great article, especially as far as verifiability is concerned, but it can be difficult to find verifiable information about small private companies. Phsoffer
  • Keep. This is not article is not about to go to press, it doesn't need to be perfect right now. Look at it this way, it is better for someone to edit and improve an article than not having it at all. Unless the information is factually incorrect, I think everyone will like to have some information than none at all. Grow out of your green dress, and support people who right articles instead of shooting them down.


Nonsense in the article

Here's a sentence that should not be in any encyclopedia anywhere:

It is not known how much their products cost, but their products are only available to companies. The price range for a basic forum is said to be anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000, with 1,000 pages views being said to range anywhere from $1000 to $2000.

The first part "It is not known how much their products cost..." is nonsensical and false. The customers know how much they spend. The sales force in the company knows how much they sell.

Following that with "but their products are only available to companies." is just amazingly bad grammar. Perhaps the author meant to say, "The forums aren't available to the general public, and according to "So and So, a representative of the company, the forums may cost a company between x and y dollars", or something like that.

Perhaps the original author could have sent an email to the company, stating that they were doing research for an article on Wikipedia and wished to know a basic price range. I'm sure that someone in the company could have given them some information, but maybe that counts as original research.

Then they continue the nonsense with "price range for a basic forum is said to be...", who said it, and if someone said it, why aren't they mentioned and the source provided?

And the next "...with 1000 page views being said...", which begs the question who said it? And is it1000 page views per day, per month, per hour? I argue that these two sentences do not belong, as they are written, in any Encyclopedia anywhere. And no editor has felt compelled to either delete them or rewrite them (and I'm not volunteering, except to delete them). Take those two sentences away and you're left with nothing. Plus, it's just my personal opinion, the number of google hits a phrase gets is a terrible metric for determining whether or not an article belongs. Simply because, more and more, Wikipedia is used as a source for a hit. So why not delete, and if someone is so bothered by that, let them recreate it and write a better article. TheRingess 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedy delete' as CSD:G1. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Hej Hej

Is this relevant to Wikipedia? And is it just a hoax? le petit vagabond 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G.I.S.T

Looks like a non-notable acting troupe. Four of the nine search results given by +Wordsley +theatre +"G.I.S.T." appear relevant. Using fewer search terms yields all irrelevant results, as the periods and capitalization are ignored. I say delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This group forms part of a community of performing arts groups in the Wordsley area of the West Midlands. This area has a thriving artistic community as part of its defining features. This group is locally important and worthy of inclusion in the context of the character of its local area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackjo (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as a bunch of non-notable luvvies. There are relevant Google hits that point to a series of local newspaper articles, but the facts are that this group is just three strong and is the remnant of another amdracsoc. Unless there are compelling reasons wrt wiki standards, they should be consigned to the prop store. Eddie.willers 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless anyone can supply evidence of true encyclopedic relevance. -R. fiend 06:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the above comments:I think the individuals above are expressing non-rational reasons with a fair degree of emotional opinion for deleting this page. I hardly think "a bunch of non-notable luvvies" is a considered and reasonable reason to remove an item from the site. Including jokes within the comment (e.g. "consigned to the prop store") shows a lack of reasonable and considered argument. If these comments were more considered I would be more inclined to take on board their criticisms and possibly remove the text myself. But in light of the nature of the comments posted, I am both offended by their ignorance and blatant predjudice and also rather dismayed that this supposedly "open" resource is seemingly rather less open than perhaps it would seem. Incidentally, I also contributed an article about David Tristram, the playwright. Do you want to delete that too?? --Hackjo 09:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per R. fiend. Not a notable group. Stifle 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C3IT Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

obvious advert, even uses 1st person WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block-master

Leaning towards unverifiable on this one. I can't really find evidence that the game described in the article exists. It also talks about a "website in the early eighties" which would of course be impossible. Gives no real context to help us out. Games called Block-Master do exist (a tetris clone, for example) but none that seem to correspond with this one. --W.marsh 21:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax. World Wide Web did not exist in the early 1980s. Jtmichcock 22:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jtmichcock. Stifle 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- JJay 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Capovilla

  • Is this info that she is alive at this age known not just a rumor?? Please delete if no one can show it is not just a rumor. Georgia guy 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's legit: click here. wikipediatrix 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A low blow, especially when I noted that I was just starting the page today!

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2005-12-09T141009Z_01_SPI951002_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-OLDEST.XML

Ecuadorean woman, 116, is world's oldest person Fri Dec 9, 2005 2:10 PM GMT Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Tim Castle

LONDON (Reuters) - A 116-year-old Ecuadorean woman was declared the oldest person in the world on Friday, lifting the title from a U.S. woman previously thought to be the oldest person alive, Guinness World Records said.

Maria Esther Capovilla was confirmed as the oldest living person after her family sent details of her birth and marriage certificates to Guinness World Records.

"We only told her yesterday she was the new Guinness world record holder," Kate White, brand manager at the records publisher told Reuters. "We hadn't heard of her before."

"She's in very good health, she's got good sight, is able to read the papers and watch television, and doesn't walk with a stick," White added.

Capovilla was born in Guayaqull in western Ecuador on September 14, 1889, and lives there today with her daughter-in-law and son.

She had five children, and has four grandchildren, nine great-grandchildren and two great-great-grandchildren.

Her husband died in 1949.

White said Capovilla had been asked what she thought about the changes she had seen over her life.

"She said she disliked the fact that presently it's acceptable for women to pursue men. And she said that every day she thanks God that she's alive," White said.

As a girl at the turn of the century one of Capovilla's favourite pastimes was going to parties, where she never drank alcohol.

At the time it was the custom for women just to touch the rim of the glass with their lips without drinking, as a sign of accepting hospitality, her family told Guinness World Records.

Elizabeth Bolden, from Memphis, Tennessee, born August 15, 1890, had previously been regarded as the oldest living person.

Edith "Judy" Ingamell, 111 years old, from Enfield north of London, became the oldest woman in Britain after the death on Wednesday of the previous title holder Lucy d'Abreu, Guinness World Records said.

D'Abreu, who lived to 113, attributed her longevity to a daily dose of brandy and dry ginger ale.

Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, from Puerto Rico, born August 21, 1891, is the world's oldest living man, aged 114, says Guinness World Records.

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 22:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocky

Lengthy article about some "online comic made with the Half-Life 2 engine". The only people apparently interested in writing the article haven't touched it in 5+ months, and in that time, the site hosting the comic, as well as the apparent fansite and archive, seem to have shut down permanently. I can't find anywhere else where this thing is hosted. So basically, this is an abandoned article about an abandoned webcomic. W.marsh 21:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, random webcomic. Stifle 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is being re-listed to elicit further discussion. Mindmatrix 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaskipper

It is an advertisement, probably for something non-notable, and won't be a real article until the product becomes notable. Bart133 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as blatant spam. Jtmichcock 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete by Claude E. Rorabaugh, Director of Marketing says it all.
    • PS don't forget Image:AquaSkipper1.jpg (Summary: World's Only East-To-Use Human-Powered Hydrofoil Watercraft Launches Into The Market Source: Inventist website: http://www.inventist.com/ Author: (myself) Claude E. Rorabaugh, Director of Marketing for Inventist, a part of CID, Inc. WORLD’S O) Dlyons493 Talk 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not advertising. --bainer (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (4-1) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:16, Dec. 17, 2005

Shariah Finance

clearly advertising WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as blatant spam. Jtmichcock 22:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spam" is not a speedy delete reason. However, delete without undue delay. i have munged the addresses to help foil the linkspam meanwhile. DES (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DES. Stifle 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam --Jaranda wat's sup 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infotechment

Neologism and podcruft, possibly vanity self-promotion too. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Eddie.willers 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism. Stifle 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Legitimate claim. drdrew 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texpat

non-notable, uncited neologism WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictdef of neologism. Would need citations of significant use, and expansion to be more than a dictdef, to remain. DES (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- JJay 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.

doesn't meet WP:NMG WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notableBill 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no album yet, nn. B.Wind 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, I may add some excerpts to BJAODN as suggested. RobertG ♬ talk 14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Cow

Article is about a character from "multiple unpublished short stories from 2000-2004" that "found little acclaim. The author even tried to make a couple websites to gain attention to his stories, but attention was minimal". It goes on, but do I really need to say more? W.marsh 21:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected to Theodore von Hippel. There may be an argument for moving that article to the German spelling (Theodor) but this should be notified on WP:RM and discussed on the talk page Talk:Theodore von Hippel. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor von Hippel

I cannot find any evidence to support the existence of this person, who is supposed to be a World War II-era German military leader. There seems to be someone with his name who lived in the 1700s, but that's all I can discern. The page is currently a one-line orphan. Merovingian 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Merovingian 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incorrect spelling. Information exists at Theodore von Hippel. Eddie.willers 22:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German spelling of the name is "Theodor". Also note that de.wikipedia has an entry on , the 18th century author. Pilatus 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirected as either an alternate spelling (or possibly a plausible misspelling). - Mike Rosoft 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This IS of course the correct German spelling. Content from Theodore von Hippel should be moved to this page. Martg76 20:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's listed on Requested Moves. Note to the closing admin - could he move the page, please! Pilatus 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arteology

Non-notable. Delete. Arteology came to my attention due it being erroneously categorised inCategory:Archaeological sub-disciplines; it is not an archaeological sub-discipline. A Google for "archaeology arteology" produces 128 hits, almost all of which are versions of this page.

A Google forarteology alone returns 670-odd hits from a few design, art and architecture firms using the word as a trademark and this page which appears to be the source of the article text and is one, apparently anonymous individual's research page. although there is a field of artefact studies I do not feel that anything on this page usefully describes that discipline or it reads like an encyclopaedia article. I also am becoming tired of de-categorising it every few days. adamsan 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (4 delete and redirect "per nom" and 3 keep), defaulting to keep. Be bold and merge/redirect if you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:22, Dec. 17, 2005

Drew Pickles

Minor character in Rugrats. There's not a lot that can be said about him that couldn't be said in the Rugrats article. Delete and redirect to Rugrats. Billpg 22:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep out of the main rugrats article. Drew Pickles is an important character and deserves his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.19.72.207 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per nom. B.Wind 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep out of the main rugrats article. Kappa 12:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could I ask for some clarification of your reasoning please? Your comment appears to be more to do with the content of the Rugrats article. Or maybe I'm just thick. --Billpg 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a recurring character in a popular fictional universe. It is of interest to large numbers of fans of the show, so it should be included in wikipedia, but it is not of interest to general readers, so it should not be in the main Rugrats article. It should be in a separate of article of its own, or failing that merged into a List of minor Rugrats characters or similar. Kappa 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Stifle 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. -- JJay 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Eusebeus 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton's Army

Wikipedia is not a slang guide Bill 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete somebody's inside joke. CDC (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiphop slang is still slang. Delete. B.Wind 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang. Stifle 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- JJay 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most Popular Song of the 2000s

Hopelessly POV article that presumes to summarize a half-elapsed decade, 5% of a century, or... nevermind. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and recreate in 95 years. Punkmorten 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: or 5 years, or 995 years, the ambiguity of which I alluded to above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- ugh. Reyk 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ill informed article. le petit vagabond 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV crap. It doesn't even have Hey Ya by Outkast! That was the most annoying song ever 2 years ago and everybody was singing it. Just for that I have no faith in this article. Croat Canuck 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Climeco

advertisement, link cruft, nn per WP:CORP WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as spam. Jtmichcock 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Where is spam a speedy? -- JJay 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.W. Long

doesn't meet WP:NMG WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per Quarterstick recordings. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 00:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn bandcruft. Stifle 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 22:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semit In L

Completing nomination from User:165.189.91.148. Punkmorten 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- nn, six words do not an article make. B.Wind 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: band cruft. Hu 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Stifle 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabemo

WP is not a dictionary, and it dosen't seem to be a notable or well used term.-- Ian13 22:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonnotable neologism CDC (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary or delete if they won't take it. Stifle 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill helmich

Subject asserts marginal notability. "Bill Helmich" gives 229 hits, which seem to pertain to a firm in Sandia Park, New Mexico. +"Bill Helmich" +Yugoslavian yields nothing. Hoax? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete the page asserts that this person broke the two minute mile. That would suffice for world-wide fame. All google results on a search of "two minute mile" refer to horses, not humans. Pretty obvious hoax, at least that aspect. DES (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax CDC (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete noting another example of Geogre's Law. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. This is not a topic of VfD; just be bold next time. mikka (t) 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zorba the Hutt

no useful conent, not encyclopedic enough for a seperate article. Was tagged for speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. Howver, Delete. DES (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Short fancruft. --Apostrophe 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge somewhere. -- JJay 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Square One (song)

Contains no information. The song does not appear to be particularly notable (by Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep good song and well worth a article. or song stub.Maoririder 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article so that it adds the Tom Petty song nominated for a Best Song from a Motion Picture in the 2006 Grammy Awards. However, it might be decided to merge the information on both songs into the respective articles for Elizabethtown and X&Y respectively. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Roadster..... B.Wind 02:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the article has been expanded, the song's notability is can be more clearly seen, so keep or merge (nomination withdrawn). - Mike Rosoft 09:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, award-winning songs are more notable than albums. Kappa 12:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, while I'm not in favour of articles on single songs, I am not Wikipedia. Stifle 00:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SolidSnakeGameShrine Fourm Story

Collaborative stories are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider — Wikicities is. Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You beat me to it! I added {{subst:AfD}}, and wouldn't ya know, edit-conflict. Oh, yeah... what he said. You're always enouraged to add wiki software to the forum, much like Garry's Mod, and colaborate to your hearts' content. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 22:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Croat Canuck 02:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- JJay 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo blues

I'm afraid that Indigo Blues doesn't pass the guidelines in WP:MUSIC. Pilatus 22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - first paragraph mentions lack of notability. B.Wind 02:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per B.Wind. Stifle 00:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Author requests deletion. maxman280 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- JJay 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American abolitionists

Surely a list of African-American abolitionists is functionally identical to a list of African-Americans alive at the time? A list of African-Americans not supporting abolitionism would be interesting, but I genuinely cannot see the point of this list. Am I missing something? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless one can prove all the others were far enough north not to care. Completely illogical list. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This is equal to having a List of Buffalo Bills fans who are Buffalo Bills fans.Gateman1997 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a list of abolitionists who were active in the anti-slavery movement and is a useful list. Could do with a cleanup but notable. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. African-Americans actually active in the Abolitionist movement are definitely notable due to the conditions of the time. -- JLaTondre 02:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important historical list. -- JJay 03:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add an introductory paragraph to state the qualifications for inclusion on this list. The criticism that nominated this page for deletion is a valid one. However, just as personal opposition to a war does not necessarily make an individual a leader of an antiwar movement, personal opposition to slavery does not necessarily make someone a notable abolitionist. Durova 05:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: what Durova said. There's a difference between sentiment and action. -Sean Curtin 07:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why single out black abolitionists, though? I'd support a list of prominent abolitionists, and maybe even a note as to which of those were white or black, but as stated I cannot imagine any black person being anything other than an abolitionist. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is complicated, but you can not make the statement that all blacks were abolitionists (there are many examples). Nevertheless, this list is historically important- See [55] or [56]. -- JJay 22:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of GameFAQs user levels

I really don't believe that such details belong to an encyclopedia. Delete. Should enough people oppose deletion, then merge to GameFAQs message boards, but definitely should not exist as a separate article. - Mike Rosoft 23:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted half an hour ago, although no one closed this debate (I don't know how...) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it isn't a direct copy from http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/entry.html?cat=18 and has been improved upon to reflect recent changes, it still doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete. --Spring Rubber 23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please don't merge it back - I split it out as an attempted compromise because it was horribly out of place in the said article, and I will shed no tears at its unencyclopedic disappearance. FCYTravis 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aygbbn

Apparent hoax [57], possibly created by random strokes on the keyboard. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just misses the coveted zero Google hits. By one. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think the one Google hit given is relevant, though I did not load it, as it was 8 megabytes large and is apparently of type "application/octet-stream" — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 01:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes sense... how would someone know if it was correct or not... i think it should stay, because anyone can write an article and it is just as good as other computer articles..

  • Delete per nomination. -- JJay 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (9 delete, 4 keep, 69%). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:12, Dec. 17, 2005

List of anti-Semites

I've thought long and hard about this. There are, for me, at least four fundamental problems with this list. First, the historical context of anti-semitism changed fundamentally after 1945, and it is not possible to compare pre-war and post-war anti-semitism. Second, the degree of anti-semitism expressed is subjective. Some have been removed as not provably anti-semitic, but that leaves everyone else who has ever made a disparaging comment about the Jewish people lumped to gether with Hitler in a sort of listcruft-meets-Godwin. Third, this is precisely the kind of thing categories are for. Editors on an article will notice and revert an inappropriate category; they may well not see addition to a list. Fourth, it seems to me arbitrary to pick anti-semitism. Many of those listed were equal-opportunities bigots, equally vile in their attitude to black people, ethnic Slavs or whatever. So I think this is a flawed concept, not least becaiuse I fail to see how this might have any positive purpose in the context of an encyclopaedia. Other than pursuing a witch hunt, what reason could there be for this list? Surely a few well-chosen articles are quite sufficient to demonstrate the phenomenon of anti-semitism. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some of the same points were raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of White supremacists - the two articles had many names in common, and I note that the names Voltaire and Hitler came up in discussion in both cases. So those voting may find that debate relevant. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Responding to the criticism above: The context of anti-semitism has changed, but so has the concept of sexuality, nationality, and race but we have lists of famous gays, Belgians (including those who lived before Belgium was a nation), etc., etc. The degree does not seem to matter in any other list (we don't ask how 'gay' was someone to be listed, or how 'Belgian'). This is an interesting category in that anti-Semitism has been a force that transcends time, place, and other boundaries that bring a really interesting mix of names to the list...like the list of left handed people would do...And yes, some on the list would fit into many other categories but that is not the issue: we don't delete famous left handed gay Belgians from 2 lists and arbitrarily leave them on one that we choose? Carlossuarez46 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Slur-fest. It is impossible to list people as anti-Semites without associating them with Hitler. Coverage of this subject needs a lot of context. A list is hopelessly inappropriate. Choalbaton 00:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an easy vote but a firm one. Some subjects just aren't suitable for list format and this is one of them. An article tracing the history of antisemitism would be useful. A category could be appropriate. I find it irresponsible - bordering on disturbing - to see Bobby Fischer classed alongside Adolf Hitler. Durova 00:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LOL to the above. Antidote 03:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information isn't relevant enough. List of Anti-Semetic authors, or List of Anti-Semetic works is something that could provide a jumping off point into content that would allow for the development of an understanding of something specific by an interested reader. But, just a list of anti-semites doesn't have any significant information or benefit that I can see. It's too general and vague. V. Alex Brennen 03:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 03:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some of these are pretty indisputable, there is no way to ever fully avoid POV on this page. David Irving and Jean-Marie Le Pen, both on the list, would (and probably have) denied charges of anti-Semitism. Richard Nixon is a dubious inclusion; he made some very nasty statements about Jews while on tape, but can someone for whom Henry Kissinger, Ben Stein, and other Jews were proud to work for really be an anti-Semite? The total lack of citation is also troubling and will probably never be fixed, leaving readers to wonder why Voltaire or Ludwig Wittgenstein are on the list. Andrew Levine 07:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how proper context and citation can be added to (and maintained) this article while it is in list form. If necessary, each of the individuals whose article already details real or alleged anti-semetism could be added to some new category. -Meegs 07:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of what use is a list that lumps together Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire and racist, genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler? As pointed out above, this is completely POV, and unmaintainable. It's like making a List of people who have been arrested and then including serial killers alongside public figures who were busted for drugs or some other petty offense. Firebug 08:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reorganize into historical eras in order to address some of the concerns mentioned above. — RJH 17:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid topic. Quotes should be added for posterity.  Grue  17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But anti-semitism doesn't have a list of anti-semites, so a separate list is necessary.  Grue  07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of random lists. Stifle 00:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless you plan to dig up quotes for every single person on the list. Otherwise it just approaches libel. —Slicing (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to project namespace as per Uncle G. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles with Pascal programs

self-referential listcruft. Only three items, no loss to humanity (and I even like Pascal) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Udupi. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temples in udipi

Useless list. Contains nothing but red links, almost all in capital leters. Appears to have been copy-and-pasted from this site (though I don't think that a list like that can be copyrighted). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Udupi. The user who posted it has a definite history of copyvio from that particular site, but as you said, a list can't be copyrighted. --Pamri • Talk 07:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Additionally, the authors made no attempt to address the issues raised in this AfD. Mindmatrix 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cadaver Society

"Secret society", so probably unverifiable, and probably a non-notable small group of college kids anyway. CDC (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - without verifiable information does not merit its own article. (Note it is listed in the Wikipedia article, Secret society. ERcheck 01:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Without verifiable information, does not merit any mention in Wikipedia whatsoever. Will change vote if good verifiable sources are cited prior to end of AfD period. I don't see it in Secret society, by the way, and a good thing, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (redirecting does not make sense anymore now that the article is deleted). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Things We Say (album)

Non-notable EP from a non-notable band. Stifle 23:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect back to Bellaparker. This page doesn't say anything that isn't already on the Bellaparker page. — RJH 17:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed66.25.163.74 00:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreedprophet d 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the artist isn't notable, then so isn't an album released by this very same artist. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_9&oldid=1081092031"