Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 21

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Rescue Raiders, no further action required per nom. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rescue raiders

i created a better version of this page with the proper caps: Rescue Raiders

this should just be considered a test page, i guess. MrBallistic 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• (Fixing AfD formatting.) Redirect to Rescue Raiders. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do Nothing Already redirected. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, 21 December 2005 (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 keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Head Control System

Fails WP:MUSIC. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete First full-length album due to be released in 2006. Currently non-notable. But—good luck to them. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC). Keep per anon and MisterHand. Dude won a Norwegian Grammy—a Spellemannprisen (Sorry, no English article). D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC and violates WP:NOT a crystal ball.Gateman1997 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per D-Rock. -- JJay 00:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per comments below. Norwegians rock. -- JJay 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Josh Parris#: 01:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom....sigh. «LordViD» 10:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note As you can see here http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=42191 Kristoffer Rygg did win a grammy and is a notable artist. Both musicians involved have more than two active releases in the market. But if it goes against your policy, go ahead and delete it. It will eventually come back when the album is released. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.132.46.104 (talk • contribs)
• Weak Keep, one of the founders is a grammy winner. If, say, Sting started a new band we wouldn't delete the article even if it appeared before they'd released anything. -- MisterHand 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Guys won a grammy.Jcuk 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep WP:Music is a POV notability standard which is not policy. Cynical 22:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I can see they meet WP:NMG as a band containing notable musicians. Capitalistroadster 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Cynical. --Aleron235 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to grammy and other comments. QQ 14:27, 22 December 2005 (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 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jared king

All the relevant info is on the first paragraph, the rest is a cut and pasted story. I don't know if this qualifies for a speedy nn-bio, but the contest mentioned in the article has very little web presence (82 google hits for "Future Writers of America"), and I can't find any verification of a Jared King that wrote anything. Delete. - Bobet 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not a notable individual, and violates WP:NOT.Gateman1997 00:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. -- JJay 00:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Josh Parris#: 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Speedy if the story is considered a copyvio (which it likely is). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable writer; I have also removed the short story per WP:NOT and as a copyvio. Per the Berne Convention, his works are copyrighted, and his publishers most likely have retained copyright as well. Only he or his publishers may post this story (which is not on Google either.) — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Posting a short story to an encyclopedia isn't a good idea, whether you own the copyright or not. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nn-bio -- MisterHand 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Jcuk 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Cookiecaper 18:47, 21 December 2005 (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 KEEP. I personally know a little about hacker folklore, and I have heard of Schroedinbugs or Schrödinbugs. — JIP | Talk 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schroedinbug

There's no evidence that it actually exists and wasn't just made up by someone. Kuciwalker 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change to Keep per Zetawoof. -- JJay 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Josh Parris#: 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Ifnord 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, made up. Pavel Vozenilek 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• If it was made up by someone, it was made up before 1995, since that's the date of the FOLDOC entry for this concept. However, I haven't yet found any sources that aren't FOLDOC or Jargon File mirrors. Uncle G 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though the definition originally in FOLDOC is indeed in jest, and describes a circumstance which cannot actually exist, the term is in common industry use as it shorthands an underlying truth to the nature of programming, and I've edited the article to (hopefully) more fully elucidate the use of the term, added a general example of usage, and provided an external link with a more concrete, real life example 146.115.56.101 08:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: it may be a neologism, but it's a rather well-established neologism (18,500 google hits!). --Zetawoof 09:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Now try eliminating all of the Wikipedia, FOLDOC, and Jargon File mirrors. You'll find very little left. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of IT terms, serious or jokey, are neologisms, 'cos IT is a new industry. This one is well known enough to keep. I think the people voting to delete may not be proper nerds. (no offense meant). --Squiddy 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Or they may be applying our Wikipedia:No original research policy and looking for more than just the one single source for this concept. Uncle G 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But you have to consider, Uncle G, that the word is taxonimic, though admittedly "shop talk". The related taxonomy, heisenbug, isn't up for deletion, arguably because heisenbugs are much more frequent, and (as some online usage reflects) people sometimes miscategorize schroedinbugs as heisenbugs. The word still labels a legit concept whose explanation requires encyclopedic depth. Alternative spellings "schrodinbug" and "shroedinbug" also get a dozen hits each (with the arguably more proper "schrödinbug" also in contention), suggesting this is more a concept which gets thrown over the cubicle wall, not simply discovered from FOLDOC, even if its intepretation should remain for our purposes a primary source. Of course, what FOLDOC describes is much more like a unicorn (a very rarified taxonomy), though, to paraphrase Tom Stoppard, everyone who knows what's really being talked about here is a horse with an arrow through its head. 146.115.56.101 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Established and widely used term. Delete, per Uncle G. «LordViD» 10:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. Click on that link and notice from page 10 onwards it's a collection of URLs, without pages of content. Ifnord 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, well, what about the previous 9 pages? «LordViD» 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok. That's 90 references. Is that notable? Ifnord 15:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, it isn't 90 references. Notice that (apart from the people using this word as their pseudonym) they are pretty much all copies of the same single article. Uncle G 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • After doing some research, I found this to be true. I'm changing my vote. «LordViD» 19:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
            • See note above regarding alternative spellings. Only a fair consideration for a word derived from an Austrian proper name 146.115.56.101 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, fairly widely known among programmers. -- MisterHand 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then where is it discussed outside of Wikipedia, FOLDOC, and the Jargon File? Uncle G 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Errr...I'm a programmer and I've never heard of it until now. Nor Bohr bug, Heisenbug, or Mandelbug. No vote. You can call me Al 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think this is more than just "made up", yet as a programmer myself, I must say I've never previously heard of it before. That said, I think it's clever, and I may consider using it in the future. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Cyde. I haven't heard the word, but certainly know the phenomenon. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Now voting Keep based on source provided (reference on an MSDN Blog). Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep searching for "schrödinbug" on google appears to turn up different pages. AKAF 13:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Smerge into Edge case and Redirect because a Schroedinbug is really a kind of edge case that affects everyone on a multiple-user system. Alksub 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. An edge case has a known cause: "an extreme (maximum or minimum) operating parameter." The cause of a Schrödinbug is, like Schrödinger's cat, the result of a collapsing quantum vibration into a known, broken state. Kendrick7 08:37, 24 December 2005 (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 speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Americas Funniest Home Videos/Opening Credits (sic)

Detailed descriptions of the various opening sequences of the television series America's Funniest Home Videos. Of interest to no one but intensely obsessive fans of the show. tregoweth 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Could be useful for future scholars of the show and American culture. -- JJay 00:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with America's Funniest Home Videos, for those interested in that kind of minutiae --Thephotoman 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Neither the show nor the credit sequences in question really justify a separate article on the subject. 23skidoo 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia users should be able to read about the opening credits if they choose, and also able to avoid them (so don't merge). Rename as appropriate. Kappa 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep under corrected title, America's Funniest Home Videos. --The Famous Movie Director 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then let editors hack it down on the main article. exolon 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure fancruft. --Apostrophe 04:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it needs a rename. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Should be a link from America's Funnies Home Videos tagged Trivia - Videos /Opening Credits

These types of articles should not be merged and cause concise articles to be obliterated. Let them have their own page with a link from the title "Trivia" and the hyphen explaining what type. 68.194.42.219 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)TikiWike

• Comment. I believe this was up for AFD not too long ago, perhaps under another name(?) •DanMS 04:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You would be looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos. The result was Delete, and should be again. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 11:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful and merging would only cause clutter. Non-notable. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just when I thought I've seen it all... Wikipedia continues to redefine obsessive-compulsive for me every day. Flyboy Will 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it was up before (and probably deleted before) or it would've been merged or linked. I can't find any reference to the old article. If it was deleted, this can be as well for being a near identical copy. This is exactly the kind of thing one should not try to describe in words. That's why you have videos. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. I could swear this was on AfD recently under a different name. -- Kjkolb 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Proto. -- Kjkolb 12:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos. Proto t c 11:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless and unencyclopedic. - squibix 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)``
• Weak Keep and expand/cleanup. -- MisterHand 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Wiki's not paper so what does it matter if an article is consise? Jcuk 18:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Week Keep or Merge. I don't think this is non-notable, so it can't be deleted on that basis. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The other similar page was deleted so why should this be an exception.Deathawk 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4. Have tagged as such. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 21 December 2005 (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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Rivers Pitt

• Delete. Violation of Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion of biographies. See: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive. 0nslaught 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author. What is the problem here exactly? -- JJay 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has written three books so notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable enough author according to the deletion policy. E-goldman 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Seems to be published by an upstart/vanity publisher [1], and has abysmal amazon sales rank. However the War on Iraq he co-authored with somebody else was also translated into French, [2], so I suppose he's borderline notable. Flyboy Will 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficiently notable by my standards. --Goobergunch|? 01:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close to being a notable enough author according to the deletion policy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.70.33 (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 21 December 2005.
• Delete. This entry should be deleted. It's little more than a vanity posting, as Pitt is not well-known outside of the Democratic Underground forum. He's not an "essayist" in the league with Joan Didion or the late Susan Sontag. He's basically an amateur writer trying to score in the big leagues.There are thousands and thousands of writers out there who are much more well-known but don't get an entry in Wikipedia. JohnSmith9810 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)User's 2nd edit
  • That there are a lot of writers don't have articles says less about their respective worth and more about Wikipedia's incompleteness. Check the red links at the list of Booker Prize winners, the Pulitzer Prize for History or Biography/Autobiography. The Booker Prize page was a SEA of red links only a year ago. The question on the table is not comparative, it's whether THIS author -- on his merits or lack thereof -- rates an article. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails any notability. Have 5000 people bought his books? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If he has, in fact, gotten at least one book on the NY Times best-seller list, then yeah, he probably sold a least 5,000 books. That claim awaits verification, however. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently best-seller lists are compiled based on how much books are sold to bookstores by distributors, not how many actual customers bought a book. Personally, I really don't think they're reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Ajdz 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — what the nominator is trying to say per his link is that the author is non-notable. Agreed. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep. Three actual books, including one co-authored with Scott Ritter. Claims to have cracked the New York Times bestseller list, which would make him obviously notable enough, though I'm having trouble finding proof. If true, a no-brainer; if not, borderline. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While his Amazon sales ranking are abysmal, Publishers Weekly called "Context Books" one of his publishers, a "well-regarded New York City publishing house". That kills the vanity argument for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Mgm, Carlton, and CapitalistRoadster. --Squiddy 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published author, notable, no namespace issues. Eliot 13:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Having done a quick Google over his name, I'm pretty satisfied that he is a well-known figure in the anti-war circles, although I admit to never having heard of him myself. It came up with 235,000 results, and many of them seem to refer to him. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His book has been mentioned in the New York Times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by thunk (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Article needs work, though. --MisterHand 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability page is a guideline not a policy. Jcuk 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The above rationales are applying the notability criteria. Uncle G 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is reasonably well known, his writings are widely disseminated, and he gets around on the speaking circuit. BCorr|Брайен 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems sufficiently prominent as a writer. -Colin Kimbrell 20:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A closer inspection of the book he wrote reveals that it is nothing more than a printed interview, of which William Pitt is responsible for less than 1000 words out of the entire text of the book. "Written by" is a dubious credit at best.
• Keep. Basing the inclusion of an entry on popularity or supposed lack there of is foolish and without merit.
  • I believe you have not read the rules for inclusion of biographies. Here is a link: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive 0nslaught 17:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His books are thought provoking and should not be censored by right-wingers who disagree with his views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.209.8.157 (talk • contribs).
  • Who is trying to censor him for his political views? I don't see one person here mention right-wing or left-wing politics. The debate is whether he is notable enough to warrant a biography. 0nslaught 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His books have been translated in Belgium and Germany as well. KittenKlub 00:23, 29 December 2005 (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. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kai Artur Diers

Was tagged as a nn-bio but shows a claim to notabily. No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete translators aren't notable Josh Parris#: 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Translators are notable. See list of notable translators at translation. However, Mr. Diers does not yet appear to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. Therefore, delete. -- JJay 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Madman 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. -- MisterHand 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. Jcuk 18:51, 21 December 2005 (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. — JIP | Talk 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vestal with a heart of coal

Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given, I am bringing it here in case it can be rescued. This is an article about an alleged type of stock character, the opposite of a hooker with a heart of gold. Unfortunately the title appears to be a neologism, with 0 google hits, and there are no references to demonstrate that this is anything other than original research. Kappa 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ifnord 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I made this article; was unaware of the citing issues. It was something discussed in my undergraduate literature class, but we didn't delve into anything too deep. Feel free to delete; sorry for the trouble. Jsbee 01:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Who came up with the name? Kappa 01:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless maybe it can be referenced to whoever came up with the idea. Watch those spoilers! --The Famous Movie Director 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Thesquire 03:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. It could become an interesting article, but the name is simply non-notable/akward, and there needs to be more research. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be potential for an article about this type of stock character. However, there would have to be significantly more examples, and there would have to be a commonly recognized name for the archetype -- "vestal with a heart of coal" is probably not going to be it. I encourage User:Jsbee to research this topic some more and possibly try again later, and recommend discussing the subject at Talk:Stock character. --Metropolitan90 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy so the user who wrote it can bring it up to scratch before reposting. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. There's some good stuff in that article, but the name is going to make it hard to find ('ice maiden'?). I'd add it to the Stock character page. --Squiddy 10:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename. Notable archetype, not sure what to call it though. -- MisterHand 17:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2005 (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 keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Every

Seems like a joke page, unverifiable. But I'm not 100% certain of it or enough to mark it as a speedy. Stifle 01:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. See here [3], here [4], and best of all, here [5]. If only our page could be like the German one. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think I'm going to spend some time translating the German page into English as well. Just kidding, it seems that there aren't many sources on the German Wikipedia page, so it might be copyvio. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - most definitely real and notable: I've cleaned it up and expanded the detail. Tearlach 03:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep expand and clean up - notable pirate. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and meets WP:BIO, nice work with the cleanup. --W.marsh 04:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above. -- MisterHand 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above Jcuk 18:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep may only occur if the nominator (i.e. me) withdraws the nomination and there have been no delete votes, or if the nomination was clearly vandalism or disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. Stifle 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Well, would you withdraw it, then? The original version was a little naff, but it should be obvious by now that Every existed. Tearlach 03:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I haven't heard of him but there's many people I haven't heard of. It sounds like he was a real pirate. And no pirate should be deleted from the pages of Wikipedia! His Noodliness would be very unhappy! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:56, 21 December 2005 (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 keep. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Neufeld

Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete -- Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous afd's at vote 1, vote 2, vote 3

Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • A bad article is a bad article, regardless of precedent. Spinboy thinks it doesn't belong: do you have any reason to doubt his sincerity or are you just throwing mud? --Calton | Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it appears I got a little distracted by the legislative candidates part of it. However, I called it bad faith because it just appears that he has a vendetta against Grant Neufeld aka User:GrantNeufeld, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais (although it is difficult to determine his stance). His only edits to the page have been to tag it but has done nothing to address the issue in the talk page. All the attempts to delete...just looks like he is out for blood. Wouldn't have been an issue if any of the other (how-many)thousands of other users would have put it up for deletion. Let me know if you think I'm "just throwing mud". --maclean25 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh huh. And your reasons for believing he has a "vendetta" is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, maybe the above comment was a little too confusing. So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb, here is an outline of my rationale in a more simpler step-by-step format, all of which was taken directly from the links provided in the previous statement:

1. User:Spinboy attempts three times to delete Grant Neufeld [6], [7], [8]
2. unsuccessful, User:Spinboy tags the article as {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{POV check}} but does not participate in the talk page is discussion on the tags (only User:GrantNeufeld does)
3. User:Spinboy leaves Wikipedia on Oct 27.
4. User:Spinboy comes back stating "Oh, I'm not staying. I'm still extremely pissed off. I just saw something that cried out for an afd nomination, and I couldn't do that without logging on. I seriously dislike the hypocracy around here, one of many reasons I left." (refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais)
5. Several days after his return he posts this afd with the same rationale as the last vote "Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb I've noticed that bad writers often try to shift the blame for the confusion, ambiguity, and mystery they cause by insulting their readers. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? Sure -- if you start off assuming malice.

Quitting in disgust and coming back is proof of what? Well, that he got over it. If this is suspicious behaviour, I'll work up a (long) list for you of shady characters for you to watch, including User:Ta bu shi da yu

I like the reasoning, though: he's nominating this for deletion for a third fourth time because he has a vendetta. The proof he has a vendetta? The fact that he's nominating it for a third time. Why is he nominating it for a third fourth time? Because he has a vendetta. Rinse, lather, repeat.

And the fact that he nominated this and not others proves what, exactly? It's a slight variation of the bogus rationale offered by hundreds of voters in past AfDs: namely, the whine "if the Pokemon/one-horse town/trivial-in-my-opinion-subject article stays, so should mine": the appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations. If this (in your view) double standard upsets you, give me a list of other candidate articles, those running on the No-Hope Party ticket in the Riding of BFN that, gosh darn it, Spinboy should have nominated for deletion and I'll do the job myself: I've got some time to kill right and I can get right on it. Though be quick, I'm leaving in half-an-hour.

Maybe Spinboy has nominated this article for deletion because he thinks Neufeld doesn't rate an encyclopedia article? Yes, standards in an encyclopedia -- that's just crazy talk! As far as I'm concerned, if Mr. Neufeld wants free publicity for himself, he ought to check out MySpace or Geocities.

In case you genuinely don't understand what I wrote, let me know and I'll use smaller words. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to drag this on, I think we both made our points, but I just want to clarify something. I just realized where you got the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat" argument from. The five points above are not five individual arguments, that is, point 1 is not by itself a complete argument. They are a chronological list of events that ended in this afd, that is to say, one argument leading to the conclusion. --maclean25 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I seriously resent that. I'm allowed just like everyone else to make afd nominations. If you're going to be a jerk, be it somepalce else. I left because of jerks like you, and I will be leaving again. -- Spinboy 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Just a point of clarification - this article wasn't posted as an "electoral candidate" article (although I have been one). The reasons given for 'notability' were my roles as president of the Green Party of Alberta, and founder of the Revolutionary Knitting Circle (laugh if you want, but we've got chapters on two continents and have had mainstream media coverage on three - I'm most proud of my interviews in Interweave Knits and Vogue Knitting :-). --GrantNeufeld 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Started by subject, edited by subject, not notable as he has not been elected. This is vanity and lacks the ability to have a NPOV with Mr. Neufeld's involvement in it. FullSmash26 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He shouldn't be editing his own article. -- Spinboy 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. I think that folks with direct knowledge of a subject should be contributing to the articles here. I'd see a serious problem if they were the only ones working on the articles, but the presence of "many eyes" on Wikipedia balances off any POV issues that such contributors may create. I've contributed to a lot of articles on Wikipedia where I'm not "at arms length" (such as the Green Party of Alberta), and provided detailed references when questions have been raised (such as on the article being debated here). In any case, the previous two votes on this article have not found my auto-biographical contributions to be sufficient cause for deletion. As to the imposibility of auto-biographical NPOV, I encourage you to review the comments from Earl Andrew, Kevintoronto and gord on the article's talk page as counterpoints to that view. --GrantNeufeld 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. Whether you disagree with it is utterly immaterial, since this isn't your website, and your blatant self-interest/vanity/self-promotion/whichever doesn't trump long-standing policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware that a formal policy against any auto-biographical contributions had been established. I know there's a general discouragement against it - but I have not heard of a prohibition being adopted. --GrantNeufeld 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment That is because there is no such policy. In fact during the recent debacle regarding Mr. Seigenthaler many people were critical of him because he did not simply change the innaccuracy himself and instead made a big deal out of it. It seems people desire to have it both ways on the autobiographical issue. Vanity is bad but people are far more capable of reasoned self appraisal then some seem to think. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Autobiography: to baldly state that ... there is no such policy without acknowledging these clear guidelines is playing a bit fast and loose with your rhetoric.
            • To baldly state that there is no such policy is absolutely correct precisely because that document is NOT policy and is a guideline. In addition the document itself does not even forbid the practice but defines why it is ill advised. And yet Jimbo is clearly shown to edit his own article with regularity. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• From the intro: Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself. Refraining from autobiographical editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just like last time, I say delete. Still non-notable, still gross vanity, and still should go -- at best -- to user space or MySpace.

So what is it with the Canadian election? Suddenly it seems every no-hoper-party candidate for every one-horse riding in Canada thinks they deserve an article on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds too much like vanity to me. As per anon user above, this is more appropriate material for a user page. Comment Regarding the repeated nominations, in the absence of a policy or guideline I think Spinboy is within his rights to nominate this again, although it does seem to be abuse of a loophole. Zunaid 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Grant is the president of an active provincial party and an Alberta Centennial Medal recipient. Reviewing the articles for other political parties in Alberta shows that most of the leaders (elected or not) have articles as well. Grant should probably refrain from editing his own article however, to prevent the accusations of vanity. -Dr Haggis - Talk 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely. And note to GrantNeufeld, usually when coming up for a vote, instead of attacking your opponents, you might want to try to prove why people should vote for you. Just for the future. Flyboy Will 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you perceive my responses to other comments here and points of information to be "attacking". I'm not interested in flaming anyone (even though there are some significant disagreements here - disagreement does not have to mean disrespect). Please review my comments above again—I believe on close examination they can be seen to be talking specifically to the issues, and are not 'attacks' on any of the participants in this discussion. --GrantNeufeld 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004) and founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). are claims which make this individual notable in my view. People are allowed to edit articles about themselves as long as they remain neutral and while starting your own article is frowned upon, there's nothing forbidding you to do so. Anyway, neither of these are reason to delete an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That this has survived earlier discussion is astonishing: execrable self-promoting vanity page of an insignificant that heavily exaggerates asserted notbaility. The organisation which the subject has founded, Revolutionary Knitting Circle should also be brought to AfD as inherently unnotable as well. Perhaps other Canadians here can chime in on having heard of it or not, but so far my running tally is 0. I find maclean's suggestion that this is a bad faith nomination hard to fathom. A badly self-authored page that is nothing more than a funnel for an out-of-control ego should not be on WP; bringing it up for nomination is a perfectly good thing to do. Eusebeus 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Mildly notable as the president of the Green Party in Canada. -- MisterHand 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [9]. The provincial party got 24,588 votes in 2004, 2.75% overall but no seats, making them #5 in the league tables. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Jim Harris is leader of the Green Party of Canada, Bruce Abel is president. --GrantNeufeld 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also clarification: Wikipedia has a clear precedent that leading figures in a political party within a defined political entity, even if that political entity is the provincial or state level, merit articles regardless of the party's electoral success, on "because they're party leaders" grounds. Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, barely notable, but he is a Green Party President.Gateman1997 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The president of the Green Party in Canada is indeed notable and so is the Revolutionary Knitting Circle — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [10]. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Jim Harris isn't the president of the party either. Perhaps you misunderstand Canadian political party structures. "President" is a position within the political party's internal structure, who's responsible for running the organization. It's rarely, if ever, the same person as the party's candidate for Prime Minister (who gets termed "leader", but is not actually the top authority in the party structure.) Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If this article has survived two votes already why the heck must we have a third!? Wiki should have a policy of no renomination for deletion IMHO. Jcuk 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the article is poor and contains a lot of trivialities, the guy is the pres of the Green Party. --NormanEinstein 21:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of Alberta, not Canada. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- JJay 04:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nominations. Grant Neufeld's edits since APril 2005 have been to add a picture and categories. Nothin POV or vanity going on here. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' I don't see it as POV (although it is a bit heavy on the vanity front). I also think that the repeated nominations for deletion will eventually cause it to be deleted, if only because the ones seeking to have it deleted will keep coming back, but the people voting keep will eventually move on assuming that once the vote was settled, it was settled. I don't see how an article can be nominated for deletion after passing an AfD vote and the article not changing significantly. (unsigned vote by GordonBonnar, 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • I have revised the article to remove the vanity aspect and make it more encyclopedic. In previous communications that I have had with Grant Neufeld, he has indicated that he understands and accepts that other editors will revise the article. This is no longer a "vanity article". As far as future attempts to delete this, if this attempt fails, it will be clear that future attempts will be bad faith nominations. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Mildly notable politician. The last AFD was a keep, and the precident stands. The only time a keep should be overturned, is if it was based on information that turned out to be false and/or unverifiable; or else if there was some kind of failure in process. The nominator shouldn't just keep redoing AFD's till they get what they want. Far to many articles and AFDs go without attention, because AFDs are clogged with these unfounded nominations. Note: if this article hadn't survived a prior AFD, it would have been entirely justified to nominate as this is a "week keep" level person. --Rob 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: this is WP:POINT. Stifle 02:10, 26 December 2005 (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. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clatus Notebooks

Interesting story... too bad no sources are cited and this seems to be a hoax [11]. Request for verification has been up for 1.5 months and nothing has been provided. I suspect this can't be verified at all. --W.marsh 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Could be hoax but does contain needs verification disclaimer. Give it more time. Madman 04:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Page was created and edited by only 1 user on 1 day, whose only contributions were to this article. This strongly suggests a hoax, especially as the user (or anyone else for that matter) has failed to return and provide sources. Zunaid 07:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Verifiability is not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original author has had more than enough time to verify the article. -- MisterHand 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non verifiable Jcuk 19:01, 21 December 2005 (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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters

The page seems to have rather low encyclopedic value (although a lot of work was put into it). Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This page is a very good reference for the fans of the NC comic. True, NC may not be that mainstream, but doesn't mean it should be (pardon the pun) neglected. SPKx 01:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hey, other places have stuff like this too, and you don't see theirs getting deleted. --ChunkyKong12345 02:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It reveals a lot of information which cannot even be found by looking at the site. Furthermore, for people who don't get some references, it explains them. --Metal Man88 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sean Kelly and I worked our rear ends off on this. NC was the first sprite comic, and it is a neglected one (bad pun intended). 8-Bit Theater, Bob and George, PennyArcade, VGCats etc. have lots of stuff on the Wiki, and they do not see any deletion. To delete this would not only be an insult to those who worked on it, but to Jay Resop, Lord Reid, CodieKitty, and everyone else who put their time and efforts into making something that deserves far more attention than it gets. Brian Clevinger and other spriters get lots of praise and even appear at conventions. Jay doesn't get this kind of praise (in fact all he ever seems to get from something other than fans is ridicule). If someone were to make a list of Family Guy references (which are very similar to these), it wouldn't get deleted at all. Please save this page! Also, thank you to all those who came (or will come) out in support of this project. --Crazyswordsman 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Delete for being an overblown in-depth article about cultural references in a obscure sprite comic. --Apostrophe 04:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I always welcome edits to the page by others. That's how the page gets better. --Crazyswordsman 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, but you clearly don't welcome deletion, which is a form of editing. --Apostrophe 04:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • True, but I prefer to be optimistic, positive, and helpful. --Crazyswordsman 04:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • While Crazyswordsman make have went overboard on his praise of NC, I have to say it's far from obscure. - SPKx 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I admit I have gone a little overboard. Maybe a better idea would be to break this master list down into several smaller ones? --Crazyswordsman 05:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page has more than 350 edits in two days. Are the contributors editing one word at a time? •DanMS 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm doing (extensive) research as I edit this page. I also flip back and forth between sections depending upon need (because I can keep track that way). I also may edit a word or two if it appears that I made a mispelling or grammatical error. I usually edit as many references into a particular section before switching. I'm doing my best. --Crazyswordsman 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What, exactly does is this comment supposed to imply? I'm unaware of a per-day edit limit... I also prefer to edit as I go along, rather than risk my computer freezing or rebooting or my browser crashing or who knows what ..before I can click the "save page" button and after I've spent hours working on something. --Naha|^(talk) 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There have also been many corrections on my behalf. - SPKx 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I want to go on record by saying that Crazyswordsman has been very ambitious in compiling this list. He worked for over 10 hours, without anyone asking, to make this page. Jay has been very impressed with the results and, no matter what, he wants to keep this list whether it's on wikipedia or not. - SPKx 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's great, and admirable and all that. I hope he gets to put his work to good use somewhere. However, the fact remains that this page is not something you would/should find in an encyclopedia, and "hard work" is not enough to justify that. And to Crazyswordsman's objections throughout this discussion, please do nominate similar pages elsewhere. I would vote delete on anything this granular about any topic of similar notability/verifiability. (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Y'know, I hate people that go around throwing our catchphrases around, but this is the cruftiest cruft I ever crufted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is cruft, so are all the Family Guy references in the FG related articles. It is my belief that little, nonprofit projects like NC shouldn't have to play second fiddle to big corporate giants like FG here on the Wiki. --Crazyswordsman 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Have I or anybody else claimed otherwise? Regardless, can you please cut out on the whole "STANDING UP TO THE MAN!" stuff? --Apostrophe 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment For the record (only for closing admin's information, not judging anyone here):
  • SPKx has roughly 10 edits not related to Neglected Mario Characters;
    • I see no reason to go around a edit random pages on wikipedia. I CREATED the NC article, so that is obviously the one I concentrate the most on. If I do find another article that needs an addition or and edit, I will edit it. Don't judge me because of that. - SPKx 13:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Metal Man88 has only 2 edits, both to this AfD subpage;
  • and Crazyswordsman has only 4 edits not related to Neglected Mario Characters. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic.--nixie 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By your definition just about any list of cultural references is unencyclopedic, and there are many other lists on the site. --Crazyswordsman 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I assure you, I take that position. Bring any to my attention, and I'd gladly push them into AfD.--Apostrophe 06:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Neglected Mario Characters. FCYTravis 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the article? --Apostrophe 06:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think a merge is a good idea because then the main NC article will be too long. Long articles are what lists are for. --Crazyswordsman 06:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A list of every single cultural reference in a Webcomic is not encyclopedic. Merge the most important ones, and suggest to the makers of NMC that your list be uploaded on their site. FCYTravis 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that would seem like a good idea, but Jay almost never updates nowadays. --Crazyswordsman 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I would be interested in putting this work onto NC, if it is ultimately decided to be deleted from Wiki. It seems like a lot of work has been done to put this together, and it would be a shame to waste it. Crazyswordsman, send me an e-mail, and we can talk about it. Merging with the main NC article would probably be a bad idea, since this list is so long.-jay Jay Resop 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Already been done. --Apostrophe 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have another Comment. I don't know much HTML, nor do I have the money for a webpage (and I'm not about to do some Geocities page). If this gets taken down, where am I going to put this list that I put hours into making? --Crazyswordsman 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to repeat myself from earlier, we can put it on NC. Send me an e-mail and we can talk about it.-jay Jay Resop 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your userspace. I.e. User:Crazyswordsman/List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters. Just don't have the actual encyclopedia link to it. That's against policy. --Apostrophe 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see any viable reason to delete this. Fits with the wiki webcomic project and represents a scholarly approach to a neglected field that may be of great use to future researchers and cultural historians. -- JJay 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have another Comment. The point of this list isn't so much cruft as it is to raise awareness of NC, and to be a reference list for anyone who reads it. --Crazyswordsman 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably with explosives. Good lord, this must be the cruftiest cruft ever crufted. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Holy crap! This is THE most obscure article/list I have ever seen. Unencyclopedic. Zunaid 07:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for a very simple reason: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Hello? Flyboy Will 07:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you (or any of you) even bother to read what I wrote, or visit NC? You're all just jumping to conclusions. --Crazyswordsman 07:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's a link to the policy Flyboy Will is referencing. Your work on this page is uncited, and really uncite-able, since it is actually you who is going through the work of looking at all the comics and carefully cataloguing the references to anything that is not NC. That makes this article a primary source, and not suitable for Wikipedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I've put new updates on hiatus currently and am citing each source (All the major series except NC Chronicles are complete anyway). This will take awhile, so don't pester me. Sean and Jay, I could use your help. Thanks. --Crazyswordsman 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, ESkog, your description makes it sound as though NC is the primary source, and this article is a secondary source referring to it. That's perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedia. Factitious 20:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And could you guys please leave the criticism to constructive criticism only? All you're doing is flaming my work, and I take great offense to that. Only Sean Kelly, FCYTravis, and to a lesser extent, Apostrophe, have given me constructive, useful criticism that I take gladly. Everyone else is just flaming me like I know exactly what's supposed to happen. This is my first major project, I'd like a little kindness, please. --Crazyswordsman 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Who says this page can't be cited? What we can do is provide a link to the comic (or, more specifically, the frame) where the reference was made. - SPKx 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flyboy Will: NOR. --Zetawoof 09:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is cruft about cruft about cruft, which makes it cruft about cruftcruft, or cruftcruftcruft. I like to think of it as cruft³. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Consider putting it on your user space if you want your efforts to be retained, as what you've created is actually not an encyclopaedic article. Proto t c 11:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a ton of work went into this, but it just isn't an encylopedia topic. Maybe the comic would like to put it on their own website? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Could some please give a detailed explaination WHY this is not an encylopedia topic and WHY it is so different to all of the "List of..." subtopics you find all over wikipedia. - SPKx 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Do you guys really see any point to putting this on the NC site? That's a bit of an idiotic thing to do... --ChunkyKong12345 13:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually Chunky, Jay said he would be willing to do that if we don't save this page. - SPKx 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm going to say Keep, but I'll respect any decision that the people here at Wiki ultimately decide, since I'm not one to impose myself. In this article's defense, Neglected Mario Characters has already been accepted as suitable Wiki article. If the main article is acceptable, and if there are other similar lists for similar articles (See Characters_of_Bob_and_George for an example of a similar page), then I don't see why this one should be deleted. But if you all decide to delete it, then that's all right. Personally, I'm simply honored that Neglected Mario Characters has been allowed to be a part of Wikipedia, and I don't want to press my luck, heh. If it's deleted, I would be interested in putting this article onto my site instead.-jay Jay Resop 14:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've nothing against documenting cultural references to stuff in principle, and someone's obviously gone to a lot of effort over this, but I can't help feeling that this list is... well... useless. Webcomics, by their nature, tend to be full of pop-culture references, and a list of them is rather like a list of joke punchlines with the questions left out. The difference between this list and a list of cultural references on Family Guy is that Family Guy humour is mainly situational and surreal, not pop-culture-based, and therefore a list of cultural references is more manageable. Basically, I can't think why someone would read this list instead of reading the webcomic, which is, after all, free. --Last Malthusian 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep somewhat interesting, but the article needs to be improved. -- MisterHand 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic topic. Gateman1997 18:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that I'm in the process of adding OR to the topic, all NOR comments are moot. Some of the references take up more than one frame, so for those I'm just linking to the episode. --Crazyswordsman 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OR is shorthand for "original research". Trust me, you don't want to say that you're adding OR. =/ --Apostrophe 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm citing my work, and doing A TON of research, so don't tell me I'm not. --Crazyswordsman 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You do realize that it is against policy? Wikipedia: No Original Research. --Apostrophe 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • And on that page it says that gathering information from primary and secondary sources is encouraged. This is"source-based research," which is allowed. --Crazyswordsman 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I understand that. You stated you were "adding OR"; I felt I needed to point out to you that OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. Just an misunderstanding on both sides, that's all. --Apostrophe 07:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a bit anal for my taste but harmless enough. Jcuk 19:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jjay's response. --Naha|^(talk) 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I must admit, my record is a bit weak. It's unfortunate I didn't register earlier; I only did so in response to the fact that this is about the third time I had something to say on wikipedia. However, if you wish for this to be deleted, could you inform me why the same... nevermind. I was going to mention Super_Mario_4, but it is up for deletion as well. Anyway, it's up to you, in the end.--Metal Man88 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's not even about refrences to minor characters in the mario universe, it's about various pop culture refrences in a webcomic, and it's not really a verry user friendly page. (when I first clcked on it I had absolutely no idea what it was trying to say) Deathawk 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Here's the plan I have for this unfortunately unpopular page. I will continue to add citations, and if you want to delete it go ahead. I have the page archived on my user page (so those of you who are interested can visit it) and can edit it at will. I plan to put in the references to the NC Chronicles, the one part comics (including Ye Old Taco Hut of Horror), then I will move on to the Deathmatches, Shorts, Flash Movies, Election flyers, and finally, the unpublished Mushroom Wars remake Alph made on the NC Forum. Once that is all said and done, I will email it to Jay and see if he can put it up on the site. --Crazyswordsman 00:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I recommend (as mentioned above) that this list be trimmed to the more important element from the series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And as I've already said above, that's already on Neglected Mario Characters. --Apostrophe 07:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article of links is not encyclopedic. SorryGuy 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a good thing that this isn't an article of links, then. Factitious 20:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup, but since Crazyswordsman's doing a fine job of that already, I see no reason to try to delete this. Obscure does not imply unencyclopedic. Factitious 20:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I took a tally and it's about a 14-11 vote to delete the article. With about a day left for deliberation, I think I will just concede defeat (unless there are at least four more people that want the article to stay up). - SPKx 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't 14-11 be "no consensus, default to keep"? This isn't a vote. J•A•K 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge: an utterly sub-trivial collection of external links. -Sean Curtin 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: If it's not OR, or vanity, it seems reasonable to keep. As pointed out, you get rather excessive lists on other topics, why not this one? J•A•K 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - OMG, I cannot believe that this article actually exists. OK, so list of cultural references in the pokemon series was a keeper, well the pokemon series is watched by tens of thousands of people at least, and has millions of fans. This is a sprite comic. Totally unnotable cruftiness. In the scale of notability where does Neglected Mario Characters fit? I'm going to go out on a whim here, and say it's less notable than The Thick of It or indeed, any series that has been running on TV on a major channel. Are the "keepers" here claiming that every TV show, ever is notable enough to have its own "cultural references" article, or every published book could have its own cultural references article. People have argued over whether Daniel Brandt or Cyrus Farivar are notable, compared to this, they're kings of the world. - Hahnchen 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Since no one has responded to this, I just wanted to point out again that Characters_of_Bob_and_George is a list similar to this one based on a similar sprite comic. I don't see the difference that allows Characters_of_Bob_and_George to remain on Wiki while this one is up for deletion. I'm just curious where the line is drawn. I know my site (NC) isn't as popular as BnG, but they have both been accepted as suitable web comics to feature at Wikipedia. Also, just to make it clear, I'm not forcably trying to push an article about my site on Wikipedia. Whatever is ultimately decided about this article is cool with me. I'm just curious about the standards of Wiki between this article and Characters_of_Bob_and_George. Just for my own curiousity. Thanks.-jay Jay Resop 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the difference lies in the difference between "characters" and "cultural references." Characters are easily verifiable and it is easy to decide what is significant enough for an article. Also, I would argue that they are more the "heart" of the webcomic. Cultural references, on the other hand, are generally going to form a boundless list of unrelated things, which probably aren't of interest to many people outside of the initial creator. It's impossible to decide which are verifiably significant enough to warrant consideration. Also, they seem more tangential to any discussion of "What is Neglected Mario Characters?" If the characters section on the main article got too big, I don't think many would argue with spinning that off as has been done with Bob and George. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2005 (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. — JIP | Talk 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shitfire

Band failing WP:MUSIC. Come back when you have a record deal and a couple albums. Stifle 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A couple of record deals? Isn't one enough? --Walter Görlitz 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: I said a record deal and a couple albums. They have neither. Stifle 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-noteworthy. Two demos aren't two record deals. Ifnord 03:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ifnord. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I like the name 68.194.42.219
• Delete - we don't need terribly obscure bands with impolite names. Madman 04:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Stifle. --kingboyk 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notworthy band cruft. Promotion to try to get a record deal. Hu 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shitdelete Proto t c 11:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - see Template:Db-band. Cookiecaper 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. Jcuk 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Verifiability is just one of the requirements for Wikipedia - notability is required as well. Stifle 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. - FrancisTyers 03:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when you've at least had an album recorded and/or listed in All Music Guide. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:28, 22 December 2005 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life's Blood

Band failing WP:MUSIC, come back when you have a record deal and a couple albums. Stifle 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The band did a recording and was apparently instrumental in the music scene of the time. --Walter Görlitz 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per above. -- JJay 02:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep One member of the band went on to join another band which already has an article. According to WP:MUSIC, it qualifies for Wikipedia by that alone. --- CorbinSimpson 02:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based on above. I've never heard of them personally, but if there's even just a hint of notability we ought to keep it imho. --kingboyk 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The key is Adam Nathanson, the connection between this band and Born Against. Turn the red link into blue and merge this article into the new article. By itself, Life's Blood barely misses the notoriety bar (note the sea of red links in the article... and the lack of mention of Life's Blood in Born Against), but the article shouldn't be totally erased. B.Wind 18:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per above Jcuk 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Keep" I have 2 of their 7 inches including the one with Sticks& Stones. Life's blood was just as much a part of the NYHC scene as anyone else, even if they were short lived. The article is informative as I didn't know some of the info that was in 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris harris (speedway rider)

Adding to AfD as this was added to CSD without it (just) not fitting the criteria. I'd say weak delete personally - Speedway is a sport, and this person competes for a notable speedway team. Keep because I've always believed all professional sportsman should stay. Hedley 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:BIO. Professional sportsman and member of UK team according to this Sun article [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Chris Harris (speedway rider). Capitalistroadster 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename Professional sportsman. Bhoeble 06:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Professional sportsman according to Sun. (Please add article as reference or link). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per above. Jcuk 19:12, 21 December 2005 (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 keep first, merge second to Faulkner University. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Xi Omega and Delta Xi Omega - Faulkner

Random sororities with no notability to speak of. Stifle 02:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the first and Merge the second to Faulkner University. Google throws me 1,900 hits for "Delta Xi Omega," which is relatively high. In the future, you should probably make separate AFD entries for separate articles. It helps remove confusion. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Delta Xi Omega at UB has some notability, as it was the subject of the MTV reality show Sorority Life 2. User:whiterox 02:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. -- JJay 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the first per whiterox. Merge the second. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep per above Jcuk 19:14, 21 December 2005 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's inspection of the German Workers' Party

No reason to be a separate article. Should be deleted and/or merged with Adolf Hitler. JW1805 (Talk) 02:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I found the relevant section here Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_entry_and_rise which does not go in to enough detail. This article Adolf Hitler's inspection of the German Workers' Party goes in to much more detail about it, and hence is a natural expansion from the main article. It is an important part of his rise to power, since it is when and how he went from being just a member of the army to being someone of importance. This is not explored enough in the main article, yet it is here. I think that this is very well written (who put in the cleanup tags???) and could be one of the 50 or so sub-articles in Category:Adolf_Hitler that describe different important elements. I see absolutely no reason at all to delete this historically relevant section. The only possible alternative could be a merge in to an article that is already far too big and already has similar sub sections. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, tentatively. The content is interseting, the Hitler article is long. On the other hand, the title is awkward. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Where else could we merge it? - CorbinSimpson 04:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Zordrac and Tom Harrison. I've changed the bold quotes to blockquotes, and removed the cleanup tag.
• Keep per above. This is unmergeable. Does need some sources, though. Please make sure it's linked in the section of the main Hitler article mentioned above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs work and good links from related articles. -- MisterHand 17:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no brainer for me...Jcuk 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep if renamed. The title is misleading. The article should be leaf of main article and wikifying would help. Pavel Vozenilek 03:13, 22 December 2005 (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 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Essai

Does not meet criteria for WP:CORP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCrazy (talk • contribs).

• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madman 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Thunk 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and possible advertising. - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 19:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Jcuk 19:23, 21 December 2005 (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 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pibbler

Unverifiable neologism, apparently for a progress indicator: see Google on pibbler Tearlach 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a bad thing to have a term for, but pibbler is not the term for it Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • They have been called "progress indicators" for many years, now. ☺ Uncle G 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Added to intro. Tearlach 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism Flowerparty■ 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC
• Delete, neologism. We already have an article under the proper title and this doesn't warrant a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Unconvinced - User:RDCwebguy Was hoping to add/coin (neologism) a new word. If it is not to be, delete away. 18:17, 27 December 2005 (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 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyphun

I can find no evidence that the term "Cyphun" exists outside of this article. Adunar 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Daniel Case 04:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Google search. - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:07, 21 December 2005 (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 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nickwit

WP: Original Research -- Just a self-promotion for somebody's website, and "invented" word Jomtois 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, promotional Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a neologism. This is not encyclopedic. This is Major Tom to Ground Control. Sorry - I'm being a bit of a Nickwit. Colonel Tom 13:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although it is a term often used for Nickelodeon, who also use terms such as Nickhead to refer to their viewers. I believe that Nickelodeon's "Nickwit" to refer to someone who knows a lot about Nickelodeon is far more notable than this definition, and hence a Redirect to Nickelodeon would be more appropriate. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and this is about as valid as me making a title for Zordrac based on why I use this name. Sheesh. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense.--SarekOfVulcan 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 20:43, 21 December 2005 (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 Speedy deleted by Neutrality (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goof Off Page

Blatant advertising. -- CorbinSimpson 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2005 (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. →FireFox 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Community

Nonsense. There is no such thing, and this definition makes an attempt to lump all heterosexuals together. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense/OR. Durova 03:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Weak keep per User:JJay. Those sources should be in the article. Durova 08:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whether or not straight people think there is a "straight community" is POV and irrelevent to whether we should keep the article, as the article is just describing a term "used almost exclusively by the gay community". The question becomes, is that actually true? 41,200 Google results for "straight community" is a start. Now for some substance, it's used quite a bit in well-known gay (New York Blade, Washington Blade, etc.) and even mainstream press (The Independent), with 8 press uses just in recent news articles [13]. I think the use of this phrase and concept are certainly documented. Article might need some work, of course, but that's not a reason to delete. To translate all of this into a soundbite, Keep. --W.marsh 03:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Google "'straight community' -gay" gets you 833 hits -- a lot of them false positives. Quite a drop-off, there. See FCYTravis's comment below as to why an an encyclopedia article adds no value to understanding the phrase. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete gay community too --Ajdz 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I concur with Ajdz. This article might attract less interest than its counterpart, but it has just as much right to exist. jmd 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this page has more to do with proving a point than writing an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to agree. Which is why I concurred with User:Ajdz when he suggests an alternative to keeping this article is to delete the other one. jmd
• Delete and smack creator with WP:POINT. --Apostrophe 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe mention the point in Gay community? - CorbinSimpson 04:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's possible, too. But this article hasn't even been around for a day... I'd like to see if it would grow to anything before merging it off somewhere, personally. --W.marsh 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What could it grow into? What's to say about the "straight community"? It's everybody who is not "gay". At best this is a dictionary definition; at worst it is a useless term as it refers to almost everyone in the entire world. Comment does any article have a "right" to exist? I find that assertion anthropomorphic and baseless but very amusing. Logophile 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Anthropomorphic" is a big word I didn't know what it meant until I looked it up. Clearly you didn't either; unless you are implying that straight people are inamimate objects. jmd
    • He's refering the the article itself, not the subject to the article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry. I'll state it more clearly. People have rights; articles don't have rights. By the way, I am not prejudiced against gay people. This page is called Articles' for deletion, not gay people for deletion. Logophile 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is an issue of great debate in Wikipedia as to whether the right of an article to exist starts at article conception, or only attaches when the article has grown and developed enough, through the nuturing of its editors, into something with true encyclopedic value. Nandesuka 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh great, gays and abortion in one AfD. I'm thinking of retracting my Delete vote in case people start protesting with 'Deletion Is Murder' signs outside my user page and eventually someone blows up my house. :-) --Last Malthusian 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment quoting from the unsourced stub: "there is really no closely knit community as such." That seems like reason enough for deletion. Durova 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Many google hits say article needed [14]. -- JJay 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete complete nonsense--Aolanonawanabe 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a worthy topic and will hopefully be expanded. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Much as I hate to say it, the links in the article and the google results from JJay convince me that the term is reasonably commonly used. Bikeable 06:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Google says the term is widely used. Flyboy Will 07:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, one of those weird anti-positive-discrimination WP:POINT pages. Like saying there should be an article about White Angus because there's one on Black Angus, or one on Ability etiquette because there's one on Disability etiquette. Foppish! The article itself says there's no closely-knit community. There's millions of google hits for the phrase "Everyone else"; that doesn't mean we need an article on that phrase. It's just a phrase used to describe everyone else by the 'gay community' (which is a neologism in itself). Eliminate pandering to anti-positive-discrimination from Wikipedia - now! Proto t c
• Weak delete. Original version created for POV-pushing. Current revised version says "merely a distinguisher," which to me means it is a dictdef at best. (of course, if it is kept, please move it to properly-capitalized title.) FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, went from being a WP:POINT to a simple dicdef and both non-encyclopaedic. Basically, all this can be is an 'x is the opposite of y' article. --Last Malthusian 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to say the exact same thing as Last Malthusian, - squibix 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Straight pride and add the paragraph there. -- MisterHand 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless reversal of Gay Community. —Zazou 18:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. - Pureblade | ^Θ 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly merge with straight pride Jcuk 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is rediculous --Naha|^(talk) 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at least merge. Per User:Proto --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you were to redirect this then redirect Gay Community to Gay Pride...see how they like it. Chooserr 23:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:POINT. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment. Since when does the inclusion or exculsion of an article have to do with whether or not people "like it"? Is it encyclopedic? That's what matters. This is Wiki-pedia. Logophile 01:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Gay community describes a distinct subset of the population. This page doesn't - the ways in which the > 90% of the population described on this page differ from the general population are best discussed on the page about the < 10%. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I don't necessarly support the current version as it is, and hope that you will view the talk page where I make my case for my version which gives both definitions and never had the "mundane" link added. My version also seems a bit more neutral in its current state (the one just reverted). Take a peak. Chooserr 04:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment2: Oh and Ben Aveling, my version does label a "distinct subset of the population" not just all straights, but straights that want to participate in the "straight community" and aim to uphold and protect Judeo-Christian values such as Male and Female only Marraiges. Just as not all Gays participate in the Gay Community so to select Straights only participate in the Straight community. Chooserr 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I encourage voters -- especially"keep" voters -- to check out Chooserr's versions (like this and this) to see what use he's trying to make of the article space: myself and Theresa Knott tried (separately) to clean it up, but as William Goldman once said about rewriting a bad screenplay, it's like washing garabage. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Google doesn't support the idea that "Straight community" is used to label this distinct subset of the population. People who believe that usually term themselves "pro-family" or whatnot. The "straight community" hits I find on Google are all being used by gay organizations to talk about a general gulf in understanding between gays and straights - i.e., "educating the straight community" -"the straight community's views." There's nothing to suggest that people who dislike gays are banding together and calling themselves the "Straight community." FCYTravis 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gay community and include subsection on the use of "straight community" by gay groups. FCYTravis 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A dicdef at best, hijacked as a propaganda vehicle by Chooserr. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Chooserr created it, so it's fairer to say that it's a propaganda vehicle hijacked and turned into a dicdef. Half the reason to delete (apart from WP:NOT a dictionary) is that there's no point in people watching this page to make sure it's maintained as a dicdef and Chooserr doesn't revert it back to being a POV vehicle. --Last Malthusian 10:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Point taken. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Article is a neologism. Endomion 10:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless author can provide evidence of scholarly investigation into this so-called "community". —Psychonaut 10:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's WP:POINT and a dicdef! Two, two, two reasons for deletion rolled into one. Nandesuka 14:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lots of reasons stated above. --SarekOfVulcan 08:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless we want a White People, a Males list, etc. category... Carlossuarez46 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about whether the group exists, it's about whether the term does and is used signifigantly. --W.marsh 22:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

But remember, W.marsh, terms belong in Wiktionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic subjects. Logophile 22:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. --W.marsh 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition using the information that is available right now. If this term was in wide use, we could say 'This article can be expanded, so it's a stub'. But it's not, and saying 'This article can be expanded when more people start using this term' is crystal balling. --Last Malthusian 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, bad dicdef, nonsense. JanesDaddy 23:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per FCYTravis, who actually read some of the google hits, rather than simply counting them. Turns out this article is fiction. I'd like to see a source that there are actually notable groups of people labelling themselves as "pro-straight". "Straight community" is a term used by gays to refer to heterosexuals, not by poor oppressed heterosexuals who need to define a subculture in which they can feel welcome, finally. What a laugh! -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete --Revolución (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2006 (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 Speedy deleted by MONGO (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollo Sheldon

delete - nn vanity Gimboid13 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as nonsense, marked as such.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:22, 21 December 2005 (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 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen dildo

Only a dictionary definition. It's already been transwiki-ed to wiktionary. I don't see great capactity to expand beyond just the definition. About 2000 googles but many of them seem to be quotes from the movie Vanilla Sky. RJFJR 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madman 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Jcuk 19:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 22:08, 21 December 2005 (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. →FireFox 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A winner is You

Dicdef. Not enough behind it to become a full article. Klaw ¡digame! 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think it should be kept. frogfusious
• Not dicdef. It's a meme. The question is whether it should be given an article, like All your base are belong to us, or deleted, like Longcat. I say delete. - CorbinSimpson 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• See A winner is you (AfD discussion). (For non-administrators: The article subject is the same, although the content is not.) Uncle G 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article provides no evidence that the use of the term is on par with other internet memes like All your base are belong to us.--nixie 04:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as before, speedily if it's the same text. Gazpacho 05:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- unencyclopedic, just like the previous incarnation of this tripe. Reyk 07:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is relevant into the game article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, again. Wikipedia's inability to judge notability of internet memes causes a continued AfD of otherwise worthwhile articles. 13k+ google hits, basis for many image macros. --badlydrawnjeff 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. What do you suggest for a notability guideline for memes? "All Your Base" received broad coverage in the MSM, including an article in the LA Times. Very few memes will reach that level, so where would you draw the line? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I hate to take the "I know it when I see it" route, but when I see otherwise notable memes like Prime Number Shitting Bear get deleted, it makes me wonder what happens. The delete votes come mostly from "Well, *I* haven't heard of it" or comparing it to the most popular memes like All Your Base. Much like you wouldn't judge the notability of, say, The Apples in Stereo via a comparison with The Beach Boys, it's tough to compare internet memes with their better-known counterparts. So, in a situation such as this, the 13k Google hits alone should raise a few eyebrows as to why we're deleting it. In a situation like the Prime Number Shitting Bear, the Google test doesn't work as well as it's an older meme. Some sort of guidelines should possibly be put into place, but I'm not sure if there's an easy way to quantify them, either. It doesn't excuse misguided delete votes on notable memes, however. --badlydrawnjeff 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't advocating using "All Your Base" as the standard. I'd just like to know where others might draw the line. I hadn't heard of this meme, I haven't seen any MSM coverage of it, and for a leet phrase it doesn't seem to be all that widespread. Nor do I think that Wikipedia needs to include many memes; leave that stuff to urbandictionary. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is actually one of my favourite Internet memes, but as long as we have the text 'A winner is you' in the game's article, so someone searching for the phrase's origin will find it, it doesn't need its own article. --Last Malthusian 15:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - pretty much its only source is a YTMND webpage. If Wikipedia ever comes to lots of articles on YTMND pages, I will kill myself. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and as previously. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yawn. More cruft. karmafist 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I like it. "I like it" is unfortunately not a keep criterion, guess it'll have to go. Delete. Stifle 02:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pro Wrestling (video game). -Sean Curtin 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect; make sure whatever page lists internet memes has a link to the game. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:42, 28 December 2005 (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 Keep. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totse

No notability established, seems to have constant bits of NN facts added by bored totse members. It does have a lot of google hits, but many of them are for the wikipedia article, and the number is inflated due to it being an internet website... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totse.

• Keep. Major repository/archive of text files from the early Internet and BBSs. Just being vandalized should have no bearing on its deletion. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Not terribly notable and a vandal-magnet to boot.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Spammers The article should not be deleted, just cleaned up, people are spamming. 21 Dec

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs).

• Delete this nn silliness.--MONGO 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Care to explicate why it is non-notable and silly? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, What is non-notable about the article or silly? - SS 21 December 2005

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. I'd err on the side of caution here. It gets a lot of hits and links, it's notable to those users even if it's not to me personally. --kingboyk 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. -- JJay 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is informative because it gives a broad description of the site, and therefore it belongs on the Wikipedia. -- Zachary Murray 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The question is, why does an article about this site belong in wikipedia? How do we know there are people who would try to look it up? E.g. can any third-party coverage be shown? Kappa 05:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Who are you and why are you using Kappa's account? Gazpacho 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I am Kappa, this is my accout. If someone else hacks into it, I'll let you know. Unless they kidnap me or something... Kappa 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please, it is NOT a waste.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.131.100 (talk • contribs).

• Keep if they indeed have 32K forum members as they claim. Flyboy Will 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Maru. Alexa ranking 17460 is quite good. --Squiddy 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, an Alexa rank of 17,460 should be enough to keep this. Even if they don't have a large number of members, they clearly have a large number of people visiting. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Totse is just as informative as Wikipedia or even Britannica. Check out Totse once it gets back online and you'll see. Plus anyone who says delete is an idiot.- Pingy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.149.27 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Though I have to agree that this article acts like a honeypot for vandals, I would also like to argue that we should never use that as an argument on AfD. Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Britney Spears, Jimmy Wales...all of these people are notable. And all of these articles should never be deleted from this encyclopedia. Just because Totse is not as notable as *THESE* people, doesn't mean that it still holds a considerable amount of notability. It's been on the web for almost a decade, it has a really large community and I believe that the site's subject is rather unique. I can see your guys' point in deleting it to prevent vandalism..but we can also protect pages..if it goes out of hand (I got this article protected once). So just to make sure, I'm not a big fan of the constant adding of non-notable descriptions (for example, thorough descriptions of its moderators), and I don't like the high rate of vandalism either..but for every vandal there's a vandalfighter. We can handle it. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Soon enough the Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy will be able to take care of vandalism on pages like this.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Semi-protection is meant for seriously vandalized articles like GWB- not piddling persistent vandalism like Totse. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and watch. FCYTravis 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Maru, cleanup's good, deletion's unnecessary
• Keep. This is actually one of the more notable Internet forums, and I had some experience with them over Holden Dapenor . --King of All the Franks 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable because of size and enormous collection of text files; irrelevantly, I was a member for a while but left because I got sick of it. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete The Blockbuster downtown is big and has an enormous collection of DVDs, but I don't think they're wiki-worthy either. Entry seems to serve primarily as a means to boost site's ratings in search engine. Any changes made to it draw highly-POV responses from users thereof, precluding rational commentary. Digital Avatar 05:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See the Alexa rating above. That seems to indicate they're not really in need to of search engine boosting. They already get visitors. - 82.172.14.108 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not solely informational due to its large collection of textfiles. It is informational for being a popular website and forum that is (for all intensive purposes) unique; for example, an article on your downtown Blockbuster might be not notable, but an article on the company Blockbuster which rents DVDs is notable. Totse is notable due to its popularity, uniqueness, and community. Zachary Murray 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The difference between the Blockbuster in question and this site is that the many things in this collection are people, which are also the primary viewers of Wikipedia. If there were to be a wiki for DVDs to look up information, then they would probably like to have your Blockbuster on their site. That didn't make any sense, but that's beside the point. In any case, being a magnet for vandalism is no reason to get rid of an article, right? --ParkerHiggins ^{( talk contribs )} 08:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was, we wouldn't have an entry on George W. Bush.  :) --King of All the Franks 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's an interesting idea, for better or for worse, and it could count as having high relevance to a fledgeling subculture because its users seem to be united around a set of central ideas that could survive without the presence of the website but would be significantly weakened without it. Additionally, it's well-known enough to have connection and significance to the world at large, even if not a major one. It's a keeper. Anonymous 4.88.1.16 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No real reason to delete--67.49.157.152 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known website/former BBS. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see why this article should be deleted, after all, it does supply the same quality of info as other articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drummondjacob (talk • contribs).
• Keep Im a member of the board and this is the way i get news when the site is down —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.211.54 (talk • contribs).
  • An encyclopedia entry is not the place for people to post news about the site being down. This kind of abuse is a major factor contributing to responsible editors' desires to see this article deleted.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And those who want to keep it are irresponsible? --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Apologies for being unclear: Those who abuse the article are irresponsible.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If Something Awful has an article, I can't see why this shouldn't. Unfortuantely many members of the site like to vandalize the article so I personally think that it should be permanently locked to all anonymous users. - Drahcir 08:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is TOTSE as well known as Something Awful?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably not, but they both appper to be quite popular and both sites are quite similar in some ways. - Drahcir 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Totse is a community. While the entry existing now is more about the website itself, information on the subculture would fall under the category of this page, and is definitely something that belongs on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChickenOfDoom (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep It belongs. Totse is well known among the online community, as the Alexa rankings will testify. But anti-vandal action does need to be taken.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil0verl0rd (talk • contribs).
• Keep No one questions having a page about YTMND, why is anyone questioning a page about TOTSE? Deletionists trying to pick off the weakling articles, eh? Al-Kadafi 22:08, 28 December 2005 (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 merge with Cal Poly Pomona. --Angr (t·c) 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Chi Cal Poly Pomona

This article was previously listed as an article for speedy deletion, but it doesn't seem to have the requirements. Although this is not my afd, I reccomend to merge with Cal Poly Pomona. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I admit I wrongfully tagged this for a speedy delete. I don't think this is a notable organization that deserves its own article nor do I think merging it into the associated college is a good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayurpatel (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: Please sign your comments so we know who wrote what. To do this, leave four tildes like this: ~~~~. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 03:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per nom. -- JJay 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination. Student organizations change too rapidly to maintain as separate articles. A few newsworthy exceptions exist such as the Dartmouth Review. This group's impact is purely local. Durova 08:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any notable content into existing articles on Cal Poly Pomona and Sigma Chi; I've already added this chapter to the list in the Sigma Chi article. Engineer Bob 10:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as with other student organisations Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice (I hate Fraternities) - very few frats are notable and keeping random frat articles sets a worrying precedent. I know there are 13,824 different possible combinations of three Greek letters, but Wikipedia is not WikiFrats, nor do I want it to be. Stifle 02:00, 26 December 2005 (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 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth Icons

A gallery (which I object to on general principles) of icons made by students at Carleton University. Not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Ajdz 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The original editor moved the article to Custom Icons and stripped off the AfD header. I have reverted his deletion of the header and have suggested that is not appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Can't this one be speedy deleted? It's clearly not encyclopediac (sp.?) in any way. --kingboyk 05:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Article creators who strip an AfD nomination deserve a few extra delete comments. Durova 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not, um, a repository for images, I guess. --Zetawoof 09:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'd vote to merge to Google Earth, but these images are clearly mistagged as "a logo of a corporation, sports team, or other organization", and I can't think of anything that would allow fair use to kick in. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vacuous listcruft with pictures Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 03:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Srleffler 04:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I disagree with Zoe on the usefullnes of Galleries (see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery, and comment as you see fit), this is so clearly too trivial. Dsmdgold 16:31, 22 December 2005 (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 withdrawn by Daniel Case. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vasant Honavar

Seems self-promotional. Lots of academic credentials but nothing that would support notability Daniel Case 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of minor notability. Needs cleanup, expand and get rid of redlined categories.--MONGO 04:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as artificial intelligence expert, professor and author. I would also ask the nom to please allow editors more than 13 minutes before tagging for AfD. -- JJay 05:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAWN. OK, looks better now. But, when that original article looked like it took more than 13 minutes to create in the first place, I would ask those who submit articles to not just dump website bios on the screen and start working from there. Or put in some sort of edit summary notice that it's a work in progress and you will establish notability later on. Daniel Case 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ideally, people should do what you are saying, but often they are first-time editors who don't have a clue about how things work here or the supposed notability requirements. You might want to try starting a dialogue when you see rapid editing going on rather than immediately tagging for AfD. The general standard, I've been told, is to wait at least 30 minutes from article creation before AfD. In any case, thanks for withdrawing the nom. -- JJay 05:53, 21 December 2005 (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. – Rich Farmbrough. 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plane of Goofiness

Delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable - fewer than a thousand google hits for a website? BD2412 T 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Any vanity article by someone who can't even get basic formatting right is practically a speedy in my book. Daniel Case 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, gamecruft.--MONGO 04:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dalf | Talk 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO. Stifle 01:58, 26 December 2005 (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 keep - no concensus. →FireFox 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City rivalry in Finland

This article is very well written, but I don't think it merits a place on Wikipedia. It's mostly OR/speculation, and it's pretty generic as well, since there's bound to be some small-scale 'rivalry' between any cities that are close to one another. (And there is a big information technology industry in Turku too...!) It might be worth a brief mention in Ice hockey in Finland (if that article existed), but I'm afraid the rest of it is no good. (Sorry, JIP. :) ) - ulayiti (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but this needs references badly--MONGO 04:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant Delete. Just because it's Finnish doesn't mean it's exempt from no original research, bordering on an attack page with statements like "Helsinkians view Turkuans as naïve and simple-minded". BJAODN the last paragraph, though. --Last Malthusian 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and supply references. -- MisterHand 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if no more research is made and such blatant NPOV material is not removed. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, original research, POV, generic and unencyclopaedic. But funny. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:19, 21 December 2005 (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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MDM - Consultoria e Negócios Ltda.

Delete as advertising. The company does not seem notable. A google search for "MDM Consultoria" turned up only 22 hits (caveat: I don't speak Spanish). Thunk 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually this company is from Brazil, which is a Portuguese speaking country. Carioca 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would guess the nominator doesn't speak Portugese either. It's common in people who mistake those languages. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. It is just one of many languages I do not speak. --Thunk 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement, not of encyclopedic value--MONGO 04:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert, seems like I need to start campaigning for a speedy category for articles that are obvious advertizements. Stifle 01:58, 26 December 2005 (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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The two wise men

There are zero Google hits for '"the two wise men" "john kinzey". "john kinzey" by itself turns up nothing constructive. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear to exist. Flowerparty■ 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. --W.marsh 04:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable (even with other spellings of Kinzey) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nocontext. Stifle 01:58, 26 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamefaqs' CaSa

A regional board with a small number of users does not notability make. No matter how popular GameFAQs is, a subset of its forums is not notable enough for an article. Revived 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic jibberish--MONGO 04:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If LUE, the biggest GameFAQs board of all, does not have a Wikipedia page, certainly CASA doesn't deserve one either. - CorbinSimpson 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with GameFAQs message boards. You can call me Al 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Ut supra Sceptre <

If LUE doesn't have an entry it's because the LUEsers haven't made one themselves. I am against deleting the entry. However, I would agree on merging the page with GameFAQs message boards, that seems logical.

• Merge with GameFAQs message boards. Since it might be of interest to gamefaqs users.
• Merge per Al. Stifle 01:58, 26 December 2005 (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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Salas

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Correspondant at a Guam television station, seems notable enough to me. Article could be better, though. --MisterHand 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page needs to be removed as per employer Guamnewsjunkies 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep of minor notability, just barely.--MONGO 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, little notability. The state of the article suggests a copyvio, but I can't find the source. Not worth cleaning up. The JPS 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. Jcuk 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no external references and suspected copyvio. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio from [15]. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 30 December 2005 (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. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frogboy

Article is written immaturely apparently about a comic that Google finds few results for. _└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fanboy, and a very small boy at that. Daniel Case 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. Image has no license info. Not a sign of a serious article creator IMO. Daniel Case 03:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment(?) Google finds no results because he's a real person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeathTrap (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

Articles about real people need to be verifiable too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Oh dear. The JPS 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Deviant art comic which doesn't appear particularly popular. Advertising/self-promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as super neato! I mean, per nomination. Movementarian 10:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am putting Panda (superhero) up for AfD. gren グレン 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no good rydia 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Frogboy's greatness needs to be shouted through the mountain tops...or on this wiki. DeathTrap
  • Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. Make it notable by using some other website; then come back here. Daniel Case 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN is in order. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Maltsberger

Non-notable; Wikipedia is not the poor or cheap man's Who's Who Daniel Case 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fails to establish notability--MONGO 04:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non verifiable Jcuk 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SKIATHOS Wireless Network

Spam. _└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam, ad--MONGO 04:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non verifiable Jcuk 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete user removed AfD tag, reinserted Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random advert. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (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 (early close, likely A7) . gren グレン 13:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph K. Wright

Looks like a misguided attempt to start a personal webpage, images are way too big, poorly written, does not begin to establish notability and is likely a vanity page (user has only edited this page). Daniel Case 04:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Don't forget to delete related images and check the user's upload log for more. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and after all of the effort I took to no source notify him! gren グレン 04:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Normally I would say Userfy, but in this case just Delete or even Speedy. -- JJay 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. CSD A7. Unremarkable people. An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. •DanMS 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like nice folks, but lack notability for their own encyclopedic article.--MONGO 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possibly speedy as non-notable Australian surfer. While a Google search for "Joseph Wright" surfer came up with over 500 hits, not many were about this guy. [16]Capitalistroadster 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• "
• Delete per nom. novacatz 06:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)"
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Userfication should be reserved for misguided newbies who also contributed to other articles and show an interest in actually sticking around. Otherwise the webhost abuse would just move to the userspaces. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete speedy speedy speedy! pfctdayelise 12:49, 21 December 2005 (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 as non-notable advertisement. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anime3000

Site that shows no sign of notability. gren グレン 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising.--MONGO 05:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete does not suffice to describe how much this should be 'Deleted', just Delete it. --Marco 22:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Joel7687 08:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement link. --BenjaminTsai 01:34, 27 December 2005 (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 Keep (4 keeps, 1 delete, 1 merge) Renata3 17:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Petersburg Democratic Club

Page was created because of the small controversy generated by the ad mentioned in the article (certainly for no other reason). But the controversy is probably not even big enough to include even in the article for Secretary Rumsfeld. The page simply cannot be justified except by the most loose, chronologically sensitive encyclopedic standards. ALC Washington 04:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand if possible. I never heard about this before, but can't see why the info should be suppressed now. -- JJay 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No desire on my part to suppress anything. But not every little blurb of hyperbole or event that makes it to the fifth story on a twenty-four-hour news blotter deserves an article in an encycolpedia, even one as expansive as Wikipedia. The "controversy" generated by the ad was simply not a notable event, nor does it make the Club a notable organization. ALC Washington 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but can not agree. The event happened. It was covered nationwide, maybe around the world. Like the Palm Beach ballot, it is now part of history and thus must remain here. I also strongly oppose the proposed merge below, because I don't think we can saddle the State party with the actions of this club. -- JJay 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I understand your point of view, but I do not think your comparison is relevant. This event, which received ephemeral and unsubstantial attention, was nowhere near as notable, important, and indeed historic as the Palm Beach ballot controversy. I also oppose the merge below for reasons I outline there. ALC Washington 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think you mean unsubstantial as the event was covered by USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, The Associated Press, The Guardian newspaper in the UK and countless other media. A check on Newsbank, also shows that the club has been a longtime player in Saint Petersburg politics. -- JJay 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I do indeed mean unsubstantial, as the substance of the thing should not be measured by how many news organizations picked it up on the AP wire. As Last Malthusian's writes below, "it was blown out of proportion when it created a brief media storm and we're blowing it out ten times more by recording it in an 'encyclopaedia' article for posterity. Basically, this wasn't a notable incident, this club has no other claim to fame, therefore it's non-notable." ALC Washington 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • In addition, while I have not searched on Newsbank, I did go to the St. Petersburg Times website and executed an archives search (covering 1987-2005). The Times, Florida's largest daily, is the authority on St. Petersburg politics, and would have reported on the club repeatedly if it were a player (the way it reports on, for example, the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club, which is the biggest political organization in the city). The archives search, however, returned only two articles not related to this "controversy," both mentioning the club in passing in brief candidate bios in a voter's guide the Times produces before elections. The club is definitely not a "player." ALC Washington 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I can see that you are virulently opposed to this article. However, as the Guardian called this event- the biggest political story in America, it deserves full explanation here. Even if the story only lasted five minutes on a slow news day. -- JJay 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I would not call my opposition to the article "virulent," and I hope that our give-and-take in the discussion of its merits hasn't come off that way to you. I certainly don't want this to descend into ad-hominem remarks. As far as the characterization of the event in the Guardian, however, its suggestion that this was for "one brief moment... the biggest political story in America" must be taken in context. The suggestion was written up in a British broadsheet's "Observer" column as part of a general commentary on the early nastiness of American campaigns. In fact, it does not actually provide much evidence for the main arguments of the Guardian if you consider the column as a whole. Also, that the Guardian preoccupied itself beyond reason with a suggestion by one small independent group in the United States that Secretary Rumsfeld be assassinated should surprise no one familiar with the paper's openly acknowledged biases on the left. There are no hard feelings or vested interests on my side. ALC Washington 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A discussion of the media spin given the event- from both the left and the right- would be a perfectly valid way of expanding the article. -- JJay 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the article on the Florida Democratic Party. At the very least change the name to avoid confusion with the other Saint Petersburg (y'know, that place in Russia). Dodging accusations of Anglo-American bias and fleeing before things get hot... Durova 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If we read the newspaper article that JJay supplied to substantiate the event's importance, we would note that the Club received a Charter from the FDP, but nothing else. I live in Florida, and these clubs operate fairly independently. It wouldn't really be relevant to the FDP organization. At any rate, if the vote really is to keep, then changing the name to "St. Petersburg Democratic Club" (after all the official and full formal name of the city and the club) would be my first priority. ALC Washington 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • New addition, I see. It's enough to make me think. Your suggested change is not sufficient. The state of Florida should be in the title because Wikipedia has a global audience. Durova 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dear God, I'm sad enough to remember this. Nonetheless, it was blown out of proportion when it created a brief media storm and we're blowing it out ten times more by recording it in an 'encyclopaedia' article for posterity. Basically, this wasn't a notable incident, this club has no other claim to fame, therefore it's non-notable. I'm English, by the way, so there's not much point in accusing me of trying to 'suppress' stuff about a political party in a different country. --Last Malthusian 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it happened. Wikipedia is the sum of human knowledge. Jcuk 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — possibly needs to be expanded but I see no need for deletion. Notability established by its death threat. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per JJay. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (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 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freejournal

Seems purely promotional to me; no attempt to establish what makes this site different from LiveJournal, MySpace et al. Daniel Case 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I put on the AfD tag and saw you had already created this. :) User only edited pages to advertise freejournal. gren グレン 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was just going to put this on speedy deletion with speedy:bio or whatever. --Timecop 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--MONGO 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yada yada, they've said it above.--GNAA Staos 01:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an example of a site using the Drupal open source CMS, much like the Kerneltrap article. Seems to me if one is allowed, both should be. Lunas11

• Not sure - For a brief moment I thought that this was the new name of Open Diary, which is certainly very notable. They have locked out attempts to look at their user numbers, so I have no way to verify their popularity and number of unique accounts (I am assuming that the magical number of 5,000 applies for journal sites just as it does to web forums). I am going to wait to see if someone can validate their member list before voting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll just note one potential claim of notoriety - they are free because they make money from advertising, using Google's AdSense. AFAIK no other online diary site does this. Its a kind of unique way to do it. But Daniel Brandt certainly wouldn't approve :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and Kerneltrap - Femmina 01:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 01:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 08:32, 26 December 2005 (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 keep. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Farr

Speedy was placed on the page claiming non-notability; I think it's notable enough to deserve a full vote. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep 75,000 Google hits. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seem plenty notable and deserves a better article...--MONGO 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable New Zealand musician meeting WP:NMG see [17]. Capitalistroadster 06:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he’s a well known NZ composer and musician. The article’s definitely lacking, but it needs expanding, not deleting. Barefootguru 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have expanded and cleaned up the article. Capitalistroadster 09:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gareth Farr was on the list of "Missing New Zealand articles" at the NZ WikiProject until recently, if that gives any indication of notability. Possibly NZ's highest profile living classical composer. Good work on the tidy-up again by guess who... Grutness...wha? 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - definitely notable --LesleyW 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I agree, lets keep it, Brian | (Talk) 06:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:21, 21 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 18:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Gaunlets

Fancruft at its worst. Redirecting is pointless, as nobody should be expected to enter this in. --Apostrophe

• Merge and redirect. -- JJay 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to what? --Apostrophe 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • One of the pages associated with the show, otherwise keep article as is. -- JJay 04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Why? It's a fictional invention that serves as a quick plot device and only appears for the best of fifteen seconds. Why, exactly, should Wikipedia even dedicate server space to this? --Apostrophe 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? People watch the show and obviously cared enough to want to share Ghost Gaunlets with the world. I'm not going to tell those people that they are stupid. I am also not qualified to judge how Ghost Gaunlets fits within the Danny Phantom oeuvre. Therefore, I prefer to follow my instincts and err on the side of caution. Plus this debate will probably take up more server space than the article. -- JJay 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Alas, life is not a caring matron. Nor is Wikipedia, as evidenced by countless deletions of not notable band articles. (Or are you to argue that we should coodle those people for being ever so kind enough to let us be aware of their worthless bands or geekish knowledge of the obscure?) I am well-qualified at determining the place of "Ghost Gaunlets", though. It only appears for fifteen seconds in "The Ultimate Enemy". Period. --Apostrophe 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not doubt for one second your Danny Phantom qualifications and expertise regarding The Ultimate Enemy, which would probably be an excellent final resting place for Ghost Gaunlets. Think of how much time would have been saved, though, had you pursued that course, a merge and redirect, rather than AfD. We have now discussed the issue far longer than the entire lifespan of said Ghost Gaunlets, a fact that I find somewhat ironic. In any case, the issue is now out of our hands, as it will be decided by future voters, some of whom may be members of worthless bands or devotees of geekishly obscure knowledge. Furthermore, I do not believe we should coodle any of life's uncaring matrons, just the really nice ones who greet you with a warm cup of tea when they invite you in for a spot of Danny Phantom -- JJay 05:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for further discussion BD2412 T 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete lacks notability--MONGO 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and hope no ghost gauntlets will bring it back from the dead. Flyboy Will 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as per JJay Jcuk 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vacuous fancruft Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:22, 21 December 2005 (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 merged to Paolo Uccello. BD2412 T 19:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antonia Uccello

Article on really obscure artist from XV century without any known work. The person's only claim to fame is the father Mecanismo | Talk 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• She is still somewhat notable as one of relatively few known woman artists of the period. Merge and redirect to Paolo Uccello. Tupsharru 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if the artist didn't produce a single work, how can we evaluate the artist's notoriety or even if the person could indeed perform? --Mecanismo | Talk 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That she is mentioned by Vasari makes her notable enough to be mentioned in her father's article. I have now already merged the short text in this article to Paolo Uccello. Tupsharru 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect - yes, she really was the daughter of Paolo Uccello, and all that is written on that article has been copied here. No need for a merge. Leave a redirect just in case someone thinks that she might be notable and isn't sure. By the way, here's her google search [18], all pointing to her being his daughter, full stop. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion merges need to be finished with a redirect to retain attribution to the original contributor. Voting merge and delete is not allowed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for further discussion BD2412 T 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge which is what appears to have already happened.--MONGO 05:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (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 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JLG

Apparent self-promotion of personal web site; does not establish notability. Adunar 05:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatent spam--MONGO 05:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even thought I'm tempted to contact his company and see if they do, in fact, do "everything." -- MisterHand 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nocontext, or regular delete if you prefer. Stifle 01:55, 26 December 2005 (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 SPEEDY DELETE under new CSD A7 wording. Harro5 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flow, band

Non-notable band. Not signed to label, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC--MONGO 05:43, 21 December 2005 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas L. Dusty Rhodes

Entire article consists of 2 quotes from other websites. Notable enough subject, with 2 copy violations for an article. (The first person who votes for Keep gets to create new article.) Madman 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just because I'm too lazy to write a new one (no, really not. Per nom.) — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that it has been expanded; I'd say Keep it and expand if necessary. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Baaa!! --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment' waiting for somebody else to vote "Keep" so I can without having to recreate the article. -- MisterHand 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• consider it done MisterHand Keep Jcuk 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --MisterHand 20:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I've done further clean-up on the article. (Thanks, Jcuk) Madman 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after clean-up. Notewarthy conservative. Jtmichcock 04:54, 22 December 2005 (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 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noypi

not a slang dictionary; possibly a wiktionary candidate but I doubt it Hirudo 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I can buy Pinoy being a slang term, but anagramming a slang word won't result in a useful article title. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALLS. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Just zis Guy. Stifle 01:54, 26 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 18:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 4

Non-notable port of a game. Google for "Super Mario 4" "Jay Resop" turns up nothing, and none of the Google hits for "Super Mario 4" alone seem relevant. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this is obviously a vanity page written by the guy who wrote this game. 9cds 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not even - SPKx 13:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Heh, I think this article is funny, but I had nothing to do with it. I would like to save this page for myself, though, since I think it's funny stuff. But yeah, go ahead and delete it.-jay Jay Resop 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Detete - I agree that this is unneeded. - SPKx 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above Barneyboo (Talk) 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Super Mario World as Super Mario 4 is an unofficial and alternate title to that game.Gateman1997 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but someone please archive it. --Crazyswordsman 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Archived at User:9cds/Super mario 4 9cds 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE and REDIRECT to Super Mario World ; or USERFY to User:Jay Resop/Super Mario 4, and create a redirector to Super Mario World. 132.205.45.148 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I feel the article is not needed. The 'port' was a fictional thing in a web comic which didn't even last more than one series of comics. Thusly why you don't find anything on it.--Metal Man88 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gateman1997. Stifle 01:54, 26 December 2005 (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 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SwapThing

Promotional. None of the screenshots have any tags and there are too many of them to be encyclopedic. The whole text sounds like it was written for prospective investors Daniel Case 06:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment. Same content is at User talk:SwapThing. Entire history of User:SwapThing suggests spammer at work. Daniel Case 06:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising. Anville 10:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto --KJPurscell 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising --Darrylv 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 01:53, 26 December 2005 (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 keep both. --Angr (t·c) 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High/Scope and David P. Weikart

A group involved in preschooling in the US. The author claims notability, but I just don't see why it warrants a Wikipedia entry. see this as quasi-spam and self-promotion. The article on David P. Weikart, the group's founder, is even less notable, and if the group's article is kept anything on him should be merged and redirected there. Otherwise, delete him too. Harro5 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A quick Google search, and looking individually at various sites, indicates this is easily a notable topic. The bio qualifies both for what he's written (and had published), and about what's written about him by others. Both articles need substantial clean-up (de-promotionalize), but there's ample sources available to make a good article. --Rob 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep and merge merge the bio into the group page as another section  J\/\/estbrook       15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep on both. Stifle 01:53, 26 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irides (game)

Google knows not of this "invented 2005" game nor of its author (whose name somewhat resembles the sole editor of the article). WP:NOT free web hosting. —Blotwell 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This game is currently patent pending in the United States. I am indeed both the creator of the article and the game. I wrote the article with the intent of allowing abstract gaming enthusiasts the chance to learn the game without having to wait for the patent. I am awaiting the patent before I create a website to promote the game. Once the website is created Google will have a listsing for the game. I should stress that I am not using wikipedia as an advertisement for the game as I will not be selling the game. As an abstract gaming enthusiast I am more than willing to share any game I create with world. - JeremiahClayton

I sort of feel bad saying this, but Wikipedia also is WP:NOT a crystal ball, and your game may not achieve the notability worthy of Wikipedian webspace (which, in my experience, must cost a lot of money), so I have to say that as it currently stands, the article should be deleted. - CorbinSimpson 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can you even patent video games? Anyway, without reliabale outside sources this can't be verified by other editors. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You can patent a game design (for example, if you were the first person to invent chess). So if it's new, useful and nonobvious; you could probably get a patent on a game you invented. Either way, being granted a patent alone is not enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. If and when something more becomes of this, then an article would be appropriate. Delete. Peyna 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Best of luck to you. You can call me Al 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if you can patent a video game but in that this is a board game.. that question is not important for this discussion. If the article must be deleted.. it happens. I disagree however with the idea that a board game must achieve some level of notability to be included on Wikipedia. There are countless articles that pertain to relatively unknown topics.. which to me.. is what makes Wikipedia better than the average encyclopedia. I also believe that a patent alone is enough to warrant an article in that it is a reliable source of information. Especially in a circumstance where the game will not be manufactured and was copyrighted only for the purpose of preventing others from profiting on what should remain a free game. I understand that as of now the article must be deleted.. but I have no doubt that it will one day again takes it's place along side other abstract game articles. - Jeremiah Clayton

• Weak delete, Wikipedia is not the first stop for anything like this. Good luck with the venture. Stifle 01:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The game can be found here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/21462.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 18:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive logic

Advert for the author's new book.

• Delete. Gazpacho 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to change my vote. It's still a presentation of the contributor/author's own novel theory. Gazpacho 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Gazpacho wrote to Wjkellpro: Unlike Robert I cannot support keeping the article. I nominated it not only because of the original tone, but because this appeared to be your original interpretation of US politics. If this is not the case, you should add some sources, not written by you, that refer to the concept described in the article as "progressive logic." Gazpacho 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Wjkellpro replied: Hi Gazpacho! Thanks for clarifying your opposition to my article Progressive Logic. But I think you give me way too much credit for original research and thinking. This article does not breach the limits on original research for several reasons. First, it follows to the “t” the established meaning of “values,” “value reasoning,” and “logic” as these are explained in wikipedia under Robert S. Hartman, and value science.

Second, I’m not refering to a “concept,” such as “justice,” or “good,” or “evil,” but to the process of reasoning that progressives use in the course of weighing the relative importance of public policy options and proposals. I have used the term “progressive logic” merely to summarize this process of value reasoning, which is as old as the hills.

The article progressivism gives some indication of the value reasoning of progressives. Also such historians as Richard Hofstadter, Gabriel Kolko, and Howard Zinn provide books full of examples of the way progressives have reasoned about their policy choices. Progressive social critics, like Erich Fromm and Charles A. Reich also follow “progressive logic,” but without using that exact term (as far as I know).

I can see now that I should have included a selected bibliography to give the reader a clearer sense that Progressive Logic simply describes a reasoning process followed by progressives. I’m sure the writers above (who are still alive) would agree that there is no debate among social critics and social scientists about the existence of this reasoning process, because its existence is so obvious to all who have studied progressive politics.

After I put in a more complete “references” section, I’m sure your objection will be met, and that you’ll withdraw your opposition. Just wait and see.Wjkellpro 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, a whole bunch of adspeak. Once that's removed, I doubt we'd have anything left to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not particularly happy with the tone of the first paragraph, but this is loads better than what was up before. Keep for now. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment article author has expressed willingness to adjust article see here I agreed to help him bring it up to par. Come back after a few revisions and re-consider.  J\/\/estbrook       15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep as the article has some merit and can be developed further.  J\/\/estbrook       15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Folks! I'm new to this game, so I'm just learning the rules. Actually, I thought there weren't any rules, so I could promote my new book here. But I can take a hint. I'll show that Mgm guy that I really do have something to say! User: wjkellpro
  
• Hi Again! I have taken out all the advertising. I have now posted what I think can qualify as a genuine encyclopedia article. I invite you all to check it out. I think wikipedia is a great innovation, and I'd like to be a part of it. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Clean up, an article on this subject would be beneficial to the project, a major reformatting is what's needed. --Robert Harrison^{talk contrib} 03:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Shrink to paragraph and Merge into Progressivism or Delete as per Chadlupkes' reasoning. --Robert Harrison^{talk contrib} 15:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stifle 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  I had a request from Wjkellpro to reconsider my vote. I have checked the article and it is still masses of original research and/or a book advert. Please see WP:NOR. My vote stands. Stifle 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Take another look

Hey Gazpacho and Stifle, take another look at my article Progressive Logic. I've benefitted greatly from the assistance of JWestbrook. Please tell me any specific objections you have, and I'll try to satisfy them. Others have changed their votes, I'd like to work with you on this. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename or Merge, interesting but the title seems wrong, could it be moved to a better name or merged into another article? - FrancisTyers 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How about moving to progressive values or values of american progressives? - 18:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Shrink to paragraph and Merge into Progressivism, I've changed the framing of the first few paragraphs to reflect this as a thesis, and not a peer-reviewed political theory. Dr. Kelleher, I'm intrigued by your ideas, but I think they need a little more support before something this large has a place on this site. I consider myself to be a very strong progressive, and much of this article is duplicated in your book, so doesn't really need to be added to Wikipedia on its own. A single paragraph referencing your thesis on the Progressivism page would be more appropriate. Feel free to contact me offwiki if you like. Chadlupkes 20:33, 27 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Hardy

This page was created by one of my friends as a joke , and this person was a very unpopular mayor and abused her rights and almost got kicked out of her job. This page was NOT vandalized but in fact those comments were real. This page should be deleted ASAP. It was simply made to make fun of her and show to people at the High School. Unremarkable person, apparent vanity bio, frequent vandalism, no value, no real content. -- Jbamb 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Claims of notability, but will never be more than a sentence. I agree that it is not a speedy but it should still go. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Not a speedy, the woman was Mayor of a major town. -- JJay 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No one has done anything but vandalize this page, if she was Mayor of a major town, why are there no accomplishments? It seems that at best this will be trivia with no meat behind it. She served only one year in a town of 200,000 people. There are about 10,000 towns that size, do we create bios for every office holder in history of those towns? -- Jbamb 06:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I hate vandalism as much as the next guy. However, if that was a reason for deletion, the George Bush article would have to go immediately. I think bios of every mayor and major elected official would be a nice goal for wikipedia. Just use templates instead of AfD to get improvement-- JJay 07:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between valuable articles that get vandalized, and articles that seem only to exist for the purpose of vandalizing. The people who put this up did it to slam this woman. They keep changing the page. There doesn't appear to be anyone truly interested in putting real information up. -- Jbamb 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The vandalism seems to have begun in the last week, as the article was untouched for six months. It could end as quickly as it began. Many school related articles are vandalised, but removal is not an option. The original stub for Ms. Hardy was not designed to slam her as it merely stated she was Mayor of her town. There was no vanity whatsoever. I do not feel qualified to decide what is or is not valuable. However, as one-time Mayor and city council member, Ms. Hardy, in my opinion, is notable enough for this encyclopedia. -- JJay 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs at least a stub classification.TheRingess 06:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional keep: only if the focus has shifted to her term as mayor before the end of this AfD. No more messing around. Otherwise, delete. Harro5 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One year as mayor? Delete as non-notable. There would be hundreds of mayors for this town alone, and that sets a bad precedent. Harro5 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep as per Harro5. Otherwise, delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. In Huntington Beach, California, Hardy served one year as mayor because that position rotates among the city council members annually; it's not as though she was elected mayor in her own right for a four-year term as one might see in other cities. I can imagine this being a valid article nonetheless, but right now I don't know whether that will happen. --Metropolitan90 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment why do residents of smallish United States cities presume their hometowns are world famous? Include the state, please. Durova 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But everybody knows about Paducah! ;) -- Jbamb 14:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete city council members are hardly notable.Gateman1997 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if she's from a city where Mayor is chosen by the city council from themselves.[19] --SarekOfVulcan 01:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lets try not to put everything on Wikipedia, whether notable or not.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per anyone you like above. Vandalism magnet. Oh and put a {{deletedpage}} on it as well. Stifle 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If she was mayor of a major city, like LA, I would easily say keep. But, in many California cities, there is a city council that rules the city, and some hire a city manager to deal with internal affairs. In that situation, you usually draw straws to see who is "mayor of the month," since it is mainly a title that has little meaning. I also will like to see a deleted page template slapped on the article. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 08:04, 26 December 2005 (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 withdrawn by nominator. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of 8-Bit Theater

Unsourced (likely alignments? pasts of characters?), super-extensive fake biographies. I know this is a fork from 8-Bit Theater which was becoming too large, but quite frankly the Characters section seems quite sufficient. Not much more can be said about these characters which would be verifiable and encyclopedic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination per WP:SNOW. There appears to be clear conensus that this article should remain. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I would recommend you go and read the archives from the beginning before calling it fake. As far as I can remember, those bios all look accurate and have not extrapolated from the comic or fantasized any aspect of the characters. 8-Bit Theater is probably notable enough to merit a giant article on characters. And, to top it off, it's not the longest webcomic article either -- Megatokyo and Questionable Content are both longer! - CorbinSimpson 09:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I do read the comic, and enjoy it. But would you put a detailed plot summary of every episode on Wikipedia? There is a line between encyclopedia and trivia, and I feel it has been crossed here. If the consensus here finds otherwise, then that's great too. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We have plenty of "fake biographies"... And this criticism seems especially besides the point: "Not much more can be said about these characters which would be verifiable and encyclopedic." --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a nice page concerning fairly notable characters. -- MisterHand 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Its a good page, for a very notable web comic, and the 8 Bit Theater page would be too large if all this was merged into it. --Naha|^(talk) 19:49, 21 December 2005 (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 SPEEDY DELETE per Peyna's comment. Harro5 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The Changing Face of Missions"

An original research, personal essay (see WP:NOT) copied from a religious blog. Not a copyvio, but not for Wikipedia either. Harro5 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteI thought it should be speedied, so I still think it should be deleted.TheRingess 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, original research. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal essay. --Metropolitan90 08:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NOR.--nixie 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above, but it is quite clearly a blatant copyvio and we have no evidence of permission, therefore it can be speedied since the article is under 48 hours old WP:CSD (A8). Peyna 23:52, 21 December 2005 (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 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oscarian

A non-notable religious sect, or cult, or miniscule group - whatever you want to call it. No reason to have a Wikipedia entry, but no applicable CSD given its iffy claims at notability. Harro5 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's a joke.

TheRingess 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable and decidedly iffy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most likely a hoax. Stifle 01:49, 26 December 2005 (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 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff morton

I'm pretty sure this is not notable. --ParkerHiggins ^{( talk contribs )} 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Delete. -- Jbamb 06:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. His most famous article was for a College newspaper apparently. A search for "Geoff Morton" Writer doesn't come up with anything notable certainly about the subject of the article see [20].Capitalistroadster 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn-bio -- MisterHand 18:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (speedy?). Looks pretty non-notable to me, and the page has been blanked (I restored the AFD notice only, not sure if this was the best choice). --LesleyW 13:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No harm to the site done. -- Eddie 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 01:49, 26 December 2005 (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 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vladislav Adelkhanov

He does not appear to be notable yet, he is just a student. May be in a few years... Delete abakharev 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment He's 35 years old. He graduated from one of the world's leading classical music conservatoires 11 years ago, and undertook advanced studies at another of them back in the late 1990s (I think), so "just a student" is incorrect. If he has really given a recital at St John's Smith Square, which is one of the main concert halls in London, appeared as the solo violinist in concerto performances, and recorded CDs, then he is notable. However I can't verify any of it, though it could be down to differing transliterations from Russian. Bhoeble 06:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to see what is so notable about him from this stub. --Ghirlandajo 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of verifiability. Durova 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trust me, anyone who plays all 24 caprices in one evening is a brilliant musician, and is more than encyclopedia worthy. Flyboy Will 08:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on a second thought. I see not a single mention of him anywhere, save for [21], which proves he studied violin at the Moscow Conservatory in 1989. Considering that he himself wrote his own article, I would expect him to get the spelling right; so, unless some sources supporting his claims of a recitals, three CDs and a book can be provided, this begins to sound like a hoax to me. Why would an accomplished musician such as that working on a psychology project? Flyboy Will 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits at all for "Vladislav Adelkhanov" see [22]. so unverifiableCapitalistroadster 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like self-promo. KNewman 20:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the article has been blanked. Stifle 01:49, 26 December 2005 (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 (belated) speedy delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood of Bob

This seems to refer to a guild of players of a video game? If so, not obviously notable. Ben Aveling 06:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Could probably be speedied as nonsense.TheRingess 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 07:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability.--Alhutch 07:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, guilds and clans. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as NN group, as allowed by revised CSD A7. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Jamie. You can call me Al 20:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wow you guys are SO French... check www.griefers.net/Bob or www.game-master.net for information on Bob. We're more than just a guild... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.170.164 (talk • contribs).
• Speedy delete per A7. Stifle 01:48, 26 December 2005 (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 no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous overweight people

Listed for CSD under the reasoning, "defammatory", thus claiming CSD A6 as a personal attack. But then, it's true, they all do fit a certain mass-related criterion (they're pretty fat, and pretty famous), so we'll open it up for debate. Harro5 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 'Overweight' and 'famous' are too subjective when combined. If there were a criterion by mass or weight or BMI for 'overweight,' and 'famous' was the same as our 'notable,' then it could be debated or considered, but as it stands, there's just too much room for opinion. - CorbinSimpson 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The list was already growing in the heavily trafficked and frequently vandalized obesity article and making a separate article is the best way to get it out of there. You know that we have a class of editors whose idea of contributing to human knowledge is to point out that "John Doe is fat". Let's give them a separate place to play so they don't interfere with a real article. Thanks. alteripse 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Serving as a lightning rod for vandalism is a very poor reason to keep an article. Does it have independent merits? JFW | T@lk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course it has no merits other than keeping people who think it's worthwhile away from the obesity article. I don't personally care whether it lives or dies by itself but I thought it was a useless distraction and a lightning rod for trouble in the obesity article. As long as it is understood that no one re-creates it as part of the obesity article, we can delete it as far as I am concerned. Will you back me on keeping it from being re-started there?alteripse 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason not to have this list. It is important and can be verified based on government definition for fat or obese or using Body mass index. -- JJay 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment : we do have other lists of this type that are sourced, defined and maintained such as List of famous tall women, List of short actors or our list of Notable anorectics found at Anorexia nervosa. -- JJay 07:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those lists are much more narrow. A "list of obese actors" could be manageable; even "list of people famous for their weight" could too - but a "famous overweight" list is too much. This list is like having a "list of tall people" and "list of short people" instead of the ones you posted. Flyboy Will 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think it can be managed. The definition could be refined. Maybe by sex like List of famous tall women. -- JJay 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm really unsure about that; and also, honestly, how much worth is to this list? Who's going to look at it and go "oh wow, I had no idea Chris Farley was fat! you learn something every day!" A person's weight is immediatley apparent, and this kind of list would mostly be based on public perception, not fact. As such, what's its value, if all the contents are already in the public's mind? Finally, why the hell does this even matter? Save for a handful of comedians, these people's weight is of absolutely no consequence to their notability. Also, what do we do about people like, say, Kristie Allie? Flyboy Will 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but while we know that Farley was fat without the list, isn't the same true for height, race and many other criteria listed at Wikipedia? Yet, editors find these lists very useful and appealing. From the intellectual standpoint, the list is achievable within wikipedia policy guidelines. Therefore, I can't vote against it. -- JJay 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Weight is not always publicly known, and it is subject to change. Shall we put Renée Zellweger and Roseanne Barr in there or not? JFW | T@lk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete undefined, unsourced and unmaintainble.--nixie 07:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. 9cds 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Overweight" is an insanely broad term. Somebody like Brad Pitt is technically overweight, at 6' and 203 lbs [23] (I just randomly looked it up, not that I know Brad Pitt's weight by heart). Anyway, this list is completely unmaintanable, and even if the inclusion criteria is modified to be obese-only, it can still quickly grow to be the biggest fattest article ever on wikipedia, as soon as we dip into history past Santa Claus. Flyboy Will 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessarily stigmatising, serves no real informational purpose, sourcing is a nightmare (who knows Brad Pitt's BMI), potentially endless as the definition of "famous" is too flexible. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• As for Jennifer Aniston, she has a BMI of 18.3. Her husband -- the hunky Brad Pitt -- has a BMI of 27.5. From "The girth of a nation" at Salon.com [24]. -- JJay 08:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Many professional athletes would qualify by the BMI index. It only compares height to weight, not body fat or muscle mass. I'd love to go on a "tall" diet but my height has been constant for years. The analogy is problematic. Durova 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and constrict inclusion criteria then clean it up. It may be problematic now, but it's a problem that can be solved without deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no problem with the term "overweight" which is not necessarily defamatory. However, I think that it should be careful of inclusion. For example, it should only include people who recognise that they are overweight - some people might take offence at being called "overweight" if they personally don't think that they are. However, the likes of Roseanne and Oprah, who have documented their weight problems, probably wouldn't mind (note: both of those have lost weight since stating that they had weight problems) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename — overweight is too inclusive. It can even include actors and actresses who bulked up for a particular role. This should be moved to something along the lines of "list of famous obese people", which is a well defined criteria and more restrictive. Perhaps even narrow it down further to morbidly obese if necessary? :) — RJH 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ghirlandajo 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NPOV as there is no definition given for "overweight" and "famous". Also unmaintainable and listcruft. Gateman1997 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay Jcuk 20:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gateman1997. --kingboyk 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Useless, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How do you handle close cases? Mail them a scale? Will Kirstie Alley rejoin if she eats the cannoli? Jtmichcock 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, Wikipedia may have plenty of frivilous articles, but this crosses the line from "frivilous" to something you'd find in The Inquirer. Also, earlier points of difficulty with accuracy.Sean Hayford O'Leary 10:06, 26 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remote LanD Attack

Labelled CSD, but no criteria apply. This is a nonsense original research about some super-nerdy computer-attack thing. I can't understand it, but know it's not Wikipedia-worthy. Harro5 06:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It IS original research, but it's not nonsense. It more or less makes sense. The author is free to move it someplace else, and then cite it from Wikipedia, but right now, the article needs to be moved or deleted. - CorbinSimpson 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to LAND, and clean that up. --Zetawoof 09:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is in fact complete nonsense. On the one hand, the article is incoherent -- his claim is that the attack is caused by an ICMP packet, but his examples use flags which are only applicable to TCP packets. He also claims that you can introduce crippling latency on a remote network using TCP packets sent to a LAN broadcast address. Both claims are laughable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of TCP/IP networking. On the other hand, even if you fixed the terminology issues in the article, the simple fact is that the exploit he claims, does not work. Unfortunately, the author also modified the original LanD entry to include reference to this entry.

The original LanD entry should be reverted to its state before all of this happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.75.16.223 (talk • contribs).

• Delete Yes it's comprehensible, but no it does not make much sense. per unsigned comment above, it mentions TCP flags being used on an ICMP packet. It is not original research however, as it does mention older mentions of the attack. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sad...

Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia entry. I am also the original author of the write up, Justin M. Wray, and I am the one who did all the research. I laugh at the fact that you guys claim "its not original research". Are you claiming I stole the information? I am claiming it as my own? Well the research is all original. I did do it all myself. And the tests were all conducted by me, with the help of a few others mentioned in the article.

The article is as "wikiworthy" as the original LAND post, which is also on wiki I might add. I was going to contact someone from the defacing team (or whatever the name may be). As some users from digg.com continue to deface the site. They claim they can not get the exploit to work, which I am not disputing, however I have been receiving endless emails from people claiming they got it to work. I had help testing it both from my employer and a College professor in the Networking/InfoSec field. The exploit is far from "bogus".

ICMP vs TCP. Both work, I 'was' planing to make that a bit more clear, yet every time I go to edit the wikipage, I have to fix the SPAM people are leaving. The flags are for the TCP packet but if you send enough ICMP packets it will do the same, it takes about 30 seconds longer or so, so it seems.

This is not a normal "Ping of Death"

Yes I edited the LAND entry to add a link to the new discovery. Its important, home consumers are vulnerable, and its big news in the Security field. If you take a look at the links on the current wiki page about RLA, you will see many big names are talking about it. One is Dave, from the ICANN security counsel. (ICANN is in charge of giving out IP address).

Someone said to merge with the original LAND attack. I am not adverse to that over deletion, but the attacks are only similar in nature, the original could not be done over the Internet, where the Remote LAND Attack can. To me this means they should be separated, but linked to one and other.

I thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia, for the sharing if information and knowledge. I have seen far less important articles. I am shocked to see wikipedia take such actions, this is only hindering education. I know for a fact, if the page stays, it will be used in many college classes, and even training at work. This is an important part of Internet history, even if its inter works are foreign to the average users, the end results are not.

I have more to say, but I will allow you to read and refute the above first.

BTW: Its not "super-nerdy computer-attack thing", its a network perimeter devices exploit. And the sad part is, your "router" is most likely susceptible to attack. Hope the vendors take this more serious then some of you have.

Its funny how hundreds of kids can play in a pool, but let one pee in it and all the funs over. Remember, a lot of people have recreated this attack, and only a handful are saying its bogus...

SynisterSyntax 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Well the research is all original. As stated by the author therefore this shouldn't be in wikipedia. It needs to be deleted. --Pboyd04 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• What?

Wait a moment...So because its original research, it’s not worthy of being in the encyclopedia? That makes a lot of sense. So only copied material makes it to wiki?

SynisterSyntax 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Read this it explains the no original research policy. --Pboyd04 15:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I see...

Qoute: "Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas..."

The research is based off of previous work. However it is in fact, new, different, and original. But it is posted online elsewhere, both on my own servers, and on many other reputable sites. Take a look at the links...

68.50.61.139 19:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sad...

Okay, ive just about had it with all of the stupid comments left by the people who have no clue what they are talking about. They may THINK they do, but they really dont. Im Matthew Wines, i helped with the testings of this exploit and i verify that it works. The very first object tested was my Westell VersaLink 327W (the one Verizon sent me with DSL). When we first tested the exploit it worked, this was to our surprise. We then tested a couple different things and couldnt re-create the exploit and were very discouraged. Then we adjusted some other settings and tried again, it worked. So we moved on to test others to see if it would only work with my VersaLink. However, it worked with Synisters Atlanta DPX2100. That is when he released the exploit information to his college professor, who allowed him to test it on a couple other things. It worked each time. We did lots of tests and would not release or makeup a stroy like this. If you notice, when i was talking about my VersaLink, we DID NOT get it to work every time for the first time. However, once we found the perfect settings, we could reacreate it just about every time. So please dont post your stupid immature spam garbage and accusations, if you would do a better part to society and play World Of Warcraft for 3 days straight then jump out of a 29 story window when someone "Ninjas" your Trinket.... Thank You to everyone who gets this exploit to work, who actually tries it, and does not display themselves as a complete and total fool.

Vendicator 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but this isn't the place for it. Once your work is proved (by publishing or some other means) then we can include. Until then we can't. BTW, wikiarticles don't write like essays for school. There is no "credit" given to authors except for citations. I vote to delete. Oberiko 19:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Read

The work has been proven. Try reading some of the links that are on the page. Read some of the blog posts, news posts, and forum posts. And if you’re waiting for Vendor's to release a statement that will come with time as well.

SynisterSyntax 15:45, 24 December 2005 (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. Hedley 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luis Fernando Pinzón Cancino

I'm prepared to withdraw this if notability can be established, but at the moment the article makes no clear claim to notability. He gets 295 google hits, but again, nothing obviously notable. Ben Aveling 07:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 01:48, 26 December 2005 (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. Only comments by established Wikipedians were taken into consideration. --Angr (t·c) 20:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lydia Fairchild

[edit] Comments by established Wikipedians

As discussed on the talk page, content is unverified and probably a hoax, delete.--nixie 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Probable hoax and a Google search did nothing to verify this see [25]. Capitalistroadster 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Um, what? Stifle 01:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it- TLC just replayed the show yesterday. She was there. -Bark 27 December 2005
• Delete, unverifiable. --King of All the Franks 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Okay guys, the thing here is that she is not notable except as a case study of chimeraism so what you should do, rather than insult people, is see if you can find a nice link to some information about her (and currently there has been no verification provided that she is the woman mentioned in the TLC doc) and then add this link to the Chimera (genetics) article. --Spondoolicks 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by anons and newbies

• Keep it- It actually did happen and there was a special on it on Discovery Health channel, not Tlc. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.0.120.106 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it- I am watching the story on TLC as I type this, and I came here to look for further information.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.196.84.227 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Keep It" by TAB - This show is on TLC, on a special called "I Am My Own Twin". I am watching it right now, on TLC which happens to be a division of the Discovery Channel networks - yes, TLC, and it was on a month or two ago as well. I would think that TLC tries hard to validate the stories that they show. Lydia was not the only person featured on the show. There was another woman named Karen Keegan who had the same Chimera DNA issue, as well as the case of a baby born as a hermaphrodite. I've never known TLC to be a National Enquirer type network that shows false things. As for the google search, there are two other links on the results page that bring her up under the topic of chimera. So, she is out there in the search engine. The TLC show doesn't list the people featured on their show, otherwise her name would probably show up there if they listed names. I'm sure you could simply contact the TLC network to verify this story. I don't see what the big deal is with verifying this when it's already been featured on a major cable network such as TLC. http://tlc.discovery.com/schedule/series.jsp?series=111185&gid=0&channel=TLC —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.17.20.143 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it - It was on a TLC show last night and can also be verified on Google by searching chimerism

the show was called I am my own Twin and also profiled Karen Keegan with the same condition.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 142.162.145.25 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it -- Chimerism is a rare gentic anomaly; there are only two current cases being followed in the United States. Lydia Fairchild is the only case that has caused legal precedent for human chimera. (Chimerism also occurs in other species, with more prevalence)—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.45.95.126 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Keep It" - Hello? It is verifiable by virtue of the fact that it was on a national information network/channel and had to pass the smell test of the producers, etc. etc. of that show on TLC. It is not just original research. Maybe it was 'orginal research' before it was screened by a reputable cable network and broadcasted to millions. But now it fits the 'verifiable' qualifications and has gone beyond being original research or just a theory. All you have to do is contact the TLC Network and/or the larger Discovery channel company. You could even contact the hospitals and other sources that are mentioned on the show. How hard is that to understand? Why is this site run by teens who live in isolated locations? That is scary. Can your qualifications be 'verified'? lol—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.17.20.143 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Keep It" - In "Calculated Risk: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You", by Gerd Gigerenzer, DNA testing offers the illusion of certainty. If you have a brother, your brother has a 1 in 16 chance of matching your DNA. I love science, but science is constantly changing. DNA testing will eventually be a footnote in history, like everything else mortals come up with.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 160.254.20.253 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Keep It" by EMAnthon - I too just watched the TLC show "I Am My Own Twin" While some of the information in the article is off (Lydia's lawyer didn't find the article on Karen Keegan, the prosecutors did) and if you have more of the information as to how she came to end up in court (Accusations of Welfare Fraud) it makes the information more credible. The TLC/Discovery Health Channel will air it again on JAN 22 2006 @ 08:00 PM, JAN 22 2006 @ 11:00 PM, JAN 29 2006 @ 07:00 PM - This website Everything2.com [26]has an entry dated Thu Jul 21 2005 at 21:15:26 That gives further information and sources from medical journals and doctors that so many of you who want to delete it requested. Also my google searches came up with several other links to Lydia's case and when you add Chimera to her name a more specific list is produced. - 28 December 2005—the preceding unsigned comment is by 204.128.192.5 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Keep It" – Further in the book "Calculated Risk”"

On page 167 in a section titled “The Fabrication of Certainty”: (a) 1 in 100 DNA test is a false positive. (b) The FBI has fought hard to prevent outsiders from seeing the results of there own internal tests on DNA accuracy. On page 180: “subjective judgements are an integral part of” DNA testing (matching up lines of a two DNA profiles). On page 181: DNA is effected by sunlight, poor laboratory practices, or inadequate analysis.

My point is a follows: The mainstream notion of DNA’S infallibility is a hoax. DNA is not the end game. There is much yet to be discovered and cataloged for future reference. To delete the ”Lydia Fairchild” story would censor a probable truth. Nothing good will come of such censorship.

Note: FEMA is funding the Katrina DNA testing. Not sure if FEMA has opted to fund the expensive DNA test (more accurate) or the cheap DNA test (not as accurate). When you think DNA testing, think FEMA, perhaps you'll have more empathy for ”Lydia Fairchild”'s nightmare. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.193.211.21 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 December 2005 (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 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of descriptive songs whose titles are mentioned in the lyrics

User:Light current seems to think that this is a speedy candidate.

• Keep as song list with a unique theme. --Nintendude 07:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It would take a unique definition of "unique" to classify this list's theme as unique. Carbonite | Talk 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Are you serious? I can barely think of any songs whose titles are not mentioned in the lyrics. Flyboy Will 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flyboy Will. Worst listcruft I've ever seen. Zunaid 09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flyboy Will. Not quite the worst listcruft I've ever seen - we once had a list of British television personalities with a missing or deformed hand - but, if kept, this would undoubtedly be the longest list ever. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, I have to ask: how big was that list? --Calton | Talk 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it had made it to about four entries when deleted, though the only one I can remember is Jeremy Beadle. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment List of descriptive songs whose titles are mentioned in the title that redirects to it should be deleted as well - probably speedied. Flyboy Will 09:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When articles are deleted, their redirects can certainly be speedied. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, I'm working on a List of crufty lists, and I will be linking to ... only joking. Delete. --Squiddy 10:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too broad and unmaintainable. That's what we have List of songs for. At least list of British television personalities with a missing or deformed hand has clearly established inclusion criteria that are NOT too broad. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - too big a list. Most songs mention the title somewhere in the song - those that don't are the rarity, if anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless listcruft that is entirely unmaintainable and could easily grow to fill the entire server.Gateman1997 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Carbonite | Talk 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. Over 90% of all recorded songs with lyrics include the title somewhere in their titles... and, no, a List of descriptive songs whose titles are not mentioned in the lyrics would not be a good idea, either. B.Wind 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - bad listcruff --Naha|^(talk) 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable listcruft. You can call me Al 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per our rule against indiscriminate collections of information. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A list so inclusive as to be utterly meaningless. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, verging on BJAODN. I challenge the author to find a single serious song that does 'not' mention the title in the lyrics. And what the hell is a descriptive song anyway. Worst list I have ever seen. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We've already got that covered. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That article should be deleted, too, for the same reasons. B.Wind 17:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Side Note Bizarrely, that article has survived TWO AfD's already! (here and here). Seems like its here to stay :( Zunaid 07:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 01:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Most songs have their titles mentioned in the lyrics, that's how people find in a record store a song they liked on the radio. Endomion 07:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article talks about songs with titles describing whether the song is "This Opera", "Mambo # that" and "That Ballad" where the title is actually said. Will anybody vote keep now? (unsigned comment from anon)
• Delete. The opposite is perhaps notable, this one on AfD however is not. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 16:40, 28 December 2005 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica Systems

Appears to be a vanity page, and all of the information on there is lifted from the website anyway. 9cds 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it was founded by Tim Bray, although he seems to have left. Kappa 07:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. seems to gets media attention: http://www.antarctica.net/Press/In_The_News.asp. Kappa 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Founded by notable individual, gets media attention. Material may be copied, but it's little and not really promotional in nature. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keepper above Jcuk 21:00, 21 December 2005 (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 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evangel family church

One line sub-stub on a church with no claim of notabliy. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No clear claim to notability is made in the article. --Metropolitan90 08:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no different than the millions of other churches in the world.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notable traits, sub stub that is unverified.Gateman1997 18:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if this church is 'no different to the millions of other churches in the world', its an automatic keep as we have St. Pauls Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, York Minster to name but three Jcuk 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those churches are the home notable events and are notable in and of themselves, unlike the church listed here.Gateman1997 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For one, St. Pauls Cathedral and Westminster Abbey are major tourist attractions in London and Westminster Abbey is the final resting place for numerous celebrities. Comparing the Evangel family church with these really doesn't do it any good. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Stifle 01:44, 26 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gyalpo

Original research ("This page was started by me"). I can't find verification online - if someone more knowledgeable can rewrite that'd be great but I don't think there's anything salvageable here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference to Gyalpo can be found. On the Dorje Shugden page, you have to go to the discussion and there you find at the bottom of the page, a long article that explains in scholarly manner that "(in Tibetan 'gyalpo' meaning king, a type of ghost)" on line five of the article. The article is the last one on the page. It starts with "Jeff Watt, the Webmaster for Sakya Resource..." and is entitled "Do Shakyas rely on Dorje Shugden?" This takes you to the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kelsangpagpa

Anyways, I'll refer to the people who are interested in this subject over there and among Tibetan-following folks, and see what approach would be best to break down the subject for Wiki. All the best to you, and also thinks for the advice about Gyalpo. Geir Smith. It's funny, I just sent this same message a few minutes ago but it didn't seem to register right now.

• Gasp ! What's that link I just sent !!! Noooo ! the links must have mixed up. The page above-mentionned ("Do Shakyas rely on Dorje Shugden?" )is at this link, not that other one with the Buddhist monk ! No way ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden

Hope that's all right now ! Geir Smith.

• Delete...for now until someone can come along and write a better article. Then again, if someone can prove that a cleanup is possible, I'll change my vote. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The page is now formatted for new edition along the start-up lines. The new format will be worked out with various people who can work out a collegial manner of writing the article. It's thoguht to become a non-sectarian approach but along the lines the people themselves choose. It's just in the project stage now. Renaming the project as Gyalpo enables to get out of the check-mate that the originally named project is mired in. Things are thus back at step one.

Thanks to you for understanding the difficulty of entering an encyclopedic work. Advice taken and appreciated. Geir Smith.

• I'll start reediting the page according to encyclopedia norms. The page should thus probably define the verifiable sources behind it's title first and then move on to support that verifiable source with a developped research on it.I'll go slowly on this rather than do things backwards - which is to first put a lot of material online and then hope for correcting later, from others, as I was more or less expecting. I'll thus spruce up the existing links to the first bit there to start out slowly and go from there. G.S.

Nominate for Speedykeep. Signed Geir Smith. 25 December 2005. Noon.

Comment: You cannot nominate an article for speedy keep unless you are the nominator and no delete votes have been received, neither of which has happened (except in cases of vandalism or WP:POINT. Stifle 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Original research to the hilt, unreferenced and unverified. Stifle 01:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

- I've added a bit about Gyalpo to give background reference to the article. Geiremann 11:24, 26 December 2005 (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 speedy delete. FireFox 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those 3 Guys

Band does not qualify under WP:MUSIC; likely self-promotion. Adunar 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per band vanity. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as {{nn-band}} / CSD A7. (Revised A7 allows speedy of NN bands) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:40, 21 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaumont Drama Society

non notable theatre group. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Beaumont, Alberta, which really could use some content. -- JJay 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Woohookitty. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:21, Dec. 21, 2005
• Delete per nom.Gateman1997 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per JJayJcuk 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I was very tempted to say merge, but there's almost no verifiable information here. A google reveals nothing. If verifiable information is found, then somebody can add that to Beaumont, Alberta, along with verifiable sources cited (a delete here doesn't prevent that). BTW, I don't count the link to the Society to be a reliable source. --Rob 11:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle 01:39, 26 December 2005 (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 merge with The Slip. --Angr (t·c) 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc friedman

Non-notable musician who plays partially un-invented instruments. Zero related google hits. Delete per WP:MUSIC May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"non-notable musician"? please google "the Slip." almost 15 year of professional music. i will be willing to change his bio for more clarity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Music by Man (talk • contribs).

• Merge with The Slip. The band article is barely a stub and this info would help pad it out a bit. Movementarian 12:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• How do we merge? Also, Bio has been edited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Music by Man (talk • contribs).

• Keep a member of a band that does seem to meet the music criteria. Flyboy Will 08:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. Stifle 01:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with The Slip. The musician's notability is only due to memerbship to the band. - Liberatore(T) 18:49, 28 December 2005 (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 no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Banner (band)

Non-notable music ensemble. Numerous google hits for +band +"the banner", but none seem discernible outside of Myspace.com (the parking garage of garage bands). Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if they have recorded. -- JJay 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fail WP:MUSIC 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable, and have recorded. Jcuk 21:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Three albums in existence on established independent labels. Their current label, Ferret Records, is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry of its own. The only thing this article needs is a good dose of NPOV. --Cjmarsicano 04:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A band with a myspace page is a clear indication of a lack of notability. Stifle 01:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not entirely true. A lot of "notable" acts are using MySpace pages. Neil Diamond has a myspace page up that was used to help promote his new album. --Cjmarsicano 02:04, 26 December 2005 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentry gun

A ministub of a C&C:RA2 unit? I think not.

Agamemnon2 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Anytime half the content of an article is "Somewhat the same to the Chinese 'Gattling Cannon' from Command & Conquer: Ganerals." it's not a good sign. 24.17.48.241 08:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sentry gun to the head - Seriously, you'd think this could be a better article about something real. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would think it could mention the C&C:RA2 unit, the sentry gun from the Alien series, the Quake:TF mod's use of that, the Half Life 2 sentry guns, and the poeple who have built things based on these fictions --Pboyd04 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I added some more info about the topics I mentioned above. I think someone needs to expand it some more, but I don't think it really merits deletion anymore

• Keep: pending some explanation as to what this is about. -- JJay 09:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the main article on the game already lists units in sufficient detail. (A tank has been deleted earlier last week). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Lots of games have sentry guns of a similar quality. Metroid Prime and Metal Gear come to mind, although I'm sure that the Tom Clancy games have them too. The page could easily describe the technology and how it might work in the real world, and reference working models people have built (I recall a machine that fired ping-pong balls at a person who approached within a specific radius). The C&C unit should be mentioned, of course. I'll take a shot at it later today if I've got time. --Stephen Deken 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand / cleanup, sentry guns are a fairly common element in science fiction. McPhail 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm changing my vote, this article is better now. I'll work on it later. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 21:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original-research magnet for fanboys, of made-up technology. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: it's a common element across fiction as I believe the current version of the article illustrates. --Pboyd04 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above Staxringold 00:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The stub certainly didn't do justice to the subject, but given the recent developments in the area and it's validity as a recurring theme in fiction (and in real applications), it should be kept. I've updated the article considerably, and deleted the offending portions of the stub. Please give it a second look. An experienced Wiki editor's assistance on it would be appreciated though. --Pseudo Nym 14:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just fixed up the article a bit more and added links to Æon Flux, which features sentry guns. I think the article is in good enough shape now that this AfD thing can just go away. This article is staying. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Are there any objections to keeping the article in its current form? If not I say we remove the AfD tag. --Pboyd04 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good call on the Aeon Flux reference, I totally missed that one. I'm all for removing the AfD tag now :). --Pseudo Nym 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The CIWS system is an important defense of US Navy ships (but the sailors call it "Christ It Won't Shoot") Endomion 06:21, 23 December 2005 (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 Speedy Keep on withdrawal of nomination with no other delete votes cast. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Edward Stokes

This page was created and is edited by a persistant vandal who is obsessed about adding false information about Families (TV series), New Zealand cricketers, vegans, The Simpsons voices (with a particular fetish for Mr Burns), amongst other things. According to the IMDB, this article is 50% incorect. See also Articles for deletion/Amanda Dickison, which was deleted on the same grounds. The JPS 08:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Simon Stokes is an actor and he was in Families among other shows [27]. He probably deserves a page. Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding your nom. -- JJay 09:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you had battled to remove the nonsense that this user has added to wikipedia over the last few months, the you would understand it. The IMDB does not mention The Bill. Google does not verify it either. Therefore, 50% of the article is incorrect. If this remains, it will be vandalised, and I will refuse to correct it. I am not nominating simply on the grounds of notability; but the poor notability is not worth the hassle.
  I'm not sure what needs clarifying, but feel free to get in touch if you still fail to understand my nom.The JPS 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick google shows that Stokes has been in numerous shows such as Absolutely Fabulous. I can not confirm the Bill, as yet, but it is quite possibly true. Stokes is also a director. While I sympathize with your counter-vandalism efforts, that should not be a reason for deletion. If it were, we would have to cut George Bush and other pages. The editor in question, if really a vandal, should be blocked. However, Stokes must not be made to pay the price for the misdeeds of a wiki contributor.-- JJay 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has also been on Neighbours and Absolutely Fabulous. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable actor. We don't let articles pay for what vandals do to them. Block the vandal and keep an eye on the article. If you don't want to correct it, it should be easy to find someone who wants to (for example at the related TV show pages). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'll withdraw nomination, ehtn, if someone else is willing to look after it. If the vandal can be sorted out, then please do so. Someone else might to try to sort through the 'contributions' he made this morning. The JPS 11:55, 21 December 2005 (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 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of parodies and puns on Robin Hood

nn listcruft Zunaid 09:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete another strange list brought to us by User:Nintendude. Flyboy Will 09:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Squiddy 10:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and per Flyboy Will. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:58, Dec. 21, 2005
• What makes puns not notable? "Listcruft" as reason doesn't cut it for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no suitable criteron, unmaintainable listcruft.Gateman1997 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seriously non-notable and unmaintainble listcruft. Stifle 01:36, 26 December 2005 (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 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of 60's decade oldies covered as altervative rock songs

nn list cruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Zunaid 09:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I can actually see some worth for it, but why is it so specific - why only the 60s, why only alternate rock? A List of oldies covered as rock songs could actually be interesting. Flyboy Will 09:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article's title is misspelled, BTW. --Squiddy 10:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Flyboy and adjust inclusion criteria. If late 50s and early 70s songs can be included, this will lose its focus. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic topic and listcruft entry.Gateman1997 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - listcruft to the extreme, although it is practically a stub right now. Flyboy Will's suggestion of a more generic list would actually be worse as it will become unwieldy even more quickly. The record industry loves to recycle music from at least 20 years earlier... and it's not just the acts that make it to stand-alone Wikipedia articles, either. B.Wind 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Stifle 01:36, 26 December 2005 (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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CPR Buffalo Yard

Very non-notable. Found no google matches. Pogoman 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Thunk 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep is as good as any other article on Wiki about CPR Yards, and is verifiable via Google (CPR "Buffalo Yard"). Jcuk 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into an article about railroads or rail yards in Buffalo. [28] verifies that it exists. Possibly rename to Buffalo Yard (Canadian Pacific Railway). --SPUI (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Stifle 01:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep significant railway facilities. JYolkowski // talk 04:03, 26 December 2005 (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 no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of eponymous albums (songwise)

nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When is this madness going to end? Delete Zunaid 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Many editors have been working on this for quite some time. They as well as others find it useful for research. Furthermore, why was there no preliminary discussion on talk page from nom prior to AfD? -- JJay 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Flyboy Will 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Delete cos its listcruft, weak per JJay. I'm curious as to the nature of the research for which this article would be useful, though. --Squiddy 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Listcruft" is not a reason for deletion. One man's crap is another's life. Please be more specific as to why you don't think this is useful.
  • Comment "Listcruft" is a neat way to summarise "an indiscriminate collection of information", in the same way you see the terms gamecruft, moviecruft and any other cruft being used. In this regard it is a reason for deletion. p.s. I'm not arguing from a standpoint of usefulness. Perhaps someone somewhere out there would find the potentially useful, I don't know. What I am saying is that it isn't encyclopedic. Zunaid 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with Zunaid. I also think that a useful guideline for lists is that there should be at least a reasonable chance that they will be largely complete at some point. With this list, there is no chance whatever of that happening. That's why the term 'indiscriminate' is applicable in this case. --Squiddy 11:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Songs that lead to the naming of another entity (see eponym) are notable, so I don't see why they shouldn't be listed. Categorization would kill the possibility to mention what they named. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of songs with the same name as song artists and consider rename to Eponymous music. No need for 2 lists with repetitive, overlapping information when one would do. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Gateman1997 17:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (entrywise). An absolutely staggering number of albums have an eponymous title track. There's no chance this list will ever be complete. Regina0613 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Modify to maintain manageability. I'd suggest limiting criteria to eponymous albums that have reached a position in an album chart in a definitive recording trade magazine, like Billboard, Cashbox (now defunct) or New Musical Express. In the same vein, I'd recommend a similar Eponymous hit singles as this would be very manageable (if memory serves me correctly, there are only about a dozen fitting this category from Billboard's Hot 100 chart and a relative handful from NME). In both cases, the name of the act and the name of the recording must be identical. B.Wind 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep as above Jcuk 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Regina (also, I thought that by eponymous there would be some connection between the artists' names and their songs. Needs a retitle if we decide to keep this and let it expand to suck up all available memory on the system.... Carlossuarez46 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No no no. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is also unmaintainable and guaranteed to never get anywhere near completion. Stifle 01:36, 26 December 2005 (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 Speedied by User:Filiocht as nonsense. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvester K.

non-encyclopedic

• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 09:27, 21 December 2005 (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 keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with the same name as song artists

nn listcruft and unencyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm geting tired of all these random song lists, there seem to be LOTS of arbitrary lists going around. Delete Zunaid 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Very serious approach to the subject. List demonstrates the kind of careful scholarship I expect from this type of classification. Highly useful for cultural historians. We need more like this. -- JJay 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, lists about songs named after the artist who performs them is not something arbitrary. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But is it encyclopedic? IMHO it is "indiscriminate information". Please convince me otherwise. Zunaid
• Keep, simply because I believe it is notable. Additionally, WP has many other similar lists that I believe are appropriate and I believe singling this one out would also be unfair. Halo 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - agreed, this is a good list. Zordrac (talk) [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDM

TD|Wishy Washy]] Darwikinian Eventualist 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, still listcruft, but at least it's on a fairly rare and notable occurance.Gateman1997 17:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Modify for maintainability. Current version will be unwieldy (and is on the verge of being so now). I'd suggest limiting the sccpe to those eponymous singles that made an appearance on a singles chart of a definitive trade publication like Billboard, New Musical Express, or the (now defunct) Cashbox. This cuts it down to manageable size with a somewhat standard set of limits. B.Wind 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This should already be done. We shouldn't include any song in a list if it doesn't deserve coverage on its own (or in the band/artist article). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep good list, why not? Jcuk 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopedical value, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I for one, found it interesting. It shows the egotism of some music groups. Wikipedia, being user created, SHOULD include more obscure info that most people wont care about. Tehw1k1 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hey, nominator: People like to make lists. It's fun to do, It's not hurting anyone, might have some use to somebody someday, and in the meantime is diverting to read. Let it go. Herostratus 05:21, 29 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose genre occurs in the title

As with all the other lists nominated, this is listcruft. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Content has no encyclopedic value. Delete Zunaid 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well defined, good source for research on topic. -- JJay 09:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I ain't voting on these no more, but can someone please enlighten me why any of this would ever be used for research? Are there actually any disciplines out there that study correlations of titles of songs, albums, bands and artists? To me these seems like by-products of some obsessive desire to compile lists, i.e. these lists are not the means to some higher goal but the goal itself. Flyboy Will 10:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You obviously never listen to Triple J, who run weekly segments on topics such as this. If we had Wikipedia with a list full of this, we could call up and win the weekly prize - EVERY WEEK! Woot! Where you have to call up and give the best song that fits a particular criteria. In fact, come to think of it, most radio stations have competitions like this. This way we could research it rather than just make wild guesses. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • So this and other oddball lists should be kept on the off chance that an Australian radio station might use its criteria for a contest? Aside from the moral issue (isn't it cheating?), what is the value of that? --Calton | Talk 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per nominator - fails WP:NOT. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, content is not encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The content is not encyclopaedic and takes a few lexical liberties in trying to squeeze every possible genre reference out of a song title. (If we must keep it though, then shouldn't be redirected to List of songs of which the genre appears in the title"?) Peeper 11:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite in the same format as List of songs with the same name as song artists. Has potential. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• deleteThis will become a list of every rock song with rock in the title. Obina 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, great more listcruft to eliminate.Gateman1997 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• This will become more unwieldy than even the article on eponymous songs that is also up for deletion. Unlike the latter, I don't see a way of modifying the boundaries to rein in the entries to a manageable size (after all, there are way too many charted country songs with the word "country" in their title, ditto "disco," "jazz," "rap," "jazz," "pop," "soul," and -- most importantly -- "blues." I like the idea, bit it won't work here... Delete. B.Wind 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of songs about genres of music. Kappa 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: But that's not what this list is about. That would require an article on List of songs about song genres. We Will Rock You is not about rock, it is rock, for instance; so this list is useless for the purpose you suggest. Just a thought. Peeper 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per the other lists Jcuk 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another pointless taxonomic scheme. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, worthless crap listcruft Proto t c 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Nobody will ever want to look this up. It's also unmaintainable and risks POV issues due to labelling of genres. Stifle 01:35, 26 December 2005 (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. FireFox 16:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Andrzejewicz

non-notable; vanity page Adunar 09:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete President of a local Kiwanis chapter with 25 members ([29]) is non-notable to me. Flyboy Will 10:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity.«LordViD» 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:25, 21 December 2005 (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 Keep. --Terence Ong ^Talk 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robinson Road, Singapore

Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability redstucco 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There are 132,000 google hits for "Robinson Road" Singapore, which to me sounds like a pretty good verification that it does exist. For comparison, there are 182,000 hits for "11th ave" New York. Flyboy Will 10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - for that comparison to be fair, you should have either searched for "11th avenue"" New York, or "Robinson Rd" Singapore. Proto t c 14:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia:Verifiability concerns unverifiable articles, not unverified articles. A quick google check verifies the notabity of this road. Bhoeble 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable road in Singapore. Home to a few of Singapore's landmarks. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems fairly notable along the lines of Broadway.Gateman1997 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: per above -- JJay 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Seems to have a reference now, so I doubt it's unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, road is notable. If an article lacks references, whiy not consider tagging it with {{unreferenced}} instead of clogging up Wikipedia? Proto t c 14:00, 22 December 2005 (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. FireFox 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hearseburner

Great band name, but it fails the notability test. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as {{nn-band}} / CSD A7. (Revised A7 allows speedy of NN bands) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:35, 21 December 2005 (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 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Msnfight

Appears to be a non-notable software, see 1 - 9 of about 53 for "msnfight". Also most of the visible results appear to be Dutch (?). Perhaps somebody who can read those would be helpful here. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:08, Dec. 21, 2005

Delete as non-notable. The website in question was launched two days ago, and the article was written by its admin. Melchoir 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it was indeed launched 2 days ago without being affiliated with MSN, I would tend towards deletion for lack of visitors. I would consider this to be an attempt at advertisment. Can you please provide the source of that 2-day claim? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 01:34, 26 December 2005 (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. --Angr (t·c) 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locafest

Non-notable, badly-written, fest-cruft? Peeper 11:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable random crufty. Stifle 01:33, 26 December 2005 (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 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 444.

Almost certainly a hoax. Neither the manufacturers of Desert Eagle firearms, or DARPA have any information on this. It doesn't meet WP:V so should be deleted Kevin 11:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. (And a poor hoax at that.) Movementarian 13:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gun hoax.Gateman1997 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mike Wilson 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless good verifiable source is provided prior to expiration of AfD period. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reports aren't "sketchy", they're non-existent. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 444. Proto t c 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Stifle 01:33, 26 December 2005 (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 'Speedied by User:Dan100 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Gordon-Stewart

It was originally tagged as a speedy, but since the article does assert some notability, I decided to take it here instead. The article is about a 18 year old with a blog, one of many.-- JoanneB 11:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems vanity, one unknown blogger featured on another possibly less-unknown (but doubtful) blog. Search4Lancer 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and I'm doing just that. Having his blog mentioned on another blog doesn't really make it notable, nor can I see how the article can be referenced from sources outside of his own blog. Dan100 (Talk) 11:48, 21 December 2005 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huang Quan

Delete This may be a valid article, but I can't tell! is it related to 12thC China, 19thC Macau, Sailor Moon or a special guest episode of Friends? Delete, and if resubmitted with enough information to justify inclusion, keep. Colonel Tom 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup and add context - real, historical figure but agree that the article makes it hard to tell (and he's 2d-3d C, from the Three Kingdoms). BD2412 T 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just wikifying it would have established notability. Kappa 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like he's a historical figure. That's notable enough. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is one of the characters from Three Kingdoms. Moreover, if we delete this, we also need to delete most of others here in people of three kingdoms category. --Kucing 09:50, 28 December 2005 (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 merge and redirect. However, noting that the recommended target article is currently under copyright investigation, I am going to stop after tagging this article with the recommended merge. Rossami (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)