Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of blogging terms. Rob Church ^Talk 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blog carnival

One liner advertising a list of blogs? Copied the actual definition to List of blogging terms, now this can be Speedy Deleted. Timecop 00:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - FrancisTyers 00:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per nom Redirect per fuddlemark, below Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. NeoJustin 01:13, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete now -- Femmina 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I agree. --Pboyd04 01:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Yes.--Dakota ^? ^e 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, which could have been done without AfD. -- JJay 03:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per User:JJay (I do hope I'm not starting to agree with him a lot). Timecop, if you have performed a merge, it would be inappropriate to delete the original article; if we do, then the original author of the content will not be credited, in violation of the GFDL. By the way, I assume you're not planning to re-launch any childish GNAA nonsense on AfD? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to List of blogging terms - this is an actual term that is gaining popularity. As for all of the speedy deletes: closing admin, do not be fooled by the GNAA folks, for whatever reason they seem to pick random AfDs and rush in on them, all voting for speedy deletion. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect -- to List of blogging terms - Longhair 07:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Per the GFDL, as above, a merge, no matter how trivial, requires it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to to List of blogging terms as above - --Amxitsa 12:26, 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 Speedy deleted as vanity and nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zlatos

not notable, vanity - FrancisTyers 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - FrancisTyers 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable surname with only 150-300 users. -- Natalinasmpf 00:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete...oh my goodness, vanity, vanity...--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Article fails to cite external poll. Endomion 00:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleting. This guy has left nothing but nonsense and this isn't a geneological site. - Lucky 6.9 01:10, 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 Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete). (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Anderson (darts player)

Probably a Vanity Page Pboyd04 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment He does appear to be known as a darts player. Are there criteria for notability in sports/games? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - The article only indicates that he is a darts player. Heck, I play darts. Endomion 00:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to Keep. Endomion 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

erm...probably not this well. Former world champion, as a quick glance at google: "Bob Anderson"+darts will show. I've cleaned it up a bit. Keep. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Revisions to the article do show significant notability within the darts world.Evil Eye 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Current revision shows notability. --BenjaminTsai 01:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I agree current version is much much better --Pboyd04 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep- notable enough for me. Reyk 01:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep now that it has some substantial information. Pepsidrinka 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is much improved over the original.--Dakota ^? ^e 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'm withdrawing the nomination and removing the Afd. As per the discussion. --Pboyd04 02:51, 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 speedy delete (author request). howch e ng {chat} 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chance Michaels

Probably a vanity on my part - I'm new to Wikipedia and feel that I may have stepped over the line. I'm happy to have it deleted - let somebody else start the page if they think it's worth it. Chancemichaels 19:56, 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 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 3, 2004

~~Info is probaly on 2004 anyways~~ Info is in June 2004 anyways so I see no use for it. It's just a unremarkable indivial date out of many. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep as we currently have June 4, 2004, June 5, 2004 etc. Why delete just one date? Pepsidrinka 01:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete after realizing that the information is exactly the same as under June 2004, I am changing my vote. Shouldn't all these dates be deleted just the same? Pepsidrinka 07:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is not in line with the way we handle dates on Wikipedia. Take any useful information and put it in the proper system. --Improv 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - information merely split off from June 2004, and I don't think the split is necessary. Possibly redirect to June 2004 for navigational purposes. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Such article(s) would mean completely new structure of dates handling and such change should be discussed first (and I do not think hand-maintained lists are the best solution, there should be SW support for automatic generation of such articles). Pavel Vozenilek 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for starting article on date out of standard. Although, I have to say, an article on each date makes vastly more sense than the absurd day-of-year articles (like June 3), which groups totally unrelated events (and seemingly ignores changes in old calendar systems). Any date reform should be discussed centrally. --Rob 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per Pepsidrinka Compu ter Joe 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per Computerjoe.
Delete, non notable date. -- ReyBrujo 21:07, 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 speedy delete as a A7. There's no claim of notability here. —Cryptic (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assassins (winners)

A list of students at Davidson College who won some game, instead of concentrating on their studies and making their parents proud MNewnham 01:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Assassin (game). Most of the entry in the article is already contained in the Assassin (game) article. Merge the rest and redirected Assassins (winners) to Assassin (game). Evil Eye 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete The winners at one particular college isn't worth its own wikipedia article. And the relevant game info from the page is already present in the game article. --Pboyd04 01:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - If doing well in college is not notable, not doing well in college is even more not notable. Endomion 03:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. FreplySpang (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep The winners article was originally in the assassins(game) article, but it was recommended it to be redirected under Davidson College page. Furthermore, the article is meant to be added to with information on winners from other participating colleges and universities. Emjose 04:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete You wouldn't BELIEVE how many colleges play Assassin every year. The winners are no more noteable than those of the local frathouse drinking contests. --InShaneee 06:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly per nominator. Non-notable vanity. --Quarl 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons echoed above. Palaeologus 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Note that the page has since been moved to Assassins Winners. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:08, 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 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Homestar Runner

Non-notable fan forum for notable website StoatBringer 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

BALEETED per nom. Reyk 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delteated per above - Bobet 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Forums are notable or encyclopedic.--Dakota ^? ^e 02:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Baleet per nom. --Thephotoman 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Forums are inherently non-notable. Endomion 03:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delteat per nom. Nifboy 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Baleet I'm a big fan but this does'nt cut it. -Dr Haggis - Talk
Baleet --Quarl 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
DELORTED! --FOo 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Let's make our votes in correct English - people who are not fluent or unfamiliar with Homestar Runner will have no idea what you mean.--Aleron235 21:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails web notability. -- ReyBrujo 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
All these. Nn forum. the wub "?!" 23:28, 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 speedy deleted by... someone (since when can non-admins not view deletedpage history?) (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Justas

Claims notability so it's here. No amg entry and 5 google hits say it's an exaggerated vanity page. - Bobet 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a vanity page. — 69.211.123.29 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um, it's here on AfD because it can't be speedy deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. PJM 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted due to vanity. Dralwik 03:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. - Longhair 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete --NaconKantari 04:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete.NeoJustin 04:44, December 27, 2005 (GMT)
Delete per nom.--Quarl 07:11, 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 wasSpeedy delete due to copyvio from Yahoo Groups. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fan-modules mailing list

Orphaned article about a mailing list for discussing made-up additions to the LotR universe (fan fiction, RPGing, and so on). Recently one or more users has been trying to add poorly-written descriptions of these additions to Wikipedia: see here (currently ongoing) and here, and refusing to allow them to be deleted (see Bellakar's deletion history). Wikipedia is not a free webhost, an indiscriminate collection of random information, nor a playground. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for an online group. Ajwebb 01:58, 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 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zulma Aguiar

Vanity. Person was a wikipedia contributor (User:Zaguiar) not too long ago, still may be. Antonio Stop the Juarez Killings Martin 03:04, 27 December, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a nomination, that's a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be hard on fuddlemark. I actually, mistakenly placed my vote here. Antonio Sex Toy Martin 09:52, 27 December, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as NN. My Google search didn't turn up anything about Zulma, just some postings by Zulma. --Thunk 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Seems as a vanity page written by a NN. self-promotional. Tony the Marine 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete No entry on IMDb (either hers or the film's); no other claim to notability. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Tony. --mav 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: keep if something other than a website is cited i.e. a book, trade magazine, newspaper etc., otherwise delete.--Hraefen 15:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal2Mobile

Non-notable product. 2 google results outside of their own websites and wikipedia, both of them ads. - Bobet 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I can't see any reason that this in notable. --Pboyd04 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete "...supposed to be the superior..." LOL. Endomion 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete.NeoJustin 04:43, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom 63.228.49.231 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not even the company has an article, from what I searched. -- ReyBrujo 21:12, 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. --Joann e B 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore gay businesses

WP:NOT a directory. Although an article about the social, political and legal issues surrounding businesses catering to the homosexual population in Singapore would be interesting I don't think this is the article for it. Merge, redirect or rename would be fine too. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Rampart 02:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Clean up and weak keep - could hold useful information if I had the time to copyedit the gay articles. -- Natalinasmpf 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete directory. Osomec 03:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - All those red (pink?) links are an invitation to write WP articles about so-and-so's corner laundromat/bar. Endomion 03:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 03:57, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 04:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator --Quarl 07:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, those red links scare me. Direct author to Wikitravel. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete, as it's rather unencyclopedic as it stands now. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:49, 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 karmafist 11:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Georgiev Lilov

I can't find any proof that he exists. The author's only other creations seem to be attack pages which he later voluntarily blanked. (All of which are currently pending speedy deletion). Bachrach44 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete No reference given so we can enjoy his poetry too. Endomion 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:15, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom 63.228.49.231 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable --Quarl 07:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 07:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — TheKMan^talk 09:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as OR abakharev 00:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CorpKnowPedia

Non-notable wiki. No Alexa rank at all; 33 registered users. Google can only find three different sites linking to it; by far the most prolific is professorbikeybike.com. By an amazing coincidence, it was Professorbikeybike who created the article. —Cryptic (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and get back to us when people have heard of you. Endomion 03:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 03:55, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no alexa rank. Come back when it's notable. --Quarl 07:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- not notable. - Longhair 07:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails web notability. -- ReyBrujo 21:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per others. Probably should recieve a passing mention in a list of wikis using MediaWiki, but too non-notable for an article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumerium

Another non-notable wiki. Alexa rank 2,358,767; the only incoming links Google can find are from us, our mirrors, and a user page on DoWire Wiki. 101 registered users. —Cryptic (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I hate these websites that grap WP content, I've been fooled twice following up google hits to decide notability only to be stuck in a self-referential loop. Endomion 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Other wikis need to be pretty notable to qualify for a Wikipedia page. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle J. Kaczmarczyk

The creator of "The Misadventures of Silent Boy" (which I consider non-notable); doesn't seem to be very notable - 19 Google results with middle initial and 16 without. Delete. Scottmso 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete this page, keep the Silent Boy one. Endomion 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 03:55, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability just barely too asserted for a speedy, but it is not established. Lord Bob 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn and doesn't need a redirect. feydey 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per comments above. Ajwebb 16:37, 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. --Joann e B 15:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Misadventures of Silent Boy

Article is not written very well, and only 25 Google results. The page for the creator of this comic was written in a similar way. Delete. Scottmso 03:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I like this article. Endomion 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability seems extremely dubious as per Google and Groups. A scan of the Google results suggests that, even in a mere 81 Google results, people aren't discussing it, merely acknowledging that it exists. Scanning the Google Groups results is much easier, because there aren't any. Lord Bob 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Madman
Delete per nomination - non-notable and likely vanity. Blackcats 07:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Blackcats. Ifnord 15:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as no notability defined. feydey 19:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Lord Bob. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Lulu published doesn't quite count the same as listed on Amazon ++Lar 02:17, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runescape Drop Party

Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. I don't really know but I also suspect that the concept of drop parties are not really unique to RuneScape. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm not an admin, but this may simply be a reaction of the deleted Runescape Drop Party Guide which also redirects here. Could somebody check the histories to see if there's the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was indeed. Well-spotted. —Cryptic (talk) 03:43, 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 Speedy JFW | T@lk 10:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rubert

Hopelessly unencyclopedic --Bachrach44 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, db-empty. PJM 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Like a dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, sounds like it could be false/nonsensical. Not terribly informative, in any case.Bjones 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 03:58, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Empty article should not get as far as VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedied. Dicdef, factually incorrect JFW | T@lk 11:06, 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 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirror (mortal kombat character)

nonsensical, unvarifyable article (Notorious4life 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Delete; Sounds like a a minor character below any threshold of notability. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This sounds kind of like missingno except not as well known. If it even exists and it is a very minor character if it does.NeoJustin 04:08, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You can do many things with a cheating device. Not much of them are notable. --Apostrophe 07:21, 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. Mind matrix 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fayerwayer

Non-notable Chilean blog. Alexa rank is 206,673 [1]. 4K daily users isn't very many either. Klaw ¡digame! 03:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Cchan199206 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, 4k daily users is enough for me. I don't know how well Alexa represents Chile, I doubt if it does it very well. Kappa 09:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Low Alexa rank, article does not assert the importance of its subject. — TheKMan^talk 09:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Kappa Jcuk 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all blogs. Let them advertise elsewhere. Ifnord 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Ifnord. - FrancisTyers 17:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't see anything that demonstrates notability. --Pierremenard 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn. blog. jni 14:21, 5 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 keep. howch e ng {chat} 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhino Times

Non-notable newspaper. --Thephotoman 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Madman 04:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. -- JJay 06:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- unless more evidence of notability is added. - Longhair 07:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep 43k Google hits Compu ter Joe 13:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but maybe move to the paper's proper name, Rhinoceros Times. The URL is rhinotimes.com, but that's probably because it's easier to type. -- Vary | Talk 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Extremely weak keep only because Orson Scott Card writes for it. BTW, Google comes up with less than 600 unique hits for both versions of the name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable enough. Q Q 22:51, 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 delete. Mind matrix 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon conspiracy and religion

Nonsense. Gamaliel 03:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete or at best merge with Apollo hoax. Madman 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense and most likely a hoax. --Apostrophe 07:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge, then redirect. The Land 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
delete dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
delete wanglese
Merge; we don't need two different articles on the same issue. Wikipedia does not support "POV forks" within its article space, where somebody creates a second, slightly-differently-named, article on the same topic as an existing one because he claims that the existing one is "biased" against him, as seems to be happening in this case. Instead, everybody needs to cooperate to get the existing article NPOV. *Dan T.* 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's a hoax set up by a spammer in the Usenet newsgroup sci.astro.amateur. svanimpe 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Nothing worth saving in order to merge... Not even worth the trouble. The name of the article is bizarre and unlikely to be stumbled across by anyone looking for real info, so no need to redirect. DreamGuy 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It sounds like opinion or "original research" to me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. For a moment I thought it might be well-sourced nonsense but neither of the two references given even mentions the word "moon". I don't think there is anything in here worth merging into Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. --Stormie 09:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I consider this so incoherent as to be unsalvagable: there just aren't any meaningful statements being made in the entire article as it stands. Even if someone does a complete teardown and rewrite, this still qualifies as "original research". No reason to save it. 141.161.54.98 09:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
BJAODN material. -- Ze miguel 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Either a hoax or crazy eggs. Either way... MattShepherd], 13:22, 04 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The "references" provided don't even mention the moon landing. In fact, the most solid connection the entire article has to the moon landing is its general looniness. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artistic entrepreneurship

Advertisement for a class with no content on the subject itself. JLaTondre 03:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as being spam-tastic.Bjones 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete.NeoJustin 04:41, December 27, 2005 (GMT)
Delete either original research or advert Paul 19:14, 31 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 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sonic Stadium

Advertisement for a non-notable website. Google gets about 900 hits, which it collapses to 20 for relevance.--InShaneee 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Thunk 16:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Alexa ranking is 318,645 [2]. The article fails to assert the importance of its subject. Does not seem to fulfill WP:WEB. — TheKMan^talk 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 21:26, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

This article is about a not very notable newsgroup, and most information in this article is completely irrelevant to the newsgroup. It's very strange. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep in original version. Click on the links to the Google Groups featured in the section titled Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy in Usenet Environment of Gangs. You will quickly discover that this article in its original form is as factual as any written in Wikipedia. And if the article appears odd, it is only because the article is an accurate reflection of an oddity. The following statement, by contrast, is not a fact but merely an educated opinion: the haste with which "editors" are converging on this article to delete its original form in its entirety, without qualification, discussion, or verification suggests the work of Usenet gangbangers based in none other than (drum roll please) ... sci.psychology.psychotherapy. I am screen capturing all this work, including the date-time stamps, for inclusion in a report to be reviewed by more civilized and educated communities outside Wikipedia.
Also, the acceptable practice is to keep an original article intact pending the outcome of a review such as that prompted by a recommendation for deletion. But James James, and other fly-by-night aliases posing as editors, are engaging in the practice of treating a replacement "stub" as the main page and any effort to restore the original page as "vandalism." This is turning reality on its head. Restore the original page, conduct your research, weigh in on the discussion, and then make any changes (which may include wholesale deletion) based on the outcome of the review. Even the author of the much-maligned John Seigenthaler article was entitled to 132 days of infamy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 04:56:33 UTC.

Keep it but return it to the more factual previous version. James James 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the stub article, which has now been restored. -- Curps 04:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ --NaconKantari 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Curps. --NaconKantari 06:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Please keep this valid information! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.145.201 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 05:28:26 UTC.

Redirect to Sci.* hierarchy, though that article could stand some expansion. The original version looks more or less like WP:NOR to me. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- What do you think of Alt.usenet.kooks? Seemed WP:NOR to me too. But it was judged NPOV against attacks on its neutrality and against a recommendation for deletion. Sci.psychology.psychotherapy is no different, except it does not engage in slander like Alt.usenet.kooks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 06:06:57 UTC.
  - alt.usenet.kooks has been around for more than 20 years, and has always been a significant group within the alt hierarchy. Regardless of its content, there's no doubt it merits an article. The same can't be said for this newsgroup. It's probably been around as long or even longer, but if I recall correctly, it was created in a lump with the other groups in the sci hierarchy, and has never been well-known. Thus my suggestion to redirect. It certainly can't remain as an attack piece on another article (as per WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT). –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Significant? How in the name of John Hinckley is alt.usenet.kooks significant?! Because some Usenetters who founded it 12 years ago (not 20) use spam advertising to recruit aggressors from other news groups? In this way, alt.usenet.kooks is a phenomenon. I give you that. But no editor would ever allow me or anyone else to tack on a criticism or consequences section (without sidelining it within 2 seconds to the Discussion page). This is not an article written out of journalistic objectivity or integrity. It's propaganda.
      No one in the civilized world knows Alt.usenet.kooks. It's endemic to Usenet, that is, until this Wikipedia article started showing up in Google searches of the victim's names. That's the whole point of the article.
      
      This is not an attack piece on Alt.usenet.kooks. It is stand alone content, and shares the same verifiability and "significance" as your beloved Alt.usenet.kooks. Interesting how no one is discussing verifiability anymore. Suddenly, verifiability is not a criterion. You must have followed the links and examined the evidence. That being said, I know one thing that is never a criterion in science or journalism: popularity. How well known subject matter is is utterly beside the point.
      
      Redirection is not the answer. It is tantamount to deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 15:51:01 UTC.

Delete if the vandalism doesn't stop. --Agamemnon2 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep original. You can't get more accurate than that. The true farce would be hosting an article that misrepresents this news group as a bona fide news group and makes it inviting for people. The persons to whom Agamemnon is referring when he uses the word "vandal" are just restoring the first draft. There would be no article if it were not for the article's creator. The creator of the article should not be labeled a "vandal." It is those who created the "stub" and who kept restoring the "stub" who are the vandals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 13:22:18 UTC.

Comment Is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Does it matter? A scaled-down adaptation titled "Gang Stalking & Usenet" was created as a subsection for the article on Stalking, and it was deleted (labeled spam) by one of the same "administrators" (Karada) who deleted the original version of this article wholesale without due process and without a discussion page. Some Usenet lover posing as a Wiki admin is running around protecting an unimpeachable image for a culture (i.e. Usenet) whose effects should be noted. Fortunately, I am here to document the behavior of this "open source." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 15:51:01 UTC.
- Also note the names of the images, indicating that this is also related to Special:Undelete/Brad Jesness in addition to alt.usenet.kooks. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect, per Abe Dashiell above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Newsgroups deserve their own pages. Give this one a chance to grow up and be something better. If you delete a page just because it's been vandalized then the vandals win!! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good point Cyde, only you are forgetting something. The creator of the original article is not the vandal. There would be no article if it were not for the author. I suggest you treat this article similar to Alt.usenet.kooks. Have a discussion page and a page on which people can permanently challenge the neutrality, but otherwise leave the article intact. Hell -- you can even add qualifying sections to the main page. There are many options besides deletion redirection (AKA deletion by proxy).
  A true editor would defer to policy here. Leave original article. Let this mechanism run its course and let's see where the chips fall. I think you are concerned that by the time the dust settles, enough people will have voiced support for the original version to prevent deletion or redirection. Still, I suspect Wiki editors will violate their own policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 16:49:31 UTC.
- No, Usenet newsgroups do not deserve articles purely on that basis alone. Wikipedia is not a directory of Usenet newsgroups any more than it is a directory of people, companies, or web sites. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The choice is between original research and an unexpandable directory entry. The article content as it stands is 100% original research, and is, moreover, the spillover from a long-standing conflict on Usenet. The rewritten stub article is a simple "N is a Usenet newsgroup" directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory, be it of people, companies, web sites, or Usenet newsgroups. For this article to be worthwhile, there needs to be scope for expansion of the article to be more than a simple directory entry. There needs to be secondary source material available that is more substantial than simple directory listings and excerpts from "active" files. Usenet newsgroups that have had non-trivial works published about them (such as FAQs on faqs.org. for example) qualify for articles on this basis. This newsgroup has no FAQ on faqs.org, and I cannot find any other secondary source material apart from material which is from the same single author (Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk • contribs), see above) as this article is. Delete. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

- True, but then originality should not be penalized if the facts derive from an observation or arithmetic so simple as to be almost assured of a .90 inter-rater reliability coefficient. There's not much interpretation or construction here.
  A good encyclopedia does not merely mime or mirror other pre-packaged encyclopedias (e.g. the FAQ list), but transcends it. However, I agree that if one had to choose between a stub-based article and no article at all, I'd choose no article at all. There's nothing good anyone can say about this news group except that it boasts some of the highest traffic and is often listed (lazily I might add) as a "resource" on department of psychology web sites. It is also "captured" (i.e. indexed to the Web) by a number of news readers (more news readers than alt.usenet.kooks). Of course, it's only after I ask news reader admins and psych dept web site admins to examine this news group do they realize they made a mistake listing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 December 2005.

- - A good encyclopedia contains verifiable content. This doesn't have any. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Har har. I see Cyde Weys sent me a message in which he threatened to ban me if I persisted in restoring the article to its original draft, which is perfectly acceptable before the due process runs its course. So what's the rush Cyde? Why the hammer? We have a good jump on the process. The system is working according to policy. And the original article is NPOV. So let's wait and see. What are you afraid of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs).
- Yeah, you better watch out for my non-admin ban. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask this from you only once. I do not care what the heck the dispute is, I do not care what the article is about, I DO care about the discussion of individuals/threats/and other nonsense which has no place not only on just this vote but on Wikipedia. PLEASE stop it ok? And for the love of madness sign your posts. Furthermore I moved discussion regarding this article to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy] from Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit. Please do not involve Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit on any matter but Vandalsim that requires communiy attention. Thank you. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, I didn't drag this unit into the matter. I didn't know it existed until someone referred this page to the countervandalism unit, which was hysterical and inappropriate. The person recanted after I called them on the abuse of authority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs).
  - I just dont want to se this on the CVU page unless genuine vandalism is present in the article. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. For those of us not involved in the controversy this is very confusing. The article's practically illegible and the multi-way bickering and flood of anons in this discussion doesn't help. Could some neutral person try to summarize briefly? rodii 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's not illegible. Your original user page. Now THAT'S illegible. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodii&oldid=11558239 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs).
  - Thanks, that's very helpful. *rolls eyes* rodii 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I find Uncle G's argument persuasive. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, but is it just me or has this gone too far? I'm abstaining because this has stirred too much up. ComputerJoe 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Has what gone too far? If you're abstaining, why leave a comment? I don't understand your reasoning here. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, the anon contributor's User page seems to have been vandalised too. Unfortunately, a Usenet flame war seems to have spilled over into Wikipedia. In fact, sci.psychology.psychotherapy is no more notable than any other sci.* newsgroup except, perhaps, as a venue for this long-running war. Since the war resulted in the creation of SPP.moderated a few years ago, it might deserve to be mentioned in an article about the history of, and justification for, moderated Usenet groups, but probably not otherwise. (no vote). Peter J Ross 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. WP is not a web directory, and contrary to some misunderstandings, newsgroups are part of the web. Gazpacho 23:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. -- Karada 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A Usenet newsgroup with a considerable following. Jtmichcock 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete even the "stub" seems not notable and has irrelevant content. The non stub... holy smokes! if those are facts, which have verifiable cites, the editor that put them in perhaps could find other articles where they might be welcome but they seem to have little or nothing to do with this particular newsgroups itself. An actual article about the newsgroup would need to demonstrate why the newsgroup is notable, not all newsgroups should get articles. IMHO anyway. ++Lar 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless I'm missing something obvious here, this does not meet WP:WEB. --Alf ^melmac 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. -Will Beback 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Facts are facts regardless of whether they were illuminated by one person or twenty, and facts strengthen an encyclopedia (especially if they can be verified by simple observation). The news group exists. We all know that. A simple examination of each aspect of this extraordinary article will demonstrate realities of equal facticity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.140.119.191 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2006 -- user's 2nd edit.
Delete or Redirect to Sci.* hierarchy. Wildly original (to be charitable) research or dicdef seem to be the two choices here. Seems to be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, since I note that the commenter above's two edits are here and to Cyberstalking. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 5 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ty Jennings

Non-notable entertainment industry personage with possibly inflated resume. Google shows 55 unique hits for "Ty Jennings", some of which are for a Colorado real estate agent. Nearly all that deal with this Ty Jennings are for his "ShutterMIX" Podcast work. OR minor TV/Film work. Also photographer. (Same person??) Madman 04:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOT your agent. Daniel Case 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:47, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom +/- vanity. Ifnord 15:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a resume listing service. Endomion 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per all above. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com

This was nominated about a month ago, and no consensus was reached. However, now that we have guidelines for website inclusion, I think this needs to be revisited. First and foremost, its Alexa ranking is a whopping 1,607,664, which certainly suggest it's not nearly as well traveled as the article suggests. Secondly, considering how little information it contains, almost none of it is sourced, or even verifiable. Delete as non-notable advertising. --InShaneee 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

the words "...evidence points..." when supported by no evidence at all, are a bad sign. Ergo, Weak Delete. --Agamemnon2 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Quarl 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, according to new guidelines. I feel most of the "Keep" arguments from the last round were a bit weak. — TheKMan^talk 12:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per TheKMan Compu ter Joe 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Agamemnon2. Endomion 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Most of the article was deleted in an act of vanadalism, the Alexa ranking has nothing to do with it because most of its fame comes through google images, which would not register on Alexa, it's audience is much higher. This article has survived two AfDs, please stop making them. User:VanillaX
- Comment, it survived the previous afd thanks to votes from the article's creator and 3 people who made one of their 3 first posts on the afd. That's hardly a convincing case for not renominating - Bobet 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I deleted all of the nonsense about individual members and their screen names, that is not vandalism, it's cruft to the extreme. This is an nn website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a noticeable website, and has an audience of decent size. Keep it. User:24.251.231.174 27 December, 2005
- User's third edit. --InShaneee 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you say it's notable, and what you know about its audience size? rodii
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Using weasel words ("It is now known by some") without any source or verification to create claims of notability isn't very helpful for its case. - Bobet 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, has absolutely no remarkable qualities which make it worthy of an article in an encyclopaedia. Second time's the charm. Lord Bob 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, ~~vanity~~. From VanillaX's user page: "The original author contacted me about working some on this article, since, as one of the creators of the website, I knew some details about it, so I agreed to work on it and I think it turned out pretty well." rodii 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - How does that make it vanity? Let's be realistic here, if I'm not the original author but I am one of the creators of the site, doesn't that actually prove the opposite? If someone else took the time to make it, I obviously wasn't trying to advertise my own site. User:VanillaX
  - I don't see how that's obvious. You're contributing to an article, and arguing for the importance of a subject, about a website you created. OK--I will amend "vanity" to "self-promotion", which is what I should have said. Apologies for the misstatement. But unless there's some way to document its notability, that's all it is. rodii 02:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    - What I'm saying is that it's not self-promotion because I neither wrote the article or run the site now. Someone else wrote the wikipedia article and contacted me to work on the article since I knew more about it than them. If this was self-promotion, I would have done an article on XoA Online, because that is my site. My only link to the site is that I host it and I helped create it, I have very little to do with it now. If I wasn't the driving force behind the creation of the wikipedia article or the site itself, how could this be self-promotion? If you guys don't feel the article is worth keeping, that's fine, but just don't say that this is self-promotion. User:VanillaX 9:52 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      - OK, fair enough. I appreciate the correction. rodii 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to have this article deleted, it's a good solid paintball website, it's obviously notable to the paintball community, keep it. 8:29 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unsigned vote by User:68.46.199.61 - User:VanillaX
- User's only edit. --InShaneee 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Wikipedia is lacking information on paintball, why delete a portion of what little we have? 9:54 27 December 2005 - User:Balthazar6669

user's sixth edit was to sign this previously un-signed vote, has only one edit besides this AfD and his user/talk page. Lord Bob 04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'm here at the request of VanillaX. I'm new to wikipedia so bear with me. bestsiteever.xoaonline.com is my site. Vanilla isn't trying to selfpromote anything because it's mine, not his, and he's told me he wasn't even the initial writer of the wikipedia article. I don't know if that changed anybody's opinion on this, but I figured I'd try and clarify.
- Unsigned comment by User:69.247.169.155. User's only edit. --InShaneee 04:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Well, judging by the comments here, it's not self-advertising, so let's keep it and move on...again. User:nicejobidiot08 2:18 28 December 2005

user's first edit. Lord Bob 20:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Look at the alexa weekly ranking, it's fairly high. Besides, most the audience is google images, which wouldn't be on there anyway. 10:21 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unsigned comment by User:69.254.249.38. User's second edit. --InShaneee 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's impossible to look at an alexa ranking for this forum, since the alexa ranking would be for the entire xoaonline.com site. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete,This is not a notable paintball website. Notable paintball websites would include PBnation or Force of Nature or Warpig (started in 1987). These sites have stood the test of time and are the ones getting the lion's share of visits by paintball players. Do you really want a site that has minimal information, weak design, and makes questionable claims to represent the paintball community? On their front page they have this statement "Die Hard paintball also sales new and used guns, vistit our pro shop at http://www.pevs.com/" - I doubt that Mike Peverill (founder of Pev's Paintball) would saction such a statement or affiliation. The issue is whether or not this site is notable. According to the guidelines, this site doesn't qualify as notable. 1. it hasn't been the subject of national or international media attention, 2. it isn't a forum with more than 5,000 members that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community (www.pbnation.com has over 200,000 members), and 3. it doesn't have an Alexa rating above 10,000 (the site has a rating of 1,607,664). The other three sites I mention above all have higher Alexa ratings (pbnation has a rating of 16,057 for example). As for the self-promotion argument - Alexa's entry for the site states "This website is a home to cross-platform clan called XoA Online".65.28.204.25 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Steve (Photographer for Paintball 2Xtremes Magazine)
- User's second edit. Please give proof that you are affiliated with the magazine before making the claim. Thank you. - User:VanillaX
  - PS: Keep in mind that Alexa will usually only display information for the main site. Go to xmission.com on Alexa and it will pull up a webhosting site despite the fact that 75% of the traffic comes from the infamous "Best Page in the Universe". Keep that in mind, Alexa, while great for overall traffic statistics, isn't always the strongest source on determining what content is held under the name of the domain. Also, check the site again. Die Hard Paintball links over to Pev's Paintball, saying it's a "fantastic" site, why would Mike Peverill be against that? No reason at all. No where on the homepage does it make the statement you claim. Also, you said Warpig was started on 1987. While it may have started then, I doubt it had a website at that point. According to your notability standards, PBNation (which I would agree is notable) has an Alexa ranking that is not notable, despite the fact that is has made such an impact. If you like your other sites so much, take the time to write the articles on them and let other people write the articles on the sites they feel are notable.
    - PPS: Before saying this site is not notable, let's take another look around the internet shall we? Look at the Alexa ranking for Force of Nature (which I would also agree with you, that site is notable, I'm just pointing out these statistics to show you that the site in question is as well). It's ranking is 502,806 (which is below your standard of 10,000, and, since we both agree your site is notable, means we should probably look at this with a different standard), with no daily or weekly ranking, which, since you may or may not know how Alexa works, means absolutely no one with Alexa technology has gone to that site in a week. This site's daily and weekly Alexa rankings, however, are existant and fairly high. So, according to your standards, if one is notable, and this site has had more traffic than it in the recent past, you should probably acknowledge that either both are notable or both are not. Saying that A = Notable and even though B > A, B =/= notable does not make sense. - User:VanillaX
Comment - I've already voted, I'm just making a quick edit to put my name in instead of my IP, thanks. - User:Balthazar6669
Delete. Not encyclopedic, vanity. --Improv 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Stormie 12:15, 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 delete - Izehar 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Banana

A fictional nightclub only referred to once and never seen in the fiction in question. Not very notable. Daniel Case 05:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As per nom. No Guru 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

We could just have it redirect to the movieArgentiumOutlaw 06:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How many people are really going to search for it as a separate article? A single sentence in the movie article is more than enough. Daniel Case 06:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Article contains one sentence. --Quarl 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Apostrophe 07:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Malcolm Morley 08:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not bound to be the very next phase. Grutness...wha? 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 16:34, 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 delete - Izehar 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanaka Peurnskel

Seemly, a player's character in a game, vanity. ReyBrujo 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete --NaconKantari 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:46, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Thunk 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:44, 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 - Izehar 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hansuke Mishima

Seemly, a player's character in an online game. Vanity. ReyBrujo 05:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. --InShaneee 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Thunk 16:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - You can't verify this, it doesn't appear in the game maker's documentation. Endomion 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:44, 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 - Izehar 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gisatku Hirata

Seemly, a player's character in an online game. Vanity. ReyBrujo 05:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity --NaconKantari 05:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 06:00, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 13:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - No third-party references to this character's existence, let alone notability. Endomion 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:45, 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 - Izehar 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6 GM Superpowers

Seemly, a fictional organization in an online game. Vanity. ReyBrujo 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Online game's clan with six members. Contains links to several vanity pages also up for deletion. --InShaneee 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. not at all seemly. Very unseemly, in fact. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - for being blogesque. Endomion 16:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Thunk 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:45, 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 - Izehar 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Testimonial Midgard

PhantomStrider: Yes I can see that its disliked. I didn't, however write it up on an ego matter. I wrote it up to give the game some officialness for the users so they could read it in select articles. Delete it if you want. You can delete everything under my name as the author since its all based on this article. I don't need the work humiliated. I just expected it to be filed away so that the users who do look at it could. As a matter of fact, I'll delete it now.

A city clon of a Ragnarok Online city. The city itself is non notable (5 hits at Google), and I guess it may be vanity as well as it was created by the same author of the articles about the player's characters. ReyBrujo 05:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - PhantomStrider 06:01, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 06:01, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ragnarokruft. Endomion 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Thunk 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:46, 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 - Izehar 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roll music systems

If there was something truly notable about this company that could lead to making a genuine article out of this ad, they'd have put it here instead of wasting space with this image. Daniel Case 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Pure ad probably lifted straight from the yellow pages. Endomion 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:59, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. — TheKMan^talk 09:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. —Brim 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advert Compu ter Joe 12:43, 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayden Scheim

Very non-notable, with less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits. LGBT activist in Toronto who's done a few workshops at some conferenes and had a bio-piece done on some tv show. Judging from the edit history, the article seems to be some hybrid of an attack-page and a vanity-page made by his friends and aquantences there. Don't think this would be of interest to anyone other than perhaps a few dozen people in the LGBT Toronto scene, so hard to see how this could merit a Wikipedia article. Delete. Blackcats 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Story was documented on television news. Endomion 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- He was simply one of several people that was interviewed for a one-time show. That doesn't exactly qualify as extensive media coverage. His name gets even less Google hits than mine. I don't see how he meets notablility requirements. Blackcats 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, one story qualifies as extensive media coverage when the media is generally reticent to cover this sort of thing. Endomion 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean "reticent to cover" someone who's not very notable?... Blackcats 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean "reticent to cover" sexual minorities. Endomion 12:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - I hadn't noticed such a reticence. I find the media loves sensational stuff about gays and lesbians (i.e. all the hooplah about the marriages last year in the states and in the uk now with elton john and all). And transexuality can be even more sensational for the media - particuarly female->male, which is less common. If media coverage of such things was really so unusual, then wouldn't LGBT websites around the world be talking about Ayden Scheim and how extraordinary it was that he got such media coverage? And wouldn't this result in hudreds if not thousands of google hits?... Blackcats 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Endomion. Note. This is my view. There is no more to it that this. Requests to expand on it will be ignored, as there is nothing to expand upon. Jcuk 10:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Unique local activist. Seems to get lots of media attention- there could be more to his story -- JJay 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- If he gets "lots of media attention," then why so few Google hits? Blackcats 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't explain why google is such a poor tool. However, if you are interested, I could update the article to show the many newspaper articles that have featured Scheim along with his TV and radio appearances. -- JJay 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a "unique local activist" too, and I've been interviewed by local print and broadcast media on a number of occasions over the past ten years or so - even had a personality profile done in a local paper. And I know a number of local activists here and in other towns who can say the same. But I don't think all that adds up to notability on the Wikipedia level. In a wiki about my town I probably would be deserving of at least brief mention (as would some of my friends), as would Ayden in a Toronto wiki. But neither of us are notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio. Blackcats 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Programs which air across the whole of Canada on a public broadcasting network are not "local media". And both programs have been aired outside of Canada as well. Bearcat 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you been featured in two documentaries shown on national TV? If so, please submit an article on yourself- we need the info. -- JJay 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The one TV show that I see she was featured on is Rough Cuts - a reletively minor CBC weekly program which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, and which gets a little over 10,000 Google hits. [3] Now the show is certainly certainly notable enough that it would deserve a Wikipedia article, but it's certainly a much less well known show than say Dateline NBC, which gets almost two million Google hits. [4] My point is that the show is not notable to the point where someone appearing on that show one week (in Scheim's case with two others) automatically becomes notable. I'm not even sure that someone who was featured one week on Dateline NBC as an example of some phenomenon they were discussion would automatically become notable, but they'd have a stronger case. Also, I don't see any good reason why the Google-test shouldn't apply here, as this person is not historic and is not from outside the Western World. It's really hard to see how a young Canadian activist would have less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits if he were notable. Another test I would apply is would anyone who had not met Ayden Scheim in person and did not live in his area be likely to be motivated to start a Wikipedia article on him? And I have yet to see any evidence that they would. And judging from the edit summaries at the article, it's pretty clear to me that it was written by people who know Ayden. Blackcats 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know Ayden, and I've been involved in editing it. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to endlessly debate this. The guy was featured in two documentaries. Check the article- I added the references. "Class Queers" was shown in the States as well as on Canadian TV. I also don't care who wrote the article. -- JJay 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn bio. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more input. Blackcats 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete media are anythign but reticent to cover sexual minorities. Bloody Graham Norton is never off the box! This is a simple case of a minor local activist who was interviewed once on TV; my several dozen radio appearances (on BBC Radio 4) don't make me notable, and I get way more Google hits than this guy. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you had a documentary made about you as well? I really wish you would stop bragging about your unproven accomplishments and judge the articles based on their merits or do some research. -- JJay 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that I am not important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, so one of my benchmarks for inclusion is someoen who's had more media exposure than I have, it's as simple as that. You can't verify my media appearances for the same reason I can't easily verify the media appearances of the subject: they are transient. Andy Warhol said that everyone is famous for 15 minutes - does that mean everybody should be in WP? The problem here is continuing verifiability, notability is just shorthand for describing someone who is likely to remain in the media spotlight for long enough to ensure that something other than a single current event is verifiable (like candidates for political office, most of whom lose, and many of those are never heard of again). Once the media lose interest (assuming they haven't already) then everything subsequent becomes completely unverifiable instead of only unverifiable by anyone not in the area. As far as I'm concerned we should wait at least a year before adding an article related to any single current event, to see what the perspective of history might be. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I reiterate: Have you been featured in two nationally televised documentaries? If not, I expect you will stop distorting Mr. Scheim's record and withdraw your comments above. I would also appreciate it if you stopped talking about your supposed media appearances. Your claims about google hits are not relevant unless you provide a link. If the hits relate to some blog you maintain then they will be discounted. Mr. Scheim is not a current event, he is an activist. There are newspaper references on him dating back four years. Futhermore, I do not judge any bio by the media's interest or lack thereof. If I did, we could immediately trash most of our bios on historical subjects as well as numerous academics etc. -- JJay 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Graham Norton hosting a celebrity gabfest is not the same thing as a news or documentary program actually reporting on the real day-to-day lives and issues of LGBT youth. His presence on the tube doesn't even remotely constitute "the media covering sexual minorities". Bearcat 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete no actual evidence of notability.--nixie 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 02:51, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" doesn't cut it as a claim of notability, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" might perhaps not cut it as a claim of notability, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact that it was one of the most controversial pieces to air on the show in at least the past few years does cut it. As does the fact that Meryn Cadell (a legitimately notable figure even independently of his transgender activism) was moved to publicly speak out against the fifth estate (which is even more astonishing when you keep in mind how prominent a role the CBC has had in Cadell's career.) And the fact that Becoming Ayden and Class Queers have both been shown internationally. For what it's worth, the Canadian magazine The ACTivist seems to think so, as well; this link clearly considers Scheim notable enough to be one of just three activists specifically named as past speakers at an annual social justice conference, alongside Jaggi Singh and a former chair of the Canadian Federation of Students. I'm willing to concede that this is a borderline case, but it falls on the keep side of my borderline. Granted that I live in Toronto, but I've never met Ayden personally, so there's most certainly not a personal bias seeping in here. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable as the subject of several film and television stories, and also for winning a local award for community activism which I've just added to the article. David | Talk 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. CBC is a national station and it was an important biography. I'd say weak keep if it was only a simple appearance on the news, but it spurred on discussion. User:Ianmilligan1 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - French Tourist 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I'd say non-notable. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I don't understand why it is a problem keeping articles like these. I take "non-notable" to mean "not notable AT ALL". Certainly this person is notable. I think people should be saying "Not notable enough". Otherwise, it can sound like the things of note that a person does are not important. I will assume good faith here and assume that this is not the intent of the people saying "non-notable". Personally, I think Wikipedia should have many thousand small articles about the mildly notable people of the world. Some of these people will become more notable, in which case we can say it was in Wikipedia first. Others will drift off into obscurity. In future decades a small handful of people digging for information about obscure mildly notable people will find a paragraph or two about them here on Wikipedia. Won't they think highly of us. -- Samuel Wantman 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That was beautifully put. -- JJay 02:24, 3 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Static Dungeon

Seemly, a fictional dungeon in a clon of the Ragnarok Online game. I don't believe it would be a good redirection to a Ragnarok article because it seems not to be in the official game. ReyBrujo 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Unverifiable by people who don't go into online dungeons. Endomion 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:49, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Frederick

I can't find anything on Google on this guy as a filmmaker; probably has a lot to do with him being 17. Daniel Case 06:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Speedied. Daniel Case 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Another update: recreated... Speedy again and padlock. B.Wind 07:50, 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 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical conservatism

Possible original research. The term "practical conservatism" gets 713 Google hits, and they all seem to use the term in different ways. (A search for "practical conservatism" "frank zappa" gets 152 hits.) Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I suggest that the article either be kept as it is or merged with centrism. Either way, there's some valuable info here that I don't want to lose. (Ibaranoff24 06:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
Strong delete. POV title, not a notable term, and it looks pretty personal-essay/original-researchy. I don't see anything worth merging anywhere or any value in having a redirect. Blackcats 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Original research, POV, non-notable. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - If a person's politics are centered, you don't get to still use a right-leaning label. Endomion 16:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why did Frank Zappa call himself a "conservative"?

FYI: The term "Conservative" is NOT a right-leaning label. (Ibaranoff24 03:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Delete OR. Xoloz 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR, POV. feydey 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- neologism, cannot possibly be NPOV. Haikupoet 03:53, 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 Summoner Geeks aka "The Dungeons And Dragons Sketch" and tag for cleanup. No consensus for Take Down The Grand Master. howch e ng {chat} 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summoner Geeks aka "The Dungeons And Dragons Sketch" and Take Down The Grand Master

The first is an exceptionally ugly article about an exceptionally non-notable ~~song~~ sketch of some sort, google pulls 313 unique for "Summoner Geeks", 8 for "The Dungeons and Dragons Sketch", 1 for the whole shebang; 99 for "Take Down The Grand Master". There are no actual claims of notability in either articles, and near as I can tell, WP:MUSIC burst into flames when I tried to ask it... I'd like to speedy them, but there is no criteria for this stuff. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't looks notable in the least. The claim of being in Summoner also needs to be verified. It looks like a sad attempt to justfy their notability, otherwise. --Apostrophe 07:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename Summoner Geeks aka "The Dungeons And Dragons Sketch" to Dead Alewives. On the fence on the album article. --Apostrophe 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Quarl 07:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised we don't have a page for Summoner from Volition Inc., but the Dead Alewives video was distributed with the PS2 game. The Alewives were a bit of a local phenomenon in Milwaukee and caused some controversy. Keep, rename to Dead Alewives and big clean-up. -- JJay 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Message to nom- article concerns comedy troupe and video (not a song). -- JJay 09:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

- It being with Summoner needs to be verified. If so, I will change my vote. --Apostrophe 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's confirmed on most fan and industry sites linked to the game + on Volition's website. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote a long article on the sketch and the deal with Volition- Dead Alewives' sketch morphs into digital film. The video can be seen at Ifilm. -- JJay 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heard of it. Heard the sketch. Heard unending allusions to the sketch from pen-and-paper gamers. Never played Summoner. Anonymous Keep vote of little merit. 24.71.91.173 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarify - keep the Summoner Geeks page, though possibly under a different name. Delete Take Down The Grand Master. 24.71.91.173 09:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I first heard the sketch years ago...and it was likely a meaningful internet meme if people are still talking about it, and it was distributed with a PS2 game. Keep or merge appropriately. Postdlf 09:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I fear Wikipedia is turning into a posting forum for every gamer and rock band wannabe in the world. Madman 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per JJay. Endomion 16:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per JJay. I created the album's page when I found the entry about the D&D sketch/video (which contained exactly the info I was looking for) and saw a redlink to the album title. The album page is an almost line-by-line recreation of one of the many many MANY other album listings which are also included in Wikipedia, containing approximately as much information as many others (and more than some) which are not being challenged, so please don't blame me for ugliness. I was just going by what appeared to be an acceptable template. I would however have no problem with seeing this/these develop into a fuller article on the Dead Alewives themselves. They certainly deserve one. -- Arvedui 18:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are certainly a lot of album "info and track listing" articles, and the Dungeons and Dragons skit is popular in the older pen-and-paper RPG crowd. Heck, just mention the word "Cheetos" with older RPG gamers is good for a chuckle. Problem is, it's a "niche" article ... but Wikipedia has plenty of those, and this particular skit has at least some mainstream (non-RPG) following. --Justin Eiler 20:23, 4 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 Delete as hoax. - Szvest 02:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] CT-923667

Non-notable fancruft. No Google hits beyond wikipages -Dr Haggis - Talk 06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, quite possibly a hoax too. --Agamemnon2 06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — TheKMan^talk 09:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 14:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or at best move into a list of clone troopers from star wars. --Pboyd04 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Starwarscruft must cite sources. Endomion 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Star Wars has so many fans (one is sitting next to me at work) this could not have been bypassed by all of them. -- ReyBrujo 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:25, 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 merge and redirect to Indent style. Redirects are cheap. howch e ng {chat} 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOOTBS

Delete. This is just a dictionary definition, and I think not suitable for Wiktionary. Srleffler 06:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary article. It is an encyclopaedia article. Articles are not dictionary articles because they are short. Dictionary articles are usually quite long, after all. Articles that are short are stubs.
Merge to indent style, just as One True Brace Style, 1TBS, 1TB, 1 True Brace Style, and others already have been. Uncle G 06:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposed merge/redirect. My concern was that this article could never expand beyond what it is. Stubs need to be expandable.--Srleffler 06:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per UncleG --Quarl 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea that's what it's called. Apparently I am a TOOTBS programmer. Anyway, merge per others. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Otherwise I could do an article about not using the serial comma and call it TOTCS. Endomion 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
merge per the others Tedernst | talk 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Am I missing something? A google search shows only one result that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. The other terms Uncle G references are at least used. JLaTondre 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per JLaTondre. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:26, 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 no consensus. Note that administrator mikka was a contributor to this article and could reasonably be expected to have nominated this for deletion if he felt it was necessary. howch e ng {chat} 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly dance moves in Lindy

It's nice that people find silliness in things. I just don't think it's encyclopedia material. At first glance, not being familiar with dance jargon, one might think "silly" could be a term of art in dance, and that the article's author didn't define that well, but after reading the talk page, I do not think this is the case. Here's my test for encyclopedic here: can the article stand on it's own if you remove all opinion and leave just facts: answer = NO, entire article is subjective opining; D E L E T E--Fuhghettaboutit 07:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL - Delete. Blackcats 07:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand- rename if necessary. I don't see how this is any different from the many articles in Category:Lindy_Hop_dance_moves. The moves on this list exist as far as I can tell and are an important aspect of this dance. Add sources and co-ordinate better with our existing Lindy hop coverage yes, delete no way. -- JJay 07:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Lindyhop dance moves and rewrite as appropriate. Dance moves are inherently silly anyay. Kappa 09:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not an option. We already have Lindy Hop moves, which is where this article arose from (originally named Silly (dance move)) in the first place. Uncle G 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Merge back with Lindy Hop moves then. Kappa 18:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - It wasn't a split in the first place. Uncle G 12:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - What's next, Silly walks in Monty Python ? Endomion 16:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- LOL Kappa. Endomion 19:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are right. We do need a list like that. Python creations deserve more scholarly attention-- JJay 18:45, 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 speedy delete as not notable. Szvest 02:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] TTOH Characters (Alphabetical) and TTOH Characters (Chronological)

List of redlinks for characters on an online fanfiction site. The few that have been created so far have all been copyvios from the site in question. The second page even has a mass of links back to the fanfic site. Delete as fancruft and vanity. --InShaneee 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Delete. Delete. Never, never let Wikipedia turn into a resource for DC Comics/Star Trek/Star Wars/Harry Potter (Do you honestly expect this mess to turn out any good?) fanfiction. Delete James Thomas George, as well.--Apostrophe 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've speedied James Thomas George. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. We don't need character indexes to fanfiction on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination; obvious. --Quarl 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trials Of Humanity below. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Save us from later having to redirect, for example, Batman (TTOH character) to just Batman. Endomion 16:26, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Roots Come Alive

NN album stubstub. Doesn't even name the band. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The band is The Roots. I don't know what guidelines we are following in terms of notability of albums, but this article looks like a delete as it currently stands. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep (if re-written soon). Notable band, and it gets over 18,000 Google hits [5]. If nobody expands this in time then delete without prejudice so that it can be recreated whenever someone puts in the effort to write at least a decent stub. Blackcats 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. —Brim 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep have tried to do a bit of work on it but dont know the band so will leave anything more to someone with more expertise than I Jcuk 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and standardize the layout. Endomion 16:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep feydey 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and tag {{cleanup-date}}, minimun information is there. From what I understand, if the band is notable, so are its singles, albums and compilations. -- ReyBrujo 21:30, 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, especially considering Dotsoft agreed to its deletion. howch e ng {chat} 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOTSOFT

Business vanity article. (The English version of the website is here). -- Longhair 08:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair 07:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. 165,000 Google hits - fairly notable. Blackcats 07:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - 320 unique hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - 320 is not as relevant to dotsoft.gr as 165.000 is, and 165.000 isn't 'the number' per se. In the 320 case the search takes into account only the number of times the term 'dotsoft.gr' comes up and not the term 'dotsoft' which is the main descriptive name of the company. A further justification of why 320 is not characteristic is that in under no circumstances dotsoft.gr could top the google search for the term dotsoft(as it currently does) with only 320 unique hits for the term dotsoft.gr, while the total hits for the term dotsoft is 165.000. In the second case(165.000) the search takes into account the term 'dotsoft' which does not belong only to 'dotsoft.gr'. A more balanced search should be taking into account the number of results returned by google with the term 'dotsoft' and filter the results for pages written only in Greek, a fairly big number that reaches 65,100, a number big enough which still does not take into account the number of foreign text pages mentioning the company. Finally, by looking for all pages hosted in Greece(written in english or greek or anything else) and mention the term 'dotsoft' the number reaches 136,000. Google URL is http://www.google.com.gr/search?hl=el&q=dotsoft&btnG=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7&meta=cr%3DcountryGRDotsoft 06:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep.Why is this article considered for deletion?. There is a series of other minor companies in the listing for List of companies in Greece that have an entry but they are allowed (such as AtNet Communications S.A.). Why is Dotsoft any different than this? This article is supposed to be an informative entry for the List of companies in Greece article and not a 'Business vanity article'. Dotsoft 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If DOTSOFT is notable, the article does not let the reader know how. What sets DOTSOFT apart from other hosting companies? -- Longhair 08:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC):

Reply to Comment: I think it all comes to the meaning and purpose of the articles List of companies in Greece and List of companies which concerns companies worldwide. If the entries in these listings are notable(which to a large degree are not), what sets them apart from the other potentialy more notable companies apart from the fact that the other companies have not edited the wiki page in order to be listed? Is a fishing company in Djibuti notable? No, but this does not stop it from being listed under it's country's catalogue. Moreover as an official registrar of the gr domain dotsoft has been included in press releases on top gr sites such as http://www.in.gr/news/article.asp?lngEntityID=526981&lngDtrID=252 and http://www.marketing-net.gr/online/article.asp?returnPage=GROUP&group=6&articleid=1458 (both in gr only). Dotsoft 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, it comes down to _whether or not your company is notable_. Justify the page's existence for a rewrite as a non-advertising encyclopaedia entry or sit. down. 24.71.91.173 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Please review Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) -- Longhair 08:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Apologies Longhair. I went through the section and i will remove the article now.Dotsoft 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Articles under debate here shouldn't be edited or blanked until the discussion is closed. Another administrator will come along eventually and review the discussion. They'll then act according to consensus on what to do with the article. -- Longhair 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Ok, i'll reedit the article in question then, in order to at least make it more relevant.62.1.132.57 10:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Was that directed at me or at Dotsoft? For myself, I can't see much indication on google that Dotsoft-the-hosting-company is notable (though Dotsoft-the-AutoCAD-plugin-company might be notable). I don't see any mentions in greek news sites, not even press releases. Dotsoft's services don't strike me as notable (though admittedly I don't read Greek so there may be material in the text that's not apparent in their services grid. In short, DOTSOFT appears to be little more than Yet Another Hosting Provider.

It's possible this article belongs in the Greek wikipedia. I don't see any particular need for it here. 24.71.91.173 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah the good ol' "if it aint American it dont belong here, boy" argument..... Jcuk 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Before using the sarcasm, you might have checked the IP address location. If you had, you would have seen it's from Calgary... -- JLaTondre 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand Jcuk 10:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand Compu ter Joe 12:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no claim to notability. Endomion 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do you know any other encyclopedias with Greek website spam in them? there is a good reason for that. nn. Incognito 05:24, 5 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 delete, then recreate as a redirect to Information Age. A real article about the topic can be written when it can properly sourced. howch e ng {chat} 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital culture

Looks like a ad to me. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Information Age or Digital Revolution or some such article. People are likely to type this in looking for some discussion of the cultural/societal impact of digital technology. Blackcats 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -- Where? I'm not sure. But redirect. - Longhair 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The choice appears to be a binary one. 0 - Information Age, 1 - Digital Revolution. Endomion 16:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

digital culture is still a valid term, worth defining —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssmithjanis (talk • contribs).

there is a book titled "Digital Culture" by Charles Gere

- I posted the original (top part) of this definition. 'Digital Culture' does need defining as an independant conjunctive signifier. As for redirection, re.information age etc.? - I think references & links might be more helpful.

- Also, there are several "digital culture" programs at established universities. Perhaps is would be better to edit it rather than delete it.

Please leave it in

There are plenty of people who are starting to debate the coining of this term in contrast of meaning of that of "information age" and "digital revolution".

"Everyone uses the term digital culture, but no one defines it. It is one of those key terms that in its simplest usage merely designates a society saturated by telecommunications and information networks, electronic products, and computational systems based on binary data using electronic or electromagnetic signals. ... Whatever the intention of its meaning, the ubiquitous usage of the term digital culture has two important underlying assumptions: (1) community revolves around distributed communication; and (2) efforts to increase community take the form of new devices, systems, and technologies for abetting telecommunications." (Memory Bytes: History, Technology and Digital Culture. Edited by Lauren Rabinovitz and Abraham Geil. Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2004, p4-5.) Ibm66 21:55, 4 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Kowan

A doctor who was ALLEGED to be a "mail drop" for Soviet spies, but who was never charged or even arrested, or even really positively identified. Every single person allegedly mentioned in a 50-year-old government decrypting operation is not notable. FCYTravis 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - attack page about a non-notable person. Few Gooble hits [6]. Blackcats 07:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spycruft. Endomion 16:20, 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 00:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blasius Hardevust

Was tagged for speedy, but claims importance, so not a speedy candidate. The given reason was: "This bio is either a hoax or very nn. (no results on Google)." No vote. howch e ng {chat} 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 0 Google - unverifiable as far as I can tell. Blackcats 08:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Madman 16:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - alleges publication, but no publisher is given. Endomion 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRingess 22:17, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Devyatkin

"Allegedly assisted an Soviet Military Intelligence officer in the United States in the late 1920s." Is that really notable? FCYTravis 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Blackcats 08:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - At least this one has several citations. Endomion 16:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Veriifiaible, and spies are notable. Academic Challenger 07:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Academic Challenger. Pepsidrinka 22:33, 5 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Laboon

Was tagged for speedy delete under CSD A7, but article claims significance, so I brought it to AfD to respect the wishes of the speedy tagger. Personally, this looks like a keep to me pending verification. howch e ng {chat} 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

copyvio from here. --Rob 09:10, 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. --03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Minor

One-source subsubstub on a minor functionary "alleged" to have "worked for Soviet intelligence." FCYTravis 08:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect to VENONA project. Blackcats 08:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - only Minor notability. Endomion 16:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Do not redirect as there are probably others (notable) with the same name? feydey 20:10, 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. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herman R. Jacobson

Another one-source subsubsubstub on some schlub who was alleged to "maintain a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence." Does Wikipedia really need an article on *everyone* ever mentioned as MAYBE being a spy in the Venona project? FCYTravis 08:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - If a spy has a biography in WikiPedia his career is at a stand still. Let's help him get back on his feet and delete this spycruft. Endomion 16:15, 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 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Morant

Sub-stub about actress. It gives 22 unrelated Googles. No IMDB entry.

Delete - nn and unverifiable Renata3 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Renata3. — TheKMan^talk 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy on criteria 7.--nixie 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no claim to notable performances. Endomion 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
'Delete - not listed in IMDB Samw 00:33, 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 speedy deleted and protected from re-creation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimongering

Wikimedia is not a dictionary and this is a neologism anyway Malcolm Morley 08:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WTF??? This got speedied a little too speedily for my taste. It's now marked with {{deletedpage}}, but no reason is given for why it was speedied. Maybe it was an obvious delete, but that's no excuse for breaking policy like that! I would like to bring this one up for deletion review. Blackcats 08:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and wikimongerer if it comes back, as neologisms with no evidence of use. Kappa 09:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Deleted and locked per comments on IRC. Page was a neologistic attack page. FCYTravis 09:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Much as I dislike bureaucracy, should conversations in IRC be allowed to trump the normal process? 24.71.91.173 09:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Normal process is that attack pages (and those not claiming any sort of notability) can be speedied. My fault for not leaving a reason when I deleted it. The terms get zero (yes, that's right, zero as in zip, zilch, none, nil, etc.) Google hits. A word that doesn't get a single Google hit isn't even a neologism. It's something someone made up in school one day. FCYTravis 10:02, 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 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Trials Of Humanity

Shockingly non-notable fan fiction project that I stumbled upon entirely by accident and seperate from the related AfDs: Googling "The Trials Of Humanity" with Star Wars pulls 15 hits, only some of which are relevant, the first hit coming back to this article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTOH Characters (Alphabetical) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTOH Characters (Chronological) above. Delete as quickly as possible. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I want to see something I can hold in my hand. Endomion 16:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Apostrophe 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete No assertion, nor evidence, of notability. --InShaneee 03:44, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AtNet Communications S.A.

Listed at List of Greek companies under a section titled Minor companies. Very little information. Possibly business vanity. See also DOTSOFT. -- Longhair 09:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair 09:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Google lists around 20 unique hits, 50 total, and most of them in Greek[7]. Non-notable. — TheKMan^talk 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no claim to notability. Endomion 16:11, 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 the disambiguation page version. howch e ng {chat} 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching

Delete. Already in wiktionary. Maybe turn into a disambiguation page. --Anthony Ivanoff 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
cery hard to see how this could ever be more than a dictdef. There is a song of this title (by Clan of Xymox, IIRC, or maybe Pieter Nooten solo), but it certainly wouldn't be notable enough for an article either. Delete. Grutness...wha?
Delete - Not enough here to get traction for its own encyclopedia article. Endomion 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Again, already in Wiktionary, endlessly moved from stub category to stub category. At best a disambiguation page alone should remain. Emersoni 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Physical searching using eyes, using touch; searching reference materials; searching the web; etc. --Quarl 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it should be possible to write a general article on searching. If not turn this into a disambig. - SimonP 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As others have said, it doesn't seem like it can be much more than a simple definition. Possibly create a disambiguation page at "Search." Imaginaryoctopus 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, already more encyclopedic than wiktionary would accept. Can be expanded to discuss search techniques in air-sea rescue etc. Kappa 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig. (Search should be the disambig though, with searching redirecting to it, per general style guidelines maybe?) --Fangz 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That depends. Turning this article into a disambiguation is listed under both "keep" and "delete" . I think doing so is the best solution and my vote goes to whichever option it turns out to be. I'm guessing it is "delete" since that option came first but we will see.

Martin-C 23:50, 4 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 delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per nom

This phrase appears to entirely internal to wikipedia, and is of no interest to the outside world (WP:NSR). Also a dictionary definition with no potential to become encylopedic. Kappa 09:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete....per nom... — TheKMan^talk 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per article's title. —Brim 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it seems not even our favorite resident inclusionist can justify it :) (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...~~per nom~~ well actually, as dictdef... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, you know why Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki If it's a dictionary definition move it to Wikidictionary Compu ter Joe 14:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per Uncle G. --Compu ter Joe 21:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rob 15:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh oh, Rob, if it gets deleted your reason for voting to delete will be a red link and it won't count. Endomion 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Per nom ... per nom. This is great per nom. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki or Move to Wikipedia:per nom used heavily around here and it would be nice if people understood the jargon so that they can het involved. --Pboyd04 16:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just merge with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Words —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pboyd04 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 16:29:33 UTC.
  - That's not the appropriate place. We have Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands and Wikipedia:Glossary for documenting the jargon. Uncle G 17:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Pboyd04 - FrancisTyers 17:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is in the wrong namespace, and should be in the Guide or the Glossary. A merger would leave a cross-namespace redirect behind, and there's little of substance to merge anyway. Delete. Uncle G 17:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I've gone ahead and added 'per nom' to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands. --Quarl 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
DPN. BD2412 T 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not just redirect to the guide? I had trouble finding it on the site when I ran a search for the term. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I personally think this obscure phrase should be banned from Wikipedia as a form of duckspeak, but in any case we already have an AfD glossary. Gazpacho 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with King of Hearts to Move to Wikipedia:Per nom. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Takes all of a minute to understand what it means anyway. - Liontamer 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Understanding what it means and finding the location of that information are two completely different things.ArgentiumOutlaw 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, ironic huh. Incognito 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
We should probably discuss the problem at hand rather than having everyone simply vote to merge or delete, because that will ignore what I was trying to do in creating this page. Does anyone have an actual solution to my original problem, which was that I couldn't directly find 'per nom', a common slang with no definition. A simple entry or redirect of some kind will actually help people. So if we just delete this page, we will be causing people some unnecessary searching of common information. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:05, 5 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hoppus

Don't see why a child of a rock star needs a wiki page. Could easily by summarised on rock-star's own page. Palaeologus 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Mark Hoppus. — TheKMan^talk 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject is not notable enough for its own article, and all information is already in the article on Mark Hoppus. — TheKMan^talk 09:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above -- SGBailey 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above or redirect to Mark Hoppus. Punkmorten 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't mind some notable relatives for truly very famous people having articles: I remember voting to keep Madonna's kid and Martin Luther King's mom. But this is an area into which we must tread cautiously, lest we start ending up with articles for bloggers' great-uncles and webcomic-creators' step-cousins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - There is no way for this to be expanded, except with baby pictures. Endomion 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as is, fails music notability. -- ReyBrujo 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Quarl 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per TheKMan. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 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. Jinian 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modernising Medical Careers

Article has no meaningful content. Unverifiable. —Brim 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - this program affects the whole population of UK junior doctors at senior house officer level. It is most certainly verifiable by Google. A merge with senior house officer would be suboptimal. JFW | T@lk 10:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Article only says there is a program, not exactly what it is. Endomion 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Jfdwolff. --King of All the Franks 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - As per Jfdwolff, this is about an important topic in British medicine, and the link in the article (provided by Jfdwolff) certainly provides a source for content for this article. However, the article as it stands is not up to stub levels, and it may be the case that the topic is better handled within another article, rather than having an article named by an NHS buzzword. --- Charles Stewart 18:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge --Quarl 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge Prashanthns 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Jfdwolff. Pepsidrinka 22:35, 5 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 delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 07:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Rain (band)

Band vanity. -- Longhair 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. From what I can tell, the band does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines for notability (music). — TheKMan^talk 09:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clear speedy candidate. Ambi 09:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Delete". Roisterer 12:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, I tagged the article with {{nn-band}} under WP:CSD A7. Sliggy 13:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Oh boy, a cover band who has played two gigs at their school. Endomion 16:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, as per Sliggy. Non notable bands can be speedied. -- ReyBrujo 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 --Quarl 21:55, 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 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macey Baggett Wuesthoff

Seems to be a vanity page or advert. Robin Johnson 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Author of a book by a major publisher, listed on Amazon. Meets inclusion criteria at WP:BIO. But can we get rid of that scary picture? —Brim 10:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sole contributor is User:Macey, so unless she's published something notable, it's WP:VAIN. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, one book published by a vanity press, does not meet WP:BIO.--nixie 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nixie. Endomion 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nixie. Gamaliel 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nixie --Quarl 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, her book on Amazon is ranked 1,707,893, there should be over a million other authors written about before her. Petaholmes, is Amber Quill Press a vanity press? I know they're only e-books, but they do claim to pay royalties. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- (I'm not sure how the Amazon sales rank works, but I believe if the Amazon sales rank of a book is N, there are far more than N books more popular than it --Quarl 23:50, 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley Cook

Not notable (not found on Google) & maybe personal CV -- SGBailey 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- SGBailey 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I am actually from the Chattanooga area and know this guy. I do not think he has ever had any media coverage and therefore not able to be found on Google. He is just a local artist that everyone seems to like. That is all I really know though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.59.197.73 (talk • contribs).
Delete Only connection I can find between Chat. and Bentley Cook is this bizarre rant at the bottom of this blog (scroll to bottom) MNewnham 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete no citation given of his published works. Endomion 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable per nomination, vanity. --Quarl 21:54, 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 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Samuel

Does not meet criteria for WP:BIO. —Brim 10:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Non-notable, vanity. — TheKMan^talk 10:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete more to the point, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC either, Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless this Antiguan steel band artist wins a Grammy. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: article has 8 deleted edits. — TheKMan^talk 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless Amazon shows a hit for "Victor Samuel's Antiguan Christmas Songs" or something. Endomion 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a vanity article. Ajwebb 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. It may qualify as Speedy per CSD:G4. -- ReyBrujo 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio, possibly as repost. Marked as nn-bio. --Quarl 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete repost and nn-bio. Stifle 02:30, 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. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cracking a smile

Dictionary definition. Not encyclopedic. Delete and Move to Wiktionary. —Brim 10:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete dictdef, and not even a good one Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and merge with Internet Slang. It's clearly NOT a dicdef (unless things like ROTFLMNAO are getting into websters nowadays?) Jcuk 10:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rolling on the floor laughing my nigga ass off? I vote for Redirect Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, "ROFLM Nude AO!" I'm a naturist, it's a well known derivative in the naturist web world. Jcuk 14:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - You can't just make up internet slang. Endomion 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Endomion, don't merge or redirect or move to wiktionary. All Google hits for 'cas "cracking a smile"' are webpages with "cas" as a typo for "case" --Quarl 21:48, 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Harvey

(original nominator's text below) — TheKMan^talk 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This is this guys personal page. He has no "notability" other than to himself. He is the only one who has contributed to this page.--Looper5920 11:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability cannot be verified. — TheKMan^talk 11:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Only valid claim to notability is as the author of one article. Endomion 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - FrancisTyers 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Do not Delete —the preceding unsigned comment is by AlanHarvey (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge one sentence with Springbok Club, of which he claims to be co-founder. --Quarl 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The simple solution seems to be to userfy this, as it was created by the subject and it doesn't qualify under WP:BIO. Stifle 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The creator, AlanHarvey, blanked the AFD notice in this edit and again in this edit. Stifle 02:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chitty Family of Sri Lanka

Wikipedia is not a genealogical record. Non notability as well. I don't see really anything on google about this family. Plus I am pretty sure this is a book extract, so probably a copyvio too. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete this generally Chitty article. Endomion 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Quarl 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ganeshk 00:36, 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 speedy redirected. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asbab An-Nuzul

This page was created due to a spelling mistake, the original artical is in lower case.
Just redirect it, then. Tupsharru 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Close this AfD - I already set up the redirection. Endomion 15:16, 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 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOHG

Not encyclopedic. Low google, zero news. Delete unless evidenced of notability provided. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete No alphas, no betas, let us know when it hits the street. Endomion 15:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Thunk 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
delete per nomination as non-notable --Quarl 21:40, 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 Speedily deleted by User:Zoe WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Magann

It is not clear to me why this person is notable enough for inclusion. The article had a "db" tag; this tag was removed by User:Davidmagann, original author of the article. -- Aleph4 12:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - The article doesn't list which contributions he is notable for, so we can check. Endomion 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-bio; marked as such --Quarl 21:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. Article did not even allege notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:26, 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 no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Schenkhuizen

this games club member's club ("four kings") was deleted as non-notable... so should he be deleted as well? Zzzzz 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Zzzzz 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I don't like games but that is quite a list of trophies. Endomion 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per nom, even less notable than "four kings" themselves. --Oscarthecat 16:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - maybe notable (not sure what counts as notable here); but cleanup --Quarl 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn-bio Niz 15:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - As the top player of his game, Grubby is of interest to gamers as a whole, not just Warcraft players. He should have a page for the same reason that Lim Yo-Hwan (SlayerS `Boxer'), Fatal1ty, and vo0 have pages. --Cesare
- Note: Cesare (talk • contribs) has only contributed to the article for deletion and this AFD page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-30 23:49Z
Delete. I dont think these kind of people should be in wikipedia. Catherine breillat 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep --80.186.137.5 16:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Anonymous users cannot vote on AFD. Sorry. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Actually they can, assuming they present policy correctly. See WP:GAFD#Discussion. howch e ng {chat} 19:53, 5 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg_Tingle

Delete this self promotion crap, written by the person it's about, calls himself a player in the media industry when his jobs are 'truck driver' and 'telemarketer', who on earth would ever need information on this man? Not that there isn't enough at his bizarre, border-line psychopathic Media Man. Titrator 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. --D-Day 13:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion. --Genev80 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Amen to D-Day. Endomion 15:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity bio. --Quarl 21:32, 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 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N4 (notation)

Delete this article, because it's marked as not verified since Sep 10, 2005. I can't find any info about N4 notation on the Web. — Anrie Nord 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not only is it unverifiable and unencyclopedic, this article is boring as well. --D-Day 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Notation 3 has an inventor, but Notation 4 cites no inventor. Endomion 15:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, possibly original research, possibly hoax --Quarl 21:31, 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 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JOCA

Advertisement. Delete. May deserve a brief mention on Wikipedia or a related page. - Mike Rosoft 13:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Arvindn 13:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is what Yahoo yellow pages is for. Endomion 14:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement --Quarl 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 02:13, 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 merge and redirect to Suyuti. Note to nominator: You don't need to wait for the AfD to run its course if the result is obvious. You can be bold, merge it, and then withdraw the nomination. howch e ng {chat} 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatwas by Suyuti

Not notable to merit its own article. Should be merged with Suyuti. Pepsidrinka 13:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge per fatwa by Endomion 14:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge, go ahead and do it --Quarl 21:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge. To the nominator, I point you at WP:BOLD - you don't need to take merge requests to AFD. Stifle 02:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Will keep that in mind for future issues. Though now that its already here, I'll let the vote finish and then do so. Pepsidrinka 02:30, 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 Connect Delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connect Left

As far as I can tell, it's just another blog with no claim to notability. - Bobet 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia needs to shrug off its reputation as being the top cheerleader for the evil, lying, Jew-run, gay-supporting, Santa-hating, Jesus-bashing, birkenstock-wearing, According to Jim-watching liberal media. Just kidding. Delete. --D-Day 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I take umbrage at that Santa-bashing bit. Endomion 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable weblog Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, although it is true, Santa sucks the big one. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website per nomination. --Quarl 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 02:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constable Norrington

I choose "non-verifiable" for this one, 0 google hits. - Bobet 14:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - If this feature is only available to administrators of such-and-such, it will not avail the general WP reading public to know about it. Endomion 15:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. "Users may post NSFW (not safe for work) content such as text or images racially motivated images such as the B.B.C."? -- Vary | Talk 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. --Quarl 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Endomion. Stifle 02:11, 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 all articles. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Legendary Ocean, The 13th Grave, Terrorking Salmon, Deepsea Warrior, Swordstalker, Skull Servant, Gyroid, Mythic Dragon, Gagagigo, Giga Gagagigo, Gigobyte, Gogiga Gagagigo

All of these pages should be deleted; they are unencyclopædic wastes of space. The cards described in these articles are non-notable, and if we have articles on these cards, what stops us from having articles on EVERY card? In addition, there is bound to be copyright violation somewhere along the line. (NOTE: some of the cards in Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! cards are notable, such as Obelisk the Tormentor.) Setokaiba^✌_≝ 11:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete All Fancruft. These cards can all have thier own pages on Yu-Gi-Oh Wikicities] (which could use the content), but we don't need all of that here. -- Vary | Talk 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete cardcruft. I've said it before and I'll say it again - get rid of cardcruft. Even the Power Nine from MTG don't get their own individual articles. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, except Gigobite, which could be made a redirect to Gigabyte, as I could see someone with bad spelling searching for that word. Youngamerican 18:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all fancruft. feydey 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all and ask the author to contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh wikicities. --Quarl 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Note precedent by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists. --Apostrophe 22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, including Obelisk, per Power Nine precedent. -- Grev 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Gyroid and replace it with... I dunno, maybe the OLD article about GYROIDS?
Keep Swordstalker has been updated. --Jingofetts 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete- this is about a damn card and nothing of any significant importance. Why are we debating this?

"Keep" How come there are articles about every single Pokemon but you don't want any articles about a few Yu-Gi-Oh cards? You're all a bunch of Pokemon fanboys and fangirls.
- Haha, for the record, if any Pokemon card came up for deletion I'd be for deleting that too. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Engineering Center

Promotional. Looks like a commercial spam/copyvio, but I was unable to locate the exact source. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't promotional, we are trying to make sure people can find us because of the range of activities we offer for engineers and for kids to learn about engineering. --AbbieGoodman 15:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't promotional, but we use the article to promote ourselves? Yes, right. - Mike Rosoft 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert - FrancisTyers 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertising, obvious. --Quarl 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 02:11, 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. Sorry, but the article does not satisfy the requirements listed at WP:V. There are no reliable sources with the only reference being the creator's web site. If anyone voting keep can properly source this article, I'll be happy to restore it. howch e ng {chat} 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duffy's law

Non notable (google) and probably an attempt at a promotional article for a controvertial / non mainstream belief system Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per my nomination --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --King of All the Franks 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. The eponymous Mr Duffy is a proponent of Applied kinesiology, I can see why he thinks most people are wrong most of the time. --Quarl 21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
keep. I created this article because it's a useful aphorism, and despite Duffy's probable belief that he's right about AK, it humbles one to apply this to oneself. To my knowledge, Duffy did not self-promote any of his stuff to wikipedia, and as far as I'm concerned, deletion based on whether Duffy is working in a discredited field is a better argument for keeping it than for deleting it in this particular case, if only to show Duffy in his own words that he could be wrong, too. As a point of process, there was no discussion of problems with the article on its talk page before its nomination on AfD. Those problems may be fixable, if someone would say what they are? -- Vansig 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, you're right that AK is not that relevant here. But it remains that the phrase is a non-notable recent neologism. Google search shows 71 unique hits. First hit is his own website, which has no alexa data (in terms of WP:WEB that reaks of non-notability). The first hit not from that website or its guestbook is some user comment on IMDb about an unrelated fictional character named Duffy, the rest are equally unrelated or Wikipedia mirrors. It is not a problem with the article, it is a problem with the subject of the article (i.e. notability) -- which can't be fixed in the article. If it were this easy to create a "law" and then have an article on Wikipedia describing it, everyone would be creating "Quarl's Law" just to get free advertisement. As for process, most articles that are non-notable don't get Talk discussion before being brought here. I still vote Delete. --Quarl 08:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, can't see what makes this unencyclopedic or unsuitable. It is referenced, and it isn't complete bollocks. Stifle 02:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
please keep. Alexa/Google stats are really tricky measures for neologisms. Think for yourself: this may well be the only noteworthy produce from the Applied kinesiology crowd until they get their claims and experiments right. -- 70.29.131.204 19:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a noteworthy adage, not proven to be true, and it is the product of a very alternative chiropractor/conspiracist whose other theories are also not proven to be true. There's nothing inherently encyclopedic about a clever turn of phrase. -Will Beback 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
keep: Not proved false. -- Waveguy 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I see the argument that "Duffy is a proponent for a controversial theory" as an example of guilt by association: a law coined by a proponent of this theory cannot possibly be true or notable. The law itself is not related to that obscure theory, and I'm content with it being here as long as links to "applied kinesiology" are removed from this article. Delete if removing the links is not possible. - Sikon 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Duffy's law:

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 Dec 2005. As of 3 Jan 2006 there is no clear consensus; while the question of notability is problematic for biographies, comix, music and eponymous laws, this article is exemplary of the problems with blindly applying Google/Alexa stats to the AfD process.

Suspiciously, the first three votes for deletion occured within minutes of this page's listing on AfD, all making no additional argument beyond the allegations of non-notability and self promotion. Have deletionists been running a xmas holiday deletion campaign?

User:Quarl astutely pointed out that unless notability is a question here, anyone could make up an eponymous law and promote it. I would agree, usually. But looking deeper into the implications of going ahead with deletion, it could spur increasing conflict between deletionists and inclusionists.

It could turn out to be staggeringly pivotal: inclusionists could do very well to allow the vote to sway against them for this article, and then both: offer the deletion as proof of Duffy's law itself, and at the same time make the claim that deletionists are purging the wikipedia of important but obscure knowledge.

So clearly, this article is not WP:VAIN, not WP:BIO and is NPOV; the article is of interest to multiple people, so it is totally noteworthy, just not very popular because most people don't like to apply it to themselves. -- 70.29.131.204 05:39, 3 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 Speedily kept/withdrawn. Morwen - Talk 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincolnshire flag

This appears to be a "soapbox" or advertising article. There is no neutral POV or facts given. Total removal seems in order. Trxi 15:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Madman 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep or Merge with Lincolnshire. - FrancisTyers 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but Tidy. After reading this BBC story [8] about the search for a new Lincolnshire flag (replacing the red cross on a white background), and looking at the flag mentioned on the Lincolnshire page, it seems the subject is worthy, but the writing style is totally unacceptable.

If you (collectively) wouldn't mind, I'll re-write very soon. I used to live in Lincolnshire, so am familiar with some of its history. JanesDaddy 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely Weak keep but might be more inclined to vote keep after a clean up. Jcuk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

First draft is at Talk:Lincolnshire flag. Please read before voting. JanesDaddy 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on the draft I'd vote keep. Jcuk 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if the revised version on the talk page is going to be moved to the article page. Evil Eye 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep (for now at least) It appears that the article may become an issue of more notability in the future. As such it would be helpful to have a certain amount of background knowledge on the subject should the need arise to extend the article. --Chazz88 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

keep but tidy. Real flag (was noted on Flags of the World website a few months back), based on the arms of the city of Lincoln. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Definitely keep now that it's been nicely revised. Trxi 09:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Someone with more experience than me will have to redirect from The_Lincolnshire_Flag (which was created and not edited since November 22) (or preferably delete The_Lincolnshire_Flag altogether - definite article, bad capitalization). This article credits Charlie Partridge of Radio Lincolnshire, rather than Fred and Pat Rickett, who originally wrote to the County News newspaper. It was because of the Ricketts' letter that Partridge got involved. JanesDaddy 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I drew and added the flag. Is it me or is it really ugly? Morwen - Talk 09:30, 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 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Mitchell

Obvious fake, unverifiable. [9] JonathanMitchell should be deleted as well. Ze miguel 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete both per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - No self-respecting French father would name his boy "Jonathan" Endomion 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax, unverifiable. --Quarl 21:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both, unverifiable. Stifle 02:10, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Krum

Moved to afd from csd (nn-bio). I'm leaning towards Keep, myself.-- Syrthiss 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep provided more information is supplied. Doesn't seem nn-bio now. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If an article is not nn-bio, it means it shouldn't be speedily deleted. No comment about whether it should be slowly deleted though. Stifle 02:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete she was on Howard Stern and posed in playboy. All the google hits I get about either her or Miss Amputee are fan sites of Howard Stern. Does this make her notable enough to have an article? --Pboyd04 16:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not in my opinion. --Syrthiss 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Can you clarify your stance? You said "keep" initially but this implies you think it should be deleted. howch e ng {chat} 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    - I have been trying to avoid actually participating in afd discussions that I brought myself, but if you are tied for consensus count my vote as Delete. ie I was in the delete camp, but leaning towards keep because she was verifyable if not nessecarily notable --Syrthiss 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Pablo-flores. --King of All the Franks 16:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Being the first to do something seems notable to me.... Jcuk 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Jcuk is a "member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians"--Quarl 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - WTF has that got to do with anything?! I'll thank you not to put sarky irrelelvant snipes after my comments. Jcuk 22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I'm the first user whose username starts with Q to vote to delete this article. "Not nn-bio" just means it doesn't meet criteria for speedy deletion; not that it doesn't meet criteria for deletion. --Quarl 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of notability. In addition, the attraction here is pure side show. If this woman weren't disabled, this would have been a speedy. Jtmichcock 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. It isn't an nn-bio because it has an assertion of notability. However, I don't see at all how she passes WP:BIO. Stifle 02:09, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beach Bastards

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. The google search looks like they were featured on BearShare once. Other than that no records on Amazon and no listing on allmusic. --Pboyd04 16:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-band; marked as such. --Quarl 21:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedied. Deltabeignet 03:28, 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 delete. howch e ng {chat} 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Haim filmography

I created the page because the list was too long to be on the actors main article. However, I saw that only afew actors have this type of article, notably Bogart and Stewart whom have far more films and are far more notable. I don't want to create something where we see a filmography for every actor and actress! I replaced the main article link with an external link to an IMDB page, with basically thet same content. What are your views? Smerk 15:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Most articles have not a complete filmography, but a "selected filmography" section, where important films/whatever are shown. If an actor's filmography gets too long, consider trimming unimportant appearances instead — there are few actors who have too many important appearances for them all to appear on his bio. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Corey Haim article is currently in peer review, a user went through and cleaned up the filmography and made it select, then I created its sub-page, not thinking at the time if it were a good idea.. Smerk 15:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the imdb already provides a complete filmography on everybody. Endomion 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Endomion. Stifle 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as there are many blue links on this article, it is quite useful --TimPope 14:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Endomion. - Liontamer 21:47, 2 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 boldly redirected to Dangerously in Love. howch e ng {chat} 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerously In Love 2

This is not a real single, no promo cd exist. Many songs on albums get airplay but they are never official singles. Was not big enough to be a single!

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - God forbid if we have an article for every track that is available only for digital download. Endomion 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Dangerously in Love or delete per nomination --Quarl 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This has now been redirected by Noboyo to Dangerously in Love. No vote. Stifle 02:08, 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 redirect to Gumby. Likewise with Prickle (Gumby character). I would have merged, but there was nothing to merge. howch e ng {chat} 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goo (Gumby character)

I say Redirect to Gumby, but not sure, so I figured to make a VFD... --FlareNUKE 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Gumby. By gum. PJM 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge --Quarl 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per PJM. Stifle 02:07, 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 merge and redirect to Hibbing, Minnesota. howch e ng {chat} 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Hibbing

The town of Hibbing, Minnesota only has 17,071 people, so why should its north section deserve its own article? The North Hibbing article is too NN to have an article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anyting about North Hibbing, but why don't you just merge and redirect? Of course we might have more info on North Hibbing if you had left more than 3 minutes to the editor before tagging it for AfD. -- JJay 05:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect would seem to logical choice here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy merge --Quarl 20:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
North Hibbing should be part of Hibbing. It should not be deleted, as there is no mention of Hibbing being "the town that moved." How many people can say their house was put on logs and rolled down main street? The high school that the mines built as compensation to the town for moving might also be interesting. Built as a replica of some famous castle. All very interesting. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 65.29.21.142 (talk • contribs) 04:33, December 28 2005 (UTC)
- That does sound interesting indeed. Perhaps you could write about it in the Hibbing article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five Dock Crips

No google hits for "Five Dock Crips." Even if they are one of the Syndey gangs (I believe the city does have something of a gang problem,) the article sounds seriously exaggerated. Membership in the thousands? -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete obvious hoax. "'Tommo' and Bossi are known to have 'macked' 100's of armed DB members alone." Endomion 19:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax --Quarl 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sydney doesn't have a "gang problem", but yeh I can confirm (100%) that this is a hoax 202.172.120.102 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. — Kbh3^rd talk 01:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete!! This gang is real, they're from my suburb, i see them around all the time causing trouble and stuff. the part about their battle with DB, the other gang in my suburb is completely true, everyone always talks about it around here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.17.164 (talk • contribs).
Don't delete. Although parts of this article are clearly exaggerated, 'FDC' does indeed exist. They are well-known in Sydney's inner west. That said, the '1000's of memberships' and 'macking' bits, and probably the weapons import bit are obvious urban legend and/or self-aggrandisement rather than fact. I would suggest modification of these sections.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.41.67 (talk • contribs).
I have personally been a victim of FDC's various crimes. i have had death threats from their various members which probably stemmed from my affiliation with a rival gang. i cannot walk down the streets of Drummoyne now without constantly looking over my shoulder, and by deleting this article, i belive wikipedia would be ignoring an important social dynamic of sydney that invariably affects many of it's youths and adults alike.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.148.77 (talk • contribs).
Comment To the above anons; could any of you provide a source or citation for this gang? I can find references to the 'rival' gang referred to in the article, but nothing at all for this group. -- Vary | Talk 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The gang is not in the thousands, hundreds definately but not the thousands. I also cannot find them on the internet though there in various blogs. Im a 36 year old male from the five dock region and i know they exist and this article is fairly accurate as i was forced to pay protection money to them two years ago. I own a restuarant on Great North Rd, Five Dock. "Tommo" and "Catenaccio" are quite famous characters throughout the inner-west of sydney, known as "gentlemanly gangsters".
The article now says it is an admitted hoax. Obvious delete, possibly even a speedy for vandalism. Stifle 02:05, 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 and create a redirect to Pioneer Anomaly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneers Anomaly

Article already exists for information related to the Pioneer Anomaly
The contents of this article are in violation of Wikipedia's no original research and Verifiability policies

Fringec 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to Pioneer Anomaly. Original research. -- Vary | Talk 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete then redirect as original research. --Quarl 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for WP:NOR then create a new redirect per Vary. Stifle 02:04, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Matter Society

Seemingly non-notable band. Their 4 releases seem to be songs rather than albums/LPs. Madman 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

delete - no singles, no albums, unsigned. --Oscarthecat 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A Google search for "Dark Matter Society" turned up only 46 unique hits (including a Wikipedia list of Manchester bands). Non-notable, per WP:MUSIC. — TheKMan^talk 17:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seem to have never played outside the Manchester area MNewnham 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as lacking sufficient notability for WP:MUSIC. Recommend article be recreated when scientists solve the enigmatic quandary of just what their music consists of. Barno 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-band. Marked as such. --Quarl 20:54, 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. I'm not sure the article Dave's ESL Cafe should be created just so this article could be merged to it. If it's created later it can be expanded with information about David Sperling. — JIP | Talk 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Sperling

I don't feel especially strong about this, but I'm a bit surprised that there's an article on David Sperling, who is pretty much a non-entity on the board he has created. He collects ad money and adds a notice to the top of the board once or twice a year, so I don't find him to be particularly notable. Assuming Wikipedia doesn't consider web site owners and English teachers to be notable I don't see much of a reason for the article. Mithridates 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Webmaster. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Create Dave's ESL Cafe and smerge to it. eslcafe.com has Alexa rank of 9,201. --Quarl 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 20:53, 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 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turner Rentz

I had originally marked this as speedy, but I suppose there is a borderline assertion here. At any rate, badly written, unsourced, unverifiable, ergo non-notable. Xoloz 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Speedy. Just says "known for accomplishments" in his field without specifying what those might be. That makes him still a speedy candidate, although I suppose a slow delete is just as well too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete but not speedy, it also asserts he is the head of this or that company. Endomion 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Slow delete - article vaguely asserts notability but we need something more to be able to keep it. - Haukur 19:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Possible speedy as no context or nn-bio, but I'm happy with a regular delete. Stifle 02:03, 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 loading page...to delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOADING

Delete vanity/advertisement about webcomic, posted by its artist. The comic just started in November; "loading" + "crow winters" (the artist's name) gets 0 google hits outside of the webcomic site itself.[10] Obviously no significance to anyone but Mr. Winters. Postdlf 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.--Oscarthecat 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 17:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete a month old webcomic? No way is this notable. Endomion 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity per nomination --Quarl 20:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, point the creator in the direction of the Comixpedia wiki GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 02:03, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazzy Phatt

very non-notable, an event occasionally happening at a local restaurant Oscarthecat 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 17:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Miami article, for the same reason you would merge an article about Strawberry Days in Jerkwater USA with the Jerkwater article. Endomion 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge or delete --Quarl 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Endomion, despite what the article claims, this is advertising for one bar, it's not a city of Miami event. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Zoe. Stifle 02:03, 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 keep. howch e ng {chat} 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeynep Ergun

The article does not make any claim to notability, other than her being a university professor, at the "Institute of Social Sciences English Language and Literature Department". Is that enough? Do we have a recommended or official policy on including all or some university professors? Aleph4 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A partial answer to my question was given in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Bittner: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Education says Professors are notable if they have made significant contribution to one or more books (not just papers) (but also mentions that notability can be established in other ways). There is also some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics. --Aleph4 10:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral This is a tough call, she's written many publications, I just want to know why they are all red links. If it is a Keep, then it needs to be cleaned up drastically. --D-Day 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Unsure. I agree with D-Day. I note all the pubs but the first are in Turkish. She seems like a clearcut case of notability in Turkey and in Turkish, not so much in the English-speaking world. I'm not sure how we handle such things in general. rodii 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- If she had an entry in the Turkish Wikipedia, we could leave the discussion about notability to Turkish-speaking Wikipedians, but as of now she doesn't, alas. --Aleph4 10:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I took the liberty of making the red links go away. Endomion 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good going. rodii
Keep She's has been Head of Department and is a full professor at a major university. Help counter systemic and gender bias. Dlyons493 Talk 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Clean up and keep. Wikipedia is not a resume service (I have just removed a "CV" heading from the article). The subject of the article is notable enough, but the article itself needs to be rewritten. B.Wind 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Prof. Zeynep Ergun is one of the best feminist scholars of Modern Turkey. The information about her should be more elaborated, however I am completely against the deletion of this page. Everyone visiting her page should learn something about her background. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H-back

I don't think there is such thing as an H-back, as I've never heard of anything like this and it's verifiable that this is not a term commonly used, I don't think by anyone in football, except to refer to a half-back, which is nothing like that described in the article.--Intrepidus 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep There is such a thing, and it is as it describes, a hybrid between a fullback and a tight end. The most prominent example in the NFL right now is Chris Cooley. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with a football article. I don't think we need a separate article every time a coach puts a player in an unorthodox lineup position. Endomion 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and see how much it can be expanded. If not, merge it with both Fullback and Tight End. It is a legitmate position - in certain offenses. PJM 19:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a real position. Expand if possible, merge if not per PJM. You can call me Al 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak merge per PJM. Real term commonly used for at least fifteen years by NFL coaches (not just sportscasters doing their usual bloviating). But I agree with Endomion that we don't need a new article for every positional variation. Barno 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into American football positions as the older "slot back" and "rover back" eventually will need to be addressed, too. B.Wind 21:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, as worthy of an article as quarterback and halfback. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Because would you merge it into running back or tight end? -- Mwalcoff 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in (and linked to, if kept) both Fullback and Tight End. PJM 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it is a position and most likely can be expanded. Dpu2002 19:58, 5 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 delete. howch e ng {chat} 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Bittner

The article does not make any claim to notability, other than the fact that he is a university professor. Is that enough? Do we have a recommended or official policy on including all or some university professors? Aleph4 17:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Education says Professors are notable if they have made significant contribution to one or more books (not just papers) --Pboyd04 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Therefore I have to go with delete I couldn't find any books just some papers about quatum chemistry. --Pboyd04 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Here's some discussion: [11]. PJM 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pboyd04's research. Endomion 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Provisional Delete. One hit in Google Books, almost certainly not this Eric Bittner: a introductory acknowledgement of help from one Eric Bittner of the National Archives and Record Administration in Denver, Colorado. For the record I'm not saying every book is indexed by Google; solid relevant hits in Google Books would establish notability, their absence does not establish non-notability... but it's an indication. Will change vote if good evidence of notability is provided prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC) P. S. A search on Eric R. Bittner turns up one relevant hit, but establishes no more than that he's indeed on the Houston faculty. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Currently no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Stifle 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete per Dpbsmith. I will also reconsider if a good enough case is made. PJM 13:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill of Rights (ship)

Seems nn. A google search for "Bill of Rights" +ship just revealed one nn blog entry about it. Could even be seen as an advertisement to sell the boat. Pboyd04 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 17:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for sale ad. Endomion 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement, per nomination --Quarl 20:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - aren't all schools notable by definition? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment yes but I don't see how this is a school? --Pboyd04 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - During the latter half of the 1990s she was aquired by the Los Angeles Maritime institute (LAMI) and severed as a training ship for their at risk youth. User:Zoe|^(talk)
    - That makes it more of classroom than a school. The school would have been the Los Angeles Maritime Institute not the boat. --Pboyd04 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      - I am being sarcastic. ;) However, Los Angeles Maritime Institute now redirects to Irving Johnson (Tall ship). If the Irving Johnson gets an article ... User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Endomion. Stifle 02:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian and Maria Green Inc.

Delete WP:NOT advertising, page has one editor and a number of previously deleted edits it seems. - FrancisTyers 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - it's been deleted before, and the author has made a lot of "deleted contributions" over the last 48 hours if you know what I mean. (If an admin wants to look at his history, I would be much obliged). --Bachrach44 17:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ugly ad. Endomion 18:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy delete, deleteagain~~. Fair point by Uncle G. Delete per WP:CORP [12] PJM 20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The only reason that this was speedily deleted was because the creator, Tyar (talk • contribs), blanked it. However, xe may be simply unfamiliar with how to edit a page, given that xe proceeded to create it again, anew. This wouldn't be the first author to have accidentally blanked xyr own work and not known how to revert, nor indeed the first author whose work was speedily deleted because of that. No speedy deletion criteria apply. The article is about a two-person company, and whether the WP:CORP criteria for companies are satisfied is a matter for AFD. Uncle G 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - ad with a call for action. Wikipedia articles are never written in second person. B.Wind 20:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company and advertising. --Quarl 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability. -- ReyBrujo 21:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per B.Wind. Stifle 02:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phomepage

Non-notable term that has 210 unique google hits (including many non-related hits). Not verifiable. Hurricane111 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Introduces a neologism. Endomion 18:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable neoneologism. We need a speedy delete category for this kind of article. --Quarl 20:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Quarl. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:15, 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 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Khang

32 Google results, looks like the origional author is Eddie. WP:ISNOT a resume host Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 18:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Pure resumé, delete per nom. Endomion 18:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable bio per nomination, obvious. --Quarl 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy, not a notable bio. Stifle 02:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChaosGFX

Plug for a website, seems to fail WP:WEB proposal. Alexa rank 533,966 [13], forum has 52 members. W.marsh 18:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Teensy webforums are not notable. Endomion 18:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable forum per nomination, obvious. --Quarl 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 02:00, 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 speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rickshaw_to_Bangkok

delete - Non-notable. No singles, no albums, no google hits. Oscarthecat 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete, no assertion of noteability Tedernst | talk 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, nn-band. PJM 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A:7, nn. feydey 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. No tours mentioned, either. B.Wind 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable band per nomination. Marked as nn-band now. --Quarl 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 22:01, 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 SPEEDY, as a blatant recreation of deleted material. -Splash^talk 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes

This is the stack of Snoop Dogg mixtapes under discussion here collected in one place. The consensus that has emerged in the still-ongoing deletion discussion is that as a rule, mixes and bootlegs are too numerous and ephemeral to warrant a place in an encyclopedia and should be included only if they had a bearing on the artist's career and are well-known in fandom. The tapes listed here are neither.

Someone made the point that one encyclopedic article on Snoop Dogg bootlegs might be a good idea, this cut-and-paste of tracklistings isn't it, though. Pilatus 18:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete this as a recreation of soon-to-be deleted material. If the creator wants to have an article on Snoop's underground releases, have him do such in prose, using scholarly references, and not simply doing a cut and paste merge to prove a (very poorly grounded) point. --FuriousFreddy 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. You cannot simultaneously admit that the information has not been deleted and that the material in this article is a recreation of that material. It is obviously a merge of that material, which may be (or may not be) be deleted, onto a new merge target, which is entirely compatible with the deletion policy and is, in fact, specifically mentioned as the preferable to deletion in the deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per previous comments. Stop abusing speedy tags. Also, criticizing someone's writing abilities is out of order. Use the cleanup tag. -- JJay 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously, to preserve verifiable information about a major rap phenomenon. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per Tony Sidaway. The article shouldn't be a list of discographies though; it should be an article describing the phenomenon of mix tapes; if this phenomenon applies to all rap artists, it should document mix tapes of rap artists in general, not Snoop Dogg in particular. --Quarl 20:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and clean up per Quarl. A preamble is needed to help put it all in context (for example, what is a "minor album" and why is it in this article instead of the Snoop Dog discography?). I would prefer summaries of mixtapes and bootlegs instead of a track-by-track listing as this listing will soon become unwieldy. The bigger acts will always have more bootleg titles than "official" releases (e.g., James Brown, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Tupac Shakur), and the mixtapes in rap magnify this. B.Wind 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, these things are verifiable and a significant aspect of fandom, but since it might not be possible to write very much about each one of them, a merge may be the best solution. Kappa 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per others. Q Q 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait until the other AFD closes, and then delete this as well as a substantially identical copy of deleted material. Forking out is precisely what that CSD means to prevent. R adiant _>|< 00:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Tlogmer 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The other AFD has closed. Speedy delete as a substantially identical copy of deleted material, per Radiant. Nandesuka 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Tony and Expand in prose by Freddy. Maybe I will do it myself if enough information is available and time is on my side (during the debate it would have been impossible).Lajbi 10:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eve's Rib Clothing

non-noteable and no assertion of noteability Tedernst | talk 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 18:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert. PJM 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom; no longer an advert, but very NN. Melchoir 19:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable --Quarl 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 02:00, 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 deleted previously. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge Street Café

probably un-notable also {{cleanup-importance}} was removed Melaen 18:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom Tedernst | talk 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is not encyclopedic. feydey 19:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. No claimed importance, advertisement. --Quarl 20:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to WikiTravel. Stifle 01:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crumblewall

web site un-notability Melaen 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

delete non-noteable Tedernst | talk 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website. Alexa rank of 4,293,274 --Quarl 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inane. Stifle 01:58, 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. I've never seen meatpuppets all clamoring to delete before (not that that's the reason I'm closing this as a keep, mind you; wwwolf makes a good case). howch e ng {chat} 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endless Online

Website doesn't meet WP:WEB with an Alexa rank: 188,649 (5 sites that link in) and previous "not-so-clear" deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Endless_Online/VazzVersion. No idea how many members. -- feydey 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as repost (3rd creation of this article) or Delete as non-notable --Quarl 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ (Changing vote, see below). First, I'd like the article deleted because it's a lightning rod for vandals (mr. Godwin would probably rest his case if he saw the vandalism going on here) - and I for one am tired of reverting that shit. Furthermore, it's a small game, long-standing stub, and I guess no one's expanding it reasonably - only vandals seem to be interested of it, and apparently some reasonable users lately. However, I must object to the nomination's points - I really don't think WP:WEB should be used as the notability criteria of online games, especially ones that aren't played in web browsers! The cases where total amount of active players can't be assessed are really annoying too (and the other deletion debate's figure of 300 players is probably way off, as the site seems to claim support for 400 concurrent players [14] - and the vandals say the server is swamped with too many trying to log on all the time =). I've looked at their web site. Looks like an active project that seems to have pretty hefty following (if, as the vandals seem to claim, the server is really used up to its capacity and over - 300 users would be good for any MUD!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Changed to Strong Keep, on the grounds that the game seems to be popular enough as far as some games go, this is not the case of reposting previously speedily deleted content (The article used to be a stub for a long time and appears to be rewritten lately), and because of the frigging vandal sockpuppetry that seems to spring up in this AfD. And, since the vandals seem to think this game seems to be so popular that it gets vandalised more than G.W. Bush article =) it obviously proves the topic is significant. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- And as a further comment, the article does assert notability: it claims the game has player community of about 10,000, which seems high enough to me to be notable. And it's been around for years, and is maintained actively (as asserted by the trolls, again, who wax poetic when comparing the efficiency of the maintenance to the war machine of WW2 Germany). Not many MUDs got to that many players either! As for verifiability - well, that's a bit iffy now, but one could always fire an e-mail at the developers, nee? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Their forum has about 11 thousand members (although a huge number of them are duals)... Their game itself has something like 100k accounts (check their server's status page). Cemz 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - One hundred frigging kay users? Status page? Sounds even more notable and verifiable now! Stop the presses! Mr. Wales, tear down this AfD! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - And people who still harp on WP:WEB: 11k users, even accounting for dupes, is great deal more than 5k. Definitely notable =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Why it should be deleted I will state the real reason on why this article should be deleted. The game, should NOT be advertised in any way, anywhere. What are the reasons for this?
It is being advertised as a kids game, but is clearly not, seeing as the racial comments, the continuous flaming and the huge despite from a large ammount of players. It is known that if you don´t have a strong knowledge in the English language through the computer, you will most likely be insulted through that, where it is known that most kids type in ´Netspeak´ otherwise known as a quick way. For example. HAI HW R U PPLZ I HAV 2 GO SONO PLX. You are in deep shit otherwise. Another reason, goes on towards the admins. 3 admins on the admin team are rascist and perverted, one of which is known to have been in prison at least once for drug abuse, currently under the name of Sakura. Most of the players in the game rebelled to the teams creation because of the lack of moderation, and has labelled it as ´Nazi Over-rule´. A G Rated game indeed. If you see a person by the name of Cruise, qawzer (Qwerty, Qwertie), Popdog(Numbers here), Terrysan (Terrytard), Dog55, Izlude, Aramax (By far), Sapphire Fate, Mansur, you have FULL right to insult them, as they are very rascist. Oh, and are idiots. LOZL. I therefore conclude my case on how this page should be deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.58.51.106 (talk • contribs)
- Hint: Anonymous users get rarely counted in the AfDs, and if people look at this IP's contribution history they see that the only edit from there to Endless Online just happened to be vandalism. Also, this is not a discussion on whether or not Endless Online happens to be morally fit to be mentioned anywhere. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to cover all of the bad and nasty things in the world too, and I assure you there are even worse things than Endless Online that we have covered so far! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete As mentioned above, it's a lightning rod for vandals. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Cemz (talk • contribs)
- User with 6 edits, all to Endless Online and this AfD. Most, curiously enough, vandalising the article. Not to even mention the few Endless Online article vandalism images I've sent to SD previously. Ahem. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - So my opinion doesn't matter if I'm not an active Wikipedian? What you view as vandalism I view as truth... your article as it is (and has been in the past) blatantly brown-noses their game and their admins. Cemz 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - In summary, AfD isn't just a vote, it's a method for gauging Wikipedia community's opinions, and anonymous contributors people with few contributions aren't generally "part of the community". Would you set your house to fire just because every stranger who happens to pass by would tell you to do that, or demolish the house because your friends built you a new one and the people from your street think the old building is an eyesore? =) Plus, "lightning rod for vandals" isn't part of speedy deletion criteria, otherwise two well-known individuals in Washington DC and Vatican would suddenly find themselves without articles =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
CUZ ITS POOP !!!111!!!1 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.42.104.94 (talk • contribs)
- Next time, please don't blank AfD pages. And once again, poopiness of the game is not the issue here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't let your children play this game!!! The "Admins" of this game namely Sakura (who annoys the hell out of me) is a racist ball of fluff do not entrust your children in the hands of these brain-washing fools. She along with Gaffar (her online husband - don't ask) to name a few some of the most idiotic fools you could ever meet in your lives. Along with the players named above.
Most of the people that play the game are specialists in stupidity and idiocy and most are sex obsessed pre-pubescent kids with an identity crisis – to see proof of this just visit the forums, they’ll tell you everything you need to know. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 172.212.141.203 (talk • contribs)
- Unsigned, and the IP's only contributions are to this page. And all these people remind me is that the controversy surrounding the game is clearly very notable and should be documented in a neutral way, which, of course, would mean that the article should be kept! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Would their opinions be noted if I had them register accounts? :) Cemz 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Of course not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Wwwwolf, so far it's you talking to meat/sock puppets :) I agree that if there is notable controversy then it should be kept. However, the number of meat/sock puppets' contributions doesn't convince me that the controversy is notable. Many AFDs here have this volume of meat/sock puppets. I think the lack of contribution by non puppets is more telling. Is there some documentation of legal consequences, media attention, etc. regarding this controversy? Because every online game (esp MMORPGs) has interpersonal issues like addiction, role play, sexual deviance, etc. --Quarl 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. That was just a random idea I thought of, just to annoy the puppets - for the record, I think none of their rambling makes sense, the problems they list are just typical to all net games. =) However, the article nowadays seems to have some sort of a claim of notability, specifically, some numbers on the size of the userbase - 10,000 players is notable in my book. Verifiability is another issue, especially considering most of the MMORPGs don't have an easy and reliable way to find out the size of the user community AND as said we don't even have notability criteria for that, even in draft form (correct me if I'm wrong). And music has charts - what "charts" do we follow, especially when most existing ones are based on sales figures, which remain kind of weak for free games? So we're deep in the uncharted waters of the notability guidelines, and it'd be silly to delete this just because it's "unverifiable". And as said, WP:WEB isn't really applicable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 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 speedy merge/redirect to Yahwism, the correct spelling, per article creator. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahwhism

Non-notable neologism with very few Google results. -- SoothingR^(pour) 19:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Yahwism (correct spelling). — TheKMan^talk 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I apologize for spawning an article from a misspelling. --Steve Caruso 20:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge quickly. The Thadman, you can go ahead and do it yourself. --Quarl 20:13, 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. User:Jemosand already userfied it himself. I've left a note on his talk page to read WP:AB &c and resubmit the article when it's ready to go. howch e ng {chat} 20:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan mosand

I originally tagged this for speedy delete as a vanity bio (author is subject) but there seems to be at least a claim of notability. Therefore sent here. Non-notable and vanity. Ifnord 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep Appears to have been the chief of UN tsunami crisis help in Thailand [15] Dlyons493 Talk 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete - weakly notable per Dlyons. 3 google results. --Quarl 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Allow one week for cleanup and Wikification in light of Dlyons' assertion. If this article is upgraded, then we should evaluate notability of the subject in light of the tsunami and the United Nations. B.Wind 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Seems like a good plan. Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and delete. Option to restore if proof of notability is obtained. Stifle 01:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koloseum stunt awards

vanity, unnotability, the link provided is a forum with no contacts. consider deleting the blue links to this page from Zeljko Bozic Melaen 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination --Quarl 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, can't find anything to justify this page's existence. Stifle 01:57, 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 speedy delete (patent nonsense). howch e ng {chat} 06:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Hearts

complete nosense 5 year old and two 8 year old defeat a band , see also Hearts%22 Southern Ontario&btnG=Cerca&meta= Melaen 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. ("two 8-year-olds beat an entire army of gang members" indeed...) — TheKMan^talk 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, or delete quickly, per nomination. --Quarl 20:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. PJM 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nonsense. B.Wind 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Sounds like a fictional story, at the least, it is nonsense. Kareeser|^Talk! 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, CSD:G1. -- ReyBrujo 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. --NeoJustin 05:39, December 28, 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 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prof. Axmed Warfaa

No real claim of notability (outspoken, defiant). Seems to be/was a Somali professor [16] but I can find nothing in English to support his notability. No publications that I can see.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
He might be notable and verifiable, just not to English speakers. --Quarl 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Language is not really a barrier here. With the worldwide scope (and readership) of Wikipedia, I'm sure that someone who reads Italian (another official language of Somalia) would have no problem finding articles in that language for this individual if such articles on the Web exist. The fact remains that to assert notability, there needs to be references to indicate it, regardless of language. B.Wind 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Google found 3 unique hits, that may or may not be the professor. Publications are not listed. Article fails to assert notability of this person. — TheKMan^talk 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, unreferenced. BACbKA 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per BACbKA. Stifle 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:00, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los Perros

no meaningful content : some dogs are nice , others not, so what? Melaen 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. It's not even clear what the book is - unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. No obvious results on Amazon. --Quarl 20:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD A1, short article with little or no context. — TheKMan^talk 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, per above. PJM 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete looks like Patent Nonsense to me Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, per above. BACbKA 20:49, 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 speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nanowar

band that has issued only demo CDs and Self produced albums Melaen 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, nn-band. PJM 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Only demos and a self-produced album... and an article with a POV problem? Speedy delete as failing WP:MUSIC with no real attempt at establishing notability. B.Wind 21:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. Tagged as speedy. -- ReyBrujo 22:04, 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 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clasifis

Well, it is what it is - "Clasifis is the first Spanish based classified via the internet in the United States. Started in May 5, 2005 it provides a centralized portal for posting spanish based classifieds advertisements." Non-notable website.

Delete - as noted --Bookandcoffee 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, somewhere between an advert and a confused mess. Stifle 01:56, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward TJ Brown

Delete This is either a vanity or non-notable article -- MicahMN | μ 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails to establish compliance with WP:BIO. Stifle 01:56, 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 speedy delete (A7, non-notable group). This kind of article was what I had in mind when I originally proposed the expansion of A7. howch e ng {chat} 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team 3

NN, vanity - FrancisTyers 20:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody's got to be kidding -- Delete already! Pure vanity. Captmondo 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom! - FrancisTyers 20:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Hello BJAODN --D-Day 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — TheKMan^talk 20:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete per nom. Paul Carpenter 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Sceptre ^(Talk) 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete a bunch of friends mucking around. BL kiss the lizard 01:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:38, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, a7, nn group of people. - Bobet 13:08, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Bellotti

NN CEO of NN organization, fails WP:CORP, wikipedia article written by President of customertype.com MNewnham 20:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Muchness 21:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedy if possible - nn-bio. Stifle 01:56, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple dave

Delete Random nonsense Palaeologus 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please delete. Me thinks English is NOT that author's first language. --D-Day 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I've added the speedy template at the page for this reason. BACbKA 20:47, 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. Mind matrix 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC ServiceCall

Delete A stub quality article about a subsidiary of a corporation that has a separate article. That article should suffice IMHO. The subsidiary is a self-promo by an employee. No refs except for a link to their own website, advert-like. No assertion of notability out of the context of the parent corp. BACbKA 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge to DSG International plc. --Muchness 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge what? There's a one-line mention in the parent corp article, and I didn't find more material in the subsidiary article to merge over there. BACbKA 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge the line "PC ServiceCall provides IT technical support for customers of the DSG International plc group of companies" to DSG International plc#PC ServiceCall. --Muchness 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Did that. How about changing your vote to Delete now? BACbKA 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, delete or redirect. --Muchness 12:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Even worse, they seem to exist solely for the purpose of servicing customers of the parent company. MNewnham 21:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle 01:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girl On the Moon

Unreleased album from non-existent band, links to band and members are redlinks MNewnham 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non existant album from group of questionble notoriety. No Guru 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete (speedy?) - take your pick: ad, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nn band without a Wikipedia article... B.Wind 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. --Muchness 21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Speedy Delete, if the band qualifies as CSD:A7, its unreleased album right now qualifies as well. Next year, if they smash all rankings, I will ask for pardon in their Talk page. -- ReyBrujo 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. --NeoJustin 05:37, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dropps

Blatant advertising MNewnham 20:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete - copyvio of ad. B.Wind 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, ad. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Agh! The user has also put the advertisment in detergent. I don't think this can be speedied, though. -- ReyBrujo 22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:36, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement. Garion96 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If it is a copyvio, it is now too late to speedy delete it. Stifle 01:37, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howch e ng {chat} 00:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cecilia (band)

Visible, but not quite notable enough band MNewnham 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Therefore, being "not quite notable" is not a significant reason to delete the article. There are plenty of artist articles on WP that are less visible and less notable than this one. Just because you haven't heard of them isn't a reason to drop the article. dsemaya 06:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Whether I have heard of them or not is not a criteria for inclusion on AfD. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MUSIC. My research indicates that the band does not meet the criteria for inclusion laid out there, but you are free to dispute that on this page. I have nothing personal against the band, and if the criteria for inclusion are met, I will happily withdraw the nomination.
- If you see bands on wikipedia that do not meet WP:MUSIC, you are free to nominate them for deletion.

MNewnham 17:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

- - "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country[2], reported in notable and verifiable sources." The band's web site has in the past shown national tour dates (verifiable via archive.org's wayback machine) and a Google search for "cecilia veltz" will show countless articles from publications nationwide on the story of this band. The band plays regularly in both DC and NYC, showing that they are more than a local presence.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020808090551/www.ceciliatheband.com/schedule.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20021014133146/ceciliatheband.com/schedule.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030226165053/www.ceciliatheband.com/schedule/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010407130008/ceciliatheband.com/tourdates.html

The URLs above show that the band regularly plays shows in 4 non-contiguous states including the historic Knitting Factory and (now gone) Wetlands Preserve in New York. One of the band's albums was recorded at the famous Manhattan Theatre Source. This is all information that will eventually make it into the article if it is allowed to live.

The band's video page includes their home movies shot while on their national tour that reached LA in 2003. dsemaya 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, lets get this on the page and make them notable. Nomination WithdrawnMNewnham 01:28, 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 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Ove Skau

Non-notable. Google gives appr. six hits that relate to him. Haakon 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like vanity to me. He aparently has a PhD and has published a few articles as well, but that doesn't make him notable. Shanes 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Demiurge 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a famous American author. Something strange here. Necessary to delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Innaa (talk • contribs).
Delete. No real claim to notability - being related to famous people doesn't count. David | Talk 23:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Dbiv. Stifle 01:36, 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 no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Reese Cole, Jr.

Delete Appears to be an unimportant functionary, who only distinction is that he worked in the Nixon White House without being involved in Watergate. Based on what's here (which isn't even well sourced) I can't see any reason for an article on this guy. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep A long serving White House official who was, notably, honest MNewnham 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He was an aide to Nixon and presidential aides are worthy of our notice. I would note he got a NY Times obit, so that shows he was notable. PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete per Caerwine. Stifle 01:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ehed

neologism Melaen 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete ehh -Doc ^ask? 01:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- regional slang dicdef at best. Haikupoet 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:35, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What? Stifle 01:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Collins (physics professor)

Non-notable professor. dbenbenn | talk 21:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

delete reads like a resume, missing those all-important published books. MNewnham 21:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I am all for more bios of academics on Wikipedia, but Collins is not really a professor yet. According to his CV, he is currently a "Visiting Assistant Professor" and teaches undergraduate courses at Bucknell University, which, as far as I can tell, is not even a university, but rather a college with a few master's level programmes.[17] Tupsharru 22:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Tupsharru's excellent research. Stifle 01:18, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawk-i

poor article , previously listed on Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hawk-i no improvement since august 2005 Melaen 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - might not be salvageable at all. Written in all caps, serious POV problem ("IT'S THE RIGHT CHOICE") that could be considered advertising, written in second person (and Wikipedia articles are never written in second person!). The current article reads like a radio public service announcement. If this is a notable State program in Iowa that meets the Wikipedia standards for inclusion, it might be better to scrape this clean and start anew. B.Wind 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. The all caps makes me think it might be a copyvio of some radio ad copy, but I can't find evidence of it online. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

- Weak keep rewrite per JLa. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I've edited the article so it's at least coherent. Given the debate within the US over health insurance, I think this is notable enough. However, instead of an article per state, I would prefer to be able to redirect this to a more general article about states' suplements to Medicaid and then list the states' programs there. I didn't find a suitable redirect though. -- JLaTondre 15:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep per ESkog. Stifle 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
weak keep: I see no reason to delete the article as it stands. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:17, 2 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 merge. Opinion was divided as to precisely where the content should be merged. Editors should work this out among themselves and then perform the merge per consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic scholars

This page is completely devoid of any actual info. It only serves as a list of other pages. freestylefrappe 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I also fail to see why Ulema does not already cover this. freestylefrappe 21:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If I'm reading Ulema correctly that is a specific role that all scholars probably don't qualify for. -- JLaTondre 15:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Portal:Islam. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Muslim scholars and redirect it Islamic scholars. I hope this is not confusing. Cheers -- Szvest 00:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
Merge I told Striver (person who created the entry) long ago that there should only be one article, but now we have several. So merge is the best option. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to List of Islamic scholars. This article, along with Muslim scholars and Non-Muslim Islamic scholars, seems to simple be trying to add context to the names on the List of Islamic scholars. That can easily be done on the list page and would be more appropraite there so the context is provided for the list. -- JLaTondre 15:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have also listed: Non-Muslim Islamic scholars for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim Islamic scholars. freestylefrappe 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Zoe. Stifle 01:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ulema excludes Non-Muslim Islamic scholars, so it does not fitt there. I could see how this could be in the top of List of Islamic scholars, so if anywhere, it needs to be merged there. I prefer to keep this as a stub, and have the list separated, but i could live with them being merged. --Striver 13:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Muslim scholars and redirect it List of Islamic scholars per Szvest sort of. gren グレン 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 03:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

coment i propose that we merge List of Islamic scholars to the end of this article. How does that sound? --Striver 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- You did it again... wait until the AfD decides. gren グレン 06:27, 5 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personality compass

Original research. Second edit summary on the page claims "everything on this page was written and designed by the author." (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Image:Personality compass.jpg should probably also be deleted with this, but I don't really know how image deletion is handled. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment why should the image be deleted if i created it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostfayth (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC).
  - Because it is part of the original research - the same reason the article should be deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. To quote the article: "...I will attempt to prove my theory." - Gimboid13 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Muchness 22:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. To the author: please see WP:NOR for some information on why this is taking place. Stifle 01:09, 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 Cobra 07:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Mut'ah

Virtually no content, only rough estimate of when it took place. freestylefrappe 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

weak keep, since it is properly templated and categorized, maybe an expert will see it and put in useful content. -Drdisque 23:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep and expand. I've added a little content from online sources but it really does need an expert to look over it. It seems to be notable as possibly the first battle where Muslim forces were contained. Dlyons493 Talk 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait, Watch, and Keep please - this appears to me one of the significant battles of Islam. I am adding an external link to the page. --Bhadani 14:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Bhadani. Stifle 01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep now that content has been added. freestylefrappe 03:26, 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. Anyone who wants to create an article about the song or the album, go for it. howch e ng {chat} 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mississippi goddamn

nn cocktail, seems like advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Zoe. Daykart 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - almost all occurrences of the phrase refer to the title of a famous song by Nina Simone. It's mentioned in her article and a few others on WP. Her article is well-done and has 150 edits, so I'm not suggesting the song deserves its own article, but a redirect is worth considering. One curiosity: A search for the phrase as an artist on All Music redirects to an older blues musician, Mississippi John Hurt. I can't figure-out why this is though - Google finds no significant coincidences of "John Hurt" and "Mississippi goddamn" that don't mention "Nina Simone", nor does his All Music or WP page mention the phrase. ×Meegs 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not to mention a notable band, The Hidden Cameras, titled one of their albums in a similar fashion to this song. Keep and expand, or redirect to the proper musician. --badlydrawnjeff 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks, then delete. Stifle 01:07, 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. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inibsa

The article does not assert the significance of the company. King of Hearts | (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand The nom is not wrong, however it is a major Spanish pharmacutical company. They make Oralex, a major european dentistry line. it deserves an entry, IMHO. --CastAStone 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete' advert. Stifle 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems to be a notable Spanish drug manufacturer --rogerd 15:27, 31 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 redirect to Autosexuality. Mind matrix 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solosexuality

Neologism. Not a real term (60 hits on Google, no hits for define:Solosexuality on Google).

Delete --Quasipalm 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral Google isn't the only source of whether or not something exists. May be it doesn, maybe it doesn't. --D-Day 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral But there should be a verifiability tag on the page with an external reference to a definition. -- MatthewDBA 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, "solosexual" returns about 1,100 hits on Google and appears to be a legitimate, albeit rare, term. --Muchness 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge to Autosexuality --Muchness 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep but i swear theres another word for this already, in which case, redir.--CastAStone 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge to Autosexuality --CastAStone 00:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Autosexuality. Redirect if you honestly want to. --Apostrophe 22:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and merge to Autosexuality - Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I was going to say redirect to autoeroticism but that's a redirect to autosexuality. Redirect per Thesquire. Endomion 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Autosexuality. It's a legitimate subject. Stifle 01:06, 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. Mind matrix 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schmoove

Nominated partially as WP:MFD by User:64.220.117.66, who believes it to be a commercial. I am merely correctly completing the listing. Steve block talk 22:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I get a few google hits but not that many about the actual shoes. I can't see this as actually being that noteworthy. Plus the article kinda reads like an ad. --Pboyd04 22:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unless someone can demonstrate that these are the French airjordans or something.--CastAStone 22:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per CastAStone -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Jean Baptiste Rautureau if applicable, otherwise delete. Stifle 01:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ced Dorian

NN bio, just 3 results on Google. Also, User:Doriang is the only contributor; do the two names have anything in common? King of Hearts | (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Doriang stands for Dorian Gray, i'm just a fan of the band since 2005. Please do not delete this page. Doriang 22:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: A7 Fails WP:Music and a Michigan band is already a more famous Alucard than her Belgian band. --CastAStone 22:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per the new A7. Stifle 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC --rogerd 15:28, 31 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 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palanivilas Ghee Stores

Not notable. Basically an ad with address information. - Ganeshk 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Tintin 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per nom.Obina 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NeoJustin 05:31, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 01:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Infoquants

Original research Ben Finn 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. "Infoquants" does not appear in google. --Hansnesse 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete violation of WP:NOR. Also next to incomprehensible to anyone not very well acquainted with the subject. Stifle 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR --rogerd 15:29, 31 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 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Red Knob

The cause is admirable, but Wikipedia doesn't allow advertising hype for a little-known website.Art LaPella 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. At the very least, it needs to be cleaned up. Deleting would be easier. --Liface 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:33, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. Stifle 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --rogerd 15:35, 31 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detva District

Page has absolutely no content. (nomination by User:Liface )

If this is a real place, then, if somebody can write a stub about it, keep. If nobody does anything n five days, delete. Previous content was an ad, which was blanked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Was tagged for speedy delete for being empty, but content had been blanked. After restoring the content, it turns out it's an article about a Slovakian company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. howch e ng {chat} 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Howcheng. -- ReyBrujo 02:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, misleading title. Detva District (with diacritics) may became real and valid article in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NeoJustin 05:32, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn--MONGO 09:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above VegaDark 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletions. -- Rob 09:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamal Berkenkotter

A google search seems to indicate that this guy is a college student, so nn. Also not encylopedic at all. Pboyd04 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. Tell this guy to get a user page. --Liface 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied, nn-bio, vanity, nonsense User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:34, 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 delete - Izehar 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merna tap

A stub about a bar and grill in Merna, Illinois. Appears to be utterly unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:30, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 01:02, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Regan

nn high school football coach. Delete CLW 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Continuous non-notable articles shall be the death of Wikipedia. --D-Day 22:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan-modules

Vanity of an online group. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please put more effort into your nominations. Here, you do not make the case for deletion in any way. Writing a decent nomination is a good habit (adding a vote at the end is not). It is especially important in cases like this, where the article's authors (or sometimes, subjects) are confused by the deletion process, and want to know precisely why we think their article does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete or delete quickly; marked as nn-club (does that apply?). Mailing list with <1000 members, no claimed notability. --Quarl 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to the AfD notice the article's creator left this comment on the article talk page, which is essentially a keep vote from someone still fairly confused about process. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment the original article was speedied as a copyright violation (see here); crufty as this is, I think it's encouraging that the user(s) concerned are writing stuff themselves this time 'round. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to give the guy a break after the beating he took on the other articles. This one is marginal on notability, but really no moreso than everything else in Category:Middle-earth mailing lists. There's a thought... the category should be merged to a single list including all of these. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per the new A7 if applicable, otherwise just a regular delete because there is no apparent notability. Stifle 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --rogerd 15:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge This article is here for information use, this could be merged or added if needed in the merp or Decipher wikipedia pages, by referencing some Middle Earth important game sites or mailing lists. Else, a deletion process should start on the other Middle Earth mailing list. The number of members is not a viable argument for deletion.Alcantar (talk) 22:51, 2 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 speedily deleted per CSD-A7 non-notable group. FCYTravis 00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F-krew

delete, non notable online group, I wanted to VFD this though for some possible debate if someone thinks they are notable Drdisque 23:00, 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 redirect to St. George's (disambiguation). --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. georges

vanity, preppy school, unknow geographic location , nicknamed St. Gorgeous. Melaen 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete pn - FrancisTyers 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite Seems to be St. George's School, Newport, RI. I'm sure there's a lot to be said about it. Dlyons493 Talk 23:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to the dab page at ~~St. George's School~~ St. George's (disambiguation). (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to ~~St. George's School, Newport~~ St. George's School -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect but NOT to the school (since there are many by that name - and many other St. George's besides (e.g. St. George's Chapel, Windsor and the capital of Grenada. Redirect to St. George's (disambiguation) --Doc ^ask? 01:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to St. George's (disambiguation) per Doc glasgow --Quarl 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Doc. --Metropolitan90 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to St. George's (disambiguation) not any particular institution's article, per Doc glasgow ×Meegs 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I've tidied up some of St. George's (disambiguation) and Saint George (disambiguation) and am planning to merge those two. Please discuss merging on Talk:St._George's_(disambiguation) --Quarl 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and tidy, I thought schools were inherently notable officially now. Jcuk 08:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's believed that school has an article already at St. George's School, Newport. The dispute is now over the page's name, as it applies to many other institutions too. ×Meegs 09:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect per Doc Glasgow. Stifle 00:58, 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 - Izehar 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When does it come out

Wiki with 1 registered user, nn. Pboyd04 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...and one page so far...Obina 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete it hasn't been updated in a month, i think whoever created it forgot about it. --CastAStone 00:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Quarl 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:30, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 00:58, 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 Speedy deleted A7. -Doc ^ask? 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Spacemen

non notable bandMelaen 23:04, 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 speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basofe

Appears to be a slang dicdef in Portuguese(?). Already nominated and deleted once, but apparently with different content. Current content may be a joke. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as per nom. -Drdisque 01:32, 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 delete - Izehar 21:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Dorofaeff

Vanity. [18] also Dorofaeff redirects here. - FrancisTyers 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm afraid The Life of [This] Brian is not notable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:24, Dec. 27, 2005
Obvious vanity, Dec 30, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs).
Delete. Does not meet the professor criterion in WP:BIO. Stifle 00:58, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howch e ng {chat} 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris_McKinstry

Appears to be non-notable vanity. Google search just turns up his own page, a single article about him, and a few pages concerning various flamewars he's been in. If he has notability, it's as the author of Mindpixel, which appears to be a now-defunt AI project. I'm doing a PhD in AI, and I've never heard of the guy. Misterwindupbird 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment He may be notable for something - he got as far as BBC News [19] and also a website claiming he's a master hoaxter [20]. Caveat emptor. Dlyons493 Talk 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment The latter seems to just be a response to some usenet flame war, and as near as I could determine, the BBC interview is the only evidence of notoriety on the web. If having an article on a well-regarded news website qualifies as notability, then pretty much every scientist working in a "hot" field is notable. --Misterwindupbird 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Quarl 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep good amount of news coverage [21], [22] on this project. Newsbank shows articles on him in Australian papers + Newsday. -- JJay 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per JJay Jcuk 08:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As per the discussion, I'll withdraw the nomination and remove the AfD from the page. He may not have a footprint in mainstream AI research, but he does seem to be notable for something other than flamewars. --Misterwindupbird 16:25, 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 delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wehatetech

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

nn podcast (I know, that's pretty much redundant). A grand total of seven Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

no no no, theres nothing wrong with it, leave it be, go deal with more important things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anticitizen 1 (talk • contribs). (only contributed to Wehatetech and AFD)
""NON DELETE"" Who is to say what is a "notable" cast and "non-notable" cast? NOT YOU. Don't like it, listen to TWIT or something else. - Kmac1036 (talk • contribs)
Strong delete - Original research, non-referenced. - Szvest 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
Delete quickly as non-notable per above --Quarl 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete, but if /. and iTunes claims can be verified make that Keep. That's contingent on someone less lazy than I doing their homework though. Haikupoet 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete random podcruft. Influenced by a large proportion of apparent sockpuppets, unsigned votes, etc. Stifle 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE wehatetech.com has been spamming digg.com to get better google ranking.
wehatetech has a Google PageRank of 5 (Digg has a 6). 3000 listeners, actually shows up on alexia. Listed on Itunes as perferred technology podcast, most popular anti-technology podcast. It is quite notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xerves (talk • contribs).
- Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- www.wehatetech.com has Google.com rank of 0, and Alexa rank of 323,934 (see WP:WEB for criteria for inclusion) --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per website rank I could see this. Our primary function is a podcast though. Please take into consideration the podcast instead of the website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xerves (talk • contribs).
You delete this, then you delete ALL the podcast Wiki articles. There are far more inappropiate pages on here than this one. Gee, so much for free speech. - Kmac1036 (talk • contribs)
- Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) comment deleted by KMac1036, restored by Dvyost
- Agree with you, we'll delete all the non-notable podcast articles. --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Other podcasts like This Week in Tech are allowed a Wikipedia article because they are notable due to the fact the hosts are well known. --Peter McGinley 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Includes some pictures/links to backup some statements. More will be coming soon. If the site doesn't meet requirements to stay on the wikipedia based on that then well at least we know. Xerves 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Undelete. "We Hate Tech" has as much right to a wiki as "This Week In Tech". If "We Hate Tech is deleted ALL podcasts, not only the "non notable" podcasts MUST be deleted.Anticitizen_1 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.124.163.50 (talk • contribs).
Undelete Evidence presented on the Wehatetech "wiki" shows a parody site with emphasis on narration and commentary. The websight in question involves more than simple "hate" but, for simplicity sakes "hate" was used to offer a generalization of the stories. The site also contains technical support hints, parody audio (public domain) and various other elements that make this a necessary entry into wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting this or if it's already deleleted please restore Wehatetech. Wiki is in imporant fixture in the internest and Wehatetech would offer value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.101.86 (talk • contribs).
Just give us a chance to straighten things up a bit... At least listen to one of the podcasts before you decide to delete this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.212.158 (talk • contribs).
WeHateTech is more legitmet that TWIT anyday. We are the real tech workers and censoring us and keeping TWIT shows Wikipedia has no backbone and does not appreciate the common man's views. Prepackged, witless shows like TWIT are spreading like fungus and are threatening to turn the web into the pile of programming garbage that is Cable and Network TV. The web thrives because it is where you can go for true dissenting opinions, it is the common mans printing press and as such should not be subject to ANY censorship. Wikipedia have some cajones! You know deleting this post is wrong and you will do th right thing because you have not sold out to TWITS and such, have you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.35.124.18 (talk • contribs).
Delete not notable. The sockpuppet spam just seals the deal for me. -- MisterHand
Delete. NeoJustin 18:14, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete Way too much trashtalk & too many references to their homepage:a Flamer & Spammer. Go away. --Motorbikematt 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet scam? If that statement along doesn't warrant this article staying around I don't know what will.
Delete as per nom (note I voted to delete this previously but my voted was deleted by an anonymous edit, maybe because I didn't sign) TheRingess 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and amazingly bad behavior by site proponents. --Dvyost 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - My talk page experienced some moments of Wehatethech from Anticitizen 1 (I asked him to change his username/refused violently (taken care of by an admin) and Kmac1036 (talk • contribs) (taken care of by another admin) . Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up™}

You pitiful beings. You just don't get it. This is not about free speech, democracy or making a statement. This is about amassing encyclopedic information. If you do not qualify for encyclopedic importance, no amount of sniveling, threats or irate outbursts will change that. --Agamemnon2 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains, no matter how much people hate us or what horrible things we did (there are plenty of articles in wikipedia of people who did horrible things) this is all that matters: http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Are there guidelines for podcasts yet, I have yet to see one? Anything there can be backed up upon request. Anything else you have to say can be taken to the article about the podcast. Just because I might be a Bush hater doesn't give me the right to delete him off the face of the planet. Xerves 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hard to reach consensus when most posters are literally blowing this article away:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

We all have agendas, just play this one by the numbers Xerves 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As per nom. --Daveb 15:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. rodii 21:51, 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 to relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations Dr Zak 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Avoda

This article is basically an advertisement for a non-notable summer camp in Massachusets. It has no qualifying information apart from advertising copy. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NN, WP:RS seems like an ad for a business. To qualify, it would have to appear to be written as a neutral description by an unbiased observer, with citations in news media etc. as to why it is notable. Crum375 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable. Crazynas 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Its a US summer camp. Unless the article can explain, through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, how this summer camp is significantly different from the standard, run of the mill summer camp, there is nothing we can do that the camp's own site cannot do better. In addition - death to adspeak!
Delete, nn camp. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Well the average run of the mill summer camp often has its own article on wikipedia as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I agree the article needs to be rewritten so as to not read as a brochure, but this is a boys' camp that's existed for 80 years. --Leifern 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Campaign to delete all articles linked to one religion rubs me the wrong way. Why has the nom not indicated that this article previously survived AfD?. Camps should be covered here. -- JJay 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I'm concerned about this campaign to delete Jewish camps. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per MPerel. Pecher ^Talk 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment article sounds like an ad. Rewrite it and I'll vote to keep. Homey 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Leifern and MPerel. Unfortunately, this article is part of a large group of articles that were recently nominated for deletion and about which there is at present much friction see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin, so it would be advisable for this nomination to be withdrawn entirely ASAP. IZAK 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep As noted by others above, this delete request is part of a rampage to delete Jewish-related articles. If it is a stub, then expand it. Perhaps there could also be a merge with other pages on Jewish summer camps into a general article on Jewish summer camps and how they are different from "run-of-the-mill" US summer camps (i.e., their role in ethnic identify of Jews, history re: Jews being not welcome and/or proselytized by Christians in other summer camps, use of Hebrew and Yiddish languages at these camps, etc.) But simply deleting all Jewish summer camps as "not notable" smacks of a hidden agenda against Jews. Rooster613 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613Rooster613 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll vote keep due to the camp's venerability but I disagree with the suggestions that the nominator was on some sort of anti-Semitic rampage. A) he's part Jewish b) it seems he was starting out cleaning out stubs and happened to be doing so in one of the Jewish subcats. He may have overreacted to IZAK's taking him to task and nominated some articles that do not merit deletion but this is quite different from being anti-Semitic.Homey 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the nom's motivations, I would advise him to read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point- because that's how it looks when this many noms on the same subject come in at the same time. -- JJay 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To accuse someone of disruption to make a point, you will first have show the disruption and then you will have to show the point. Go ahead? Kim Bruning 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The point completely escapes me. The distruption has been fairly obvious. -- JJay 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you cannot show that the nescesary conditions for a WP:POINT violation have been met. While we could discuss the merits of an accusation of disruption, that's now moot. Kim Bruning 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Per comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:14, 22 May 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 delete - Izehar 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat head biscuits

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Could be deleted as a dicdef, though. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete The article speaks for itself, but I guess if I had to pick one reason it would be that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. --CastAStone 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep or merge somewhere. Poorly written first-person essay, but Google has 36,000 results for ' "cat head biscuits" ' --Quarl 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete or cleanup- written in first person. Reference is father and not a verifiable source.Must be cleaned and expanded if the article is to be kept. more sources need to be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.149.9.127 (talk • contribs).
- Note: article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion --Quarl 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete patent nonsense; failing that just a refular delete per CastAStone. Stifle 00:55, 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 - Izehar 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivann E. Greene

The article does not assert why this public servant is notable abakharev 23:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: "Assistant Deputy Secretary of the CA Department of Veterans Affairs" is not notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable, "wife and kids in high school" vanity. --Quarl 01:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:26, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn-bio, tho would support userfying to the article creator's userpage. --Syrthiss 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy per Syrthiss. Stifle 00:54, 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 speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 06:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holding the Current

nn band. unsigned, couldn't find any records, and no allmusic entry Pboyd04 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete:A7 WP:MUSIC failing band with no assertion of notability --CastAStone 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CastAStone; marked as nn-band. "unsigned to labels and have a growing following at Stanford University. So far, the band has focused primarily on covering songs. However, there has been work on original material projected" --Quarl 01:15, 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 delete - Izehar 20:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crippled crack babies

Tagged as speedy, but this isn't speedyable as the article includes an assertion of notability ("underground smash") so I've brought this here. CLW 23:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as I originally tagged it for that, nn music group with 0 google hits that have anything to do with them when searching for "Crippled crack babies" or "CCB crew" and no amg entry. I don't think an underground smash hit can exist, since a smash hit wouldn't stay underground for very long. No sightings on the supposed smash hit "Simone 2001" on google either. - Bobet 00:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete possible A7 candidate as well. --CastAStone 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable band. 7 Google hits including Wikipedia pages. BTW, underground rap has a specific meaning. (I nominated another band page due to it also being described as an "underground rap group", but later withdrew nomination) --Quarl 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NeoJustin 05:25, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't know if it's speediable but it's unverifiable and failing WP:MUSIC at a bare minimum. Stifle 00:54, 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 - Izehar 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compilations and Other Albums

Was tagged for speedy delete with the reason "These are all dupes of things linked to from Ace of Base discography. And the article's name isn't very helpful." That's not a speedy criterion, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Delete. howch e ng {chat} 23:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, since that's what I originally tagged it for. The reason is, that the same person who created this article made (within 15 mins of the original article's creation) separate articles for Platinum & Gold Collection (2002) (USA), The Collection / All That She Wants (2002) (Europe), The Hits (2004) (South Africa) and The Ultimate Collection (2005) (Europe), with the exact same info that was in this article and they're the ones linked from Ace of Base discography. Duplication of the same content in an orphan, dead-end article isn't helpful to anyone. - Bobet 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Pointless page, but thats no reason to speedy. --CastAStone 00:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Quarl 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. No context/title does not pull together the concept. — ERcheck @ 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum - All in the list should be deleted — the nominated article for no context and the other linked articles for advertising/not qualifying per WP:MUSIC. —ERcheck @ 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probably not a speedy but seems redundant. Stifle 00:53, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] December 27

[edit] Blog carnival

[edit] Zlatos

[edit] Bob Anderson (darts player)

[edit] Chance Michaels

[edit] June 3, 2004

[edit] Assassins (winners)

[edit] USS Homestar Runner

[edit] DJ Justas

[edit] Fan-modules mailing list

[edit] Zulma Aguiar

[edit] Crystal2Mobile

[edit] Singapore gay businesses

[edit] Peter Georgiev Lilov

[edit] CorpKnowPedia

[edit] Consumerium

[edit] Kyle J. Kaczmarczyk

[edit] The Misadventures of Silent Boy

[edit] Runescape Drop Party

[edit] Rubert

[edit] Mirror (mortal kombat character)

[edit] Fayerwayer

[edit] Rhino Times

[edit] Moon conspiracy and religion

[edit] Artistic entrepreneurship

[edit] The Sonic Stadium

[edit] Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

[edit] Ty Jennings

[edit] Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com

[edit] Electric Banana

[edit] Hanaka Peurnskel

[edit] Hansuke Mishima

[edit] Gisatku Hirata

[edit] 6 GM Superpowers

[edit] Testimonial Midgard

[edit] Roll music systems

[edit] Ayden Scheim

[edit] Static Dungeon

[edit] Tim Frederick

[edit] Practical conservatism

[edit] Summoner Geeks aka "The Dungeons And Dragons Sketch" and Take Down The Grand Master

[edit] CT-923667

[edit] TOOTBS

[edit] Silly dance moves in Lindy

[edit] TTOH Characters (Alphabetical) and TTOH Characters (Chronological)

[edit] The Roots Come Alive

[edit] DOTSOFT

[edit] Digital culture

[edit] Maurice Kowan

[edit] Blasius Hardevust

[edit] Boris Devyatkin

[edit] Jake Laboon

[edit] Robert Minor

[edit] Herman R. Jacobson

[edit] Caroline Morant

[edit] Wikimongering

[edit] The Trials Of Humanity

[edit] AtNet Communications S.A.

[edit] Searching

[edit] Per nom

[edit] Jack Hoppus

[edit] Modernising Medical Careers

[edit] Midnight Rain (band)

[edit] Macey Baggett Wuesthoff

[edit] Bentley Cook

[edit] Victor Samuel

[edit] Cracking a smile

[edit] Alan Harvey

[edit] Chitty Family of Sri Lanka

[edit] Asbab An-Nuzul

[edit] MOHG

[edit] David Magann

[edit] Manuel Schenkhuizen

[edit] Greg_Tingle

[edit] N4 (notation)

[edit] JOCA

[edit] Fatwas by Suyuti