Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 7

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

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

[edit] Mel's Tea Room

Non-notable restaurant. Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Less than 100 displayed hits, and they're just local directories giving it no acclaim beyond being a place to eat in Sackville (or trivia mentioned as newsletter filler--that it was originally in a different location, but moved). De-link it and Bridge Street Café (another local eatery there that seems of similar note, or lack thereof) from Mount Allison University or we'll be discussing the Café the next time an MTA student gets bored. 24.17.48.241 04:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally non-notable restaurant. JanesDaddy 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiTravel if it can be verified, otherwise delete. Stifle 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it really does look like a nice place, but the article reads like an advert. Delete Bridge Street Café, too. --maclean25 01:02, 15 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. Enochlau 08:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Owen Scott, Jr

This article has been around for a while now. Note that this is not Robert Owens Scott, the Shakespeare translator. The article states that this Scott founded the Church of Wicca. The notable institution of that name was actually founded by Gavin and Yvonne Frost. "The World Council of Witches" gets 0 Google hits [5]. I cannot find any of his books on Amazon.com, and, because of their titles, Google is not helpful. The one reference for the article does not inspire faith in me, nor does the creator's contribution history. I will mention this deletion on the Talk page at Wicca, in the hopes of additional input. Jkelly 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I have never heard of this man before, and his prime contribution to society seems to be his "Wizard's Gay Slang Dictionary", which hardly makes one notable. The Church and School of Wicca was founded by the Frosts, so he certainly is not involved with that. Basically, unless someone can prove notability, I'd go for deletion. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: per Jkelly's comments. I agree 100%. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Stifle 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. In defense of the article, according to the page linked as a reference (apparently a list of "famous gay people"), this guy founded the "Church of Wicca" in Washington state in 1992-- apparently not intended to be a claim that he founded the original Church of Wicca. Crypticfirefly 06:24, 9 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 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith almli

Scrappy NN vanity. Was nominated as a speedy, which it isn't quite. Alai 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete; vanity bio for a non-notable techie. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:49:15Z
• Speedy delete, substub if non-notable and incorrect info is removed. Claiming to be an admin on a small forum isn't relevant nor notable and if he was born in 1988 he can't be involved since the start of the net as that was happening around the time he was born. I also have doubts about him being the youngest entrepeneur on the web as Ben Woldring seems younger and better know. The fact it doesn't contain references doesn't help either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a speedy because notability (CEO of something) is claimed. Stifle 00:18, 9 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 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U Street Casino

Appears to be a non-notable, non-verifiable, group of people who have hosted (per the article) four poker games. Delete. ESkog | ^Talk 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: This appears to be a semi-vanity page for a non-notable group. The Bearded One 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: As one of the founders of the casino, I resent the adjective "non-notable." Kung Fu Chess Lives! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Importance, WP:V and WP:RS. Can you provide any sources to show this is not just a promotional page? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep i went here when i was in D.C.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.247.23 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per The Bearded One. Stifle 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For so many reasons including failing WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 06:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Why on earth is some doof from Kansas shutting down the U Street Casino? First, the U Street Casino is a real place, located in DC. The events listed did occur, in some form or fashion. Just cause Kansas doesn't have any real cities doesn't mean you should talk smack about cities with casinos. Keep the U street casino open!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.150.201 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per reasons above. PJM 05:53, 11 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 Sixth form. DES ^(talk) 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Year 12

Essentially a dictionary definition, and not all rules apply to the same Year 12s. x42bn6 Talk 04:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect, as appropriate with Sixth form. It appears to be about the same thing. Need more input from our British contributors. ◎DanMS 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sixth form. This article at present describes a very specific system which is by no means universal here - most state schools don't have prefects, for example. All the useful information here, and more, is contained in Sixth form and articles linked from there. — Haeleth Talk 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• it is redirected by me now. Yuckfoo 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't just redirect it, you have to let the AfD go through. In The Flesh? 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

not when there is a consensus it can be a speedy merge Yuckfoo 05:23, 8 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 (I think the closing editor forgot the top template. Enochlau 08:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Frankie Tomatto's

An article about an all-you-can-eat Italian buffet restaurant in Canada. Does not establish notability. Pamri • Talk 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is an ad.TheRingess 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the contributor can substantiate that this particular restaurant is significantly more noteworthy than thousands of other Italian restaurants. ◎DanMS 06:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- JamesTeterenko 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an advertisement, unless proven otherwise. Mo0[talk] 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mo0. Stifle 00:19, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan American

The article appears to consist of various ramblings which are incoherent and have little to do with the title.

• Delete --Mysidia (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact the 'ramblings' are not 'various' nor 'incoherent'. The title is Tibetan Americans. I added what I knew about Tibetan Americans in my own state, and the reason those Tibetans ended up in Colorado to begin with. This is just the seed of an article, as so many begin. It would be nice to see you add something contribute something useful to the article itself! Chris 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Colorado#Demographics —Wahoofive (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

See, that's not what I'm really trying to accomplish either, there are significant groups of Tibetans in California, Oregon, Idaho and elsewhere, I'm just not the guy who knows much about them. Please leave the article where it is and don't delete it for a while. Leave it to grow and I think you will be pleased to see what may happen to it. I do appreciate the interest in this, truly! Chris 05:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Would that all authors of AFD-nominated articles viewed it as "interest." —Wahoofive (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I could see a valid topic here under a different name, something like Tibetan culture in the United States or Tibetan immigration to the United States. I would vote keep and rename if the article reflected that sort of idea. Perhaps someone who knows something systematic about Tibetans in the US could give it a shot. As it stands, this looks like a delete, but I could be convinced otherwise. Bikeable 05:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (somewhere) for cleanup, it's not great but could become something. Gazpacho 08:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Maybe merge various bits to collarado and tibet if they can be verified. Ben Aveling 10:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It isn't very good, but the subject is valid. Some of the data may be useful to later writers who wish to write a better article. Tag appropriately for disputed and cleanup if kept. Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete In theory (WP:ASB), every single ethnic-identity could be cross-referenced with every single nation which would produce something like 1.5 million articles. Tibetan Russians, Berber Indonesians, Inuit Caledonians? A bar needs to be established, and this strikes me as below threshold. Eusebeus 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the United States, a great deal is made of the ethnic origins of the non-Native populace; the whole business of a "nation of immigrants" and so forth. If Italian Americans get an article, Tibetan Americans are prima facie entitled to one. At minimum the burden of persuasion should be in showing that the Tibetan immigrant community is insignificant. The slippery slope argument doesn't work here; few will be moved to bother writing articles about minimal or hypothetical immigrant communities in every nation. Smerdis of Tlön 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Ben Aveling. Stifle 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid topic, vfd is not cleanup.  Grue  16:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- JJay 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Tibetan Americans should already be covered in Chinese American.Gateman1997 23:59, 13 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 01:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey punch (band)

Band fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC to the extent that the information in the article allows checking. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:47:14Z

• Yet another argument in favor of pulling the trigger immediately as these band vanity nonsense articles appear. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Every time I come across one of these, I have a little internal debate: Should I just apply {{nn-bio}} and argue that a band is... well, composed of people, at least? Or should I just AfD it and waste everyone's time with the inevitable overhead of voting to delete and closing it out? There seriously needs to be a {{nn-thing}} (and corresponding entry at WP:CSD) that's along the lines of, "It is an article about a real person, band, high school club, neologism, ..., or website that does not assert the significance of the subject." :( —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 05:20:07Z

• There's a problem in that because there's some people that take proof existence of something as a claim of notability where others would pull the trigger. It just doesn't work on all things. But I'm pretty sure better tags can be developed for bands as they are basically a group of people we could delete if posted individually. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent idea. How do we get something like this started? These "bandity" articles take up way too much AfD time and space IMO. - Lucky 6.9 00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and agree with the comments on speedy deleting these articles. Stifle 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete per nom.Spearhead 16:01, 11 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 01:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogieman

Appears to be a neologism -- google search for the word turns up 1 result.

• Delete --Mysidia (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; neologism not in widespread use. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 05:00:53Z
• Delete Nonsense.TheRingess 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Heah (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 06:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Stifle 00:21, 9 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 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 in film

Most if not all of the films listed here are BS created by different anon IPs using the same format, and several are already up for AFD. Unless someone can present examples of actually announced films that will be released 4 years from now I recommend this (and any bogus films listed herein not already AFD'd) be deleted as crystal ball. Possible exception might be the Star Wars 3-D but I can't find anything to support a 2009 release date. 23skidoo 04:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NatusRoma 05:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the film industry is sufficiently fickle to see that determining a release date 4 years in advance is simply impossible. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 2009 is a bit much. 2006 I could live with. 2007 maybe. 2009 no. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly merge into some sort of generic upcoming films article. Turnstep 17:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree; predicting what will happen in movies four years from now is impossible. Cool3 00:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, to be fair, there are films that are announced that far ahead. My point for nominating is the fact that there's no need for the article yet because all the entires (with the possible exception of the Star Wars reissue) aren't just crystal ball -- they're outright hoaxes. 23skidoo 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete- not encyclopaedic in any way

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiflash

"The article is nothing but a stub with no assertion of relevance and no sources cited. The only editor is anonymous and has made no attempts to expand the article or provide references.DeleteTheRingess 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified and notable. Ben Aveling 10:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears unverifiable. Stifle 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete, per nom Spearhead 16:02, 11 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 01:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hook Man of the Sun (2009 film)

Another hoax film article created by an anon. No Google, no IMDb, no fan page references. Total B.S. 23skidoo 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd love to see that group of people work together on an animated film, though. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Come back in three years time if we have verifiable data. Capitalistroadster 08:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the coveted 0 google hits. Except for the 1 on this exact article, of course. LOL. Crystal Ball doesn't even come in to it. Its a hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also note that the movie developer's website [6] doesn't mention it at all. Reeks of hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, unverifiable, smells of hoax, and other stories. Stifle 00:23, 9 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 deleted as nonsense by Lucky 6.9

[edit] John sadlik

Multimap knows of no "Blondegaard straat" in Amsterdam. Delete as hoax. Pilatus 05:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; can't verify and no sources provided. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 05:10:14Z
• Going away right now. Not allowing anons to edit is causing this new batch of problems and I, for one, am wearing out fast. - Lucky 6.9 05:17, 7 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 01:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quiz bowl chess

Unverifiable chess variant. I could not find any description using Google except for Wikipedia mirrors. Even if it is documented elsewhere, it is non-notable. Eric119 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - precisely how many sites mirror Wikipedia? I got up to page 12 of google, so that was about 100 different sites that had mirrored that exact article. Since its WP:NOR and has nothing to back it up other than itself, I think that that means we should aim to delete it as quickly as possible. Unless its true of course. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already covered at Chess variant. Post a note on their talk to inform them of the issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and remove from chess variant - Not independently verifiable. ESkog | ^Talk 15:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:23, 9 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 Boot Camp Clik (no need to merge, this is a duplicate). --bainer (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boot Camp Click

Was nominated for speedy. -- Scott e^iπ 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not eligible for a speedy, but nn band is eligible for a delete. B.Wind 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - not sure why you think they are non notable. What's this then? [7]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Redirect to Boot Camp Clik then. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - The site Zordrac provides indicates that the correct spelling of the group's name is "Boot Camp Clik." No vote. ESkog | ^Talk 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Boot Camp Clik; this article is a c&p of the first paragraph of that, and the title is a plausible misspelling of the name. — Haeleth Talk 15:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Boot Camp Clik seems to be the place for this. --Wine Guy 22:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --DDG 19:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Haeleth. Stifle 00:24, 9 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 wasUmmmmm.... no consensus I afraid. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Scientology centers

Listcruft, borderline spam, already been deleted once here Delete-- негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note re: tally below - apart from AFD not being about numerical votes, this article is useful to the relevant WikiProject, WP:SCN and I'd like it kept on that basis - David Gerard 14:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Further - if it is decided to delete it, please move it to project space and let me know and I'll try to beat it into nondeletable shape as an article (I don't have time over the next few days) - David Gerard 14:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The above box is only to show where people stand so far and as a test. AfD is not a vote, do not base your position on this box in any way if you can avoid it. This disclaimer brought to you by.--T. Anthony 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Is it me, or has that box run out of space? Two delete votes seem to have been missed out (Terryeo and Skeezix's), despite being in the source code. --Last Malthusian 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. uh, excuse me? Since when is a list of Scientology centers grounds for deletion, as compared to, say, List of sport associations in the Faroe Islands, or List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland??? I hope you're ready to nominate the hundreds of other [Church lists] for deletion as well, then. wikipediatrix 05:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable nominating things that are say, nothing but a list of URL's yes. You, too could be WP:BOLD and do it yourself, as well. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read your response several times and still don't understand it. What do you think lists are supposed to be of?? Go here and familiarize yourself with the way of Wikipedia lists if you haven't already. wikipediatrix 06:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Was previously nominated for speedy by someone else and deleted by me. Just a link depository. -- Scott e^iπ 06:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, currently a link repository, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Are the keep proponents seriously suggesting that this be cleaned up and turned into... well, what? A link-less, comprehensive list of every Scientology center out there? (It's a very, very big list without further valuable information.) A linked list of every Scientology center out there, with wikilinks to articles on those centers? (A very big list becomes a very, very big collection of painfully similar articles.) An article in and of itself with brief descriptions of the centers? (How many times can you justify the repeat of "This is a Scientology Center, much like all the others, except this one is in San Bernadino" on one page?) I can't see this article going anywhere valuable. Tom Lillis 06:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain. Possibly a list of just the celebrity centers would be notable, if quite small. Otherwise I'm thinking this could be like, or lead to, a list of every center of every religion. Which is not what most lists are. I don't think we have a List of Unification churches. Or even a List of Kingdom Halls. If we do then I'll change my tone and be for keep. Right now I don't know. Are centers equivalent to Cathedrals or Basilicas to this faith?--T. Anthony 09:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Borderline delete unless someone cleans it up. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been cleaned up so this should count as a keep.  ALKIVAR™ 07:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Without wanting to put words in NSLE's mouth, until he/she says he/she's actually changed his/her mind, clearly it shouldn't. A lot of people aren't convinced by the cleanup (myself included). At the most, if NSLE hasn't commented on the cleanup by the time the discussion closes it should be discounted. --Last Malthusian 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • My vote remains delete, that's not a list of Scientology centres, it's a list of cities with Scientology centres. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At best we can only replicate the directory already available in the CoS's own websites. Any purpose served by this article is better served by a link to those directories - it is really unlikely for someone seeking information to look for this on wikipedia rather than scientology's own site. Also, this will be a pain to keep updated. In short, redundant, unencyclopedic, and useless.--Fangz 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, go here and familiarize yourself with how Lists work on Wikipedia. Also look here. Lists are not Articles in the conventional sense. They are intended to list things, no more, no less. Like List of school districts in Pennsylvania. Or List of skyscrapers in Poland. Or List of hospitals in South Dakota. Or List of architecture firms. Or List of Ottawa churches. wikipediatrix 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of those other lists also have problems. The thing is, with this list there is no way in which it can be useful. If an user wants a list of scientology centres, then they would go quickly to the CoS's own website, where they will find a superior one. If an article needs to invoke a list of scientology centres, then it would also give a link to the current CoS directory instead. Even if written optimally, this list can only verbatim repeat the official, centralised listings, presenting no additional data, collating information from no additional source, and offering no summary or introduction or interpretation that will distinguish it and make it a rightful resident of wikipedia. There is no need for this list, and having this list is harmful because there will be a temptation to use it when in any concievably circumstance, the official CoS list will be better.--Fangz 06:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep my redone list.  ALKIVAR™ 07:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's vastly improved, but I can't see that the content adds value to anyone or anything. Ben Aveling 10:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep beautifully written very informative and encyclopaedic. Like it or not, Wikipedia has lists, and this one is a great example of one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This lists cities that have scientology centers, not articles about those centers themselves. It's also still a link repository which is what wikipedia is NOT. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still a repository of external links, only the cities are linked to articles on the cities (not the Scientology centres). One difference between churches and Scientology centres is that Scientology centres are clearly way further over the advertising line than, shall we say, "mainstream" churches. --Last Malthusian 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Sports associations and LGB centres, to use the example at the top, are also far more non-profit (if that's an adjective). -LM
• Delete. This is just advertising. Would we want List of US Army recruiting centres? Or a list of every church in the world? DJ Clayworth 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid, verifiable, useful list. Each item even has a reference - what more could you ask from a list? Oh, and that tally box is pretty ugly and not needed - AfD should be about discussion, not mere vote counting. Turnstep 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — In actuality this is just a list of links to the city pages with a reference link to the Scientology web site. It is not a list of links to articles on the actual sites. This is just a sneaky way of appearing to be a valid list. WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". — RJH 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are many good lists on WP that are not indices to WP content: eg. ISO 3166-1, a featured list. --- Charles Stewart 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And there are zero good lists that are indices of external links. ISO 3166-1 has a good, well-written intro, followed by a list which is not a list of external links. Really, just look at the article you linked to. Look at it. Then look at this one. Then look at a fluffy kitten (no reason, but why not?) Then tell me that this list up for discussion has the same merits as ISO 3166-1. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking it up it has also linked to actual articles since in least May 2003, maybe from the beginning. Also I didn't even know a list could be honored. I thought everything concerning lists on Wikipedia was just criticism.--T. Anthony 10:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I should emphasise that I linked to that list to defeat the misconception that WP should only host lists that are indices to WP articles. There is a case for lists to have encyclopediac value other than linking to articles. Note that while ISO 3166-1 does link to countries and acronyms, it is in no sense an index to those articles: we have better lists for that purpose. --- Charles Stewart 16:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably with thermite.　Link farm. Oh, and not a single one of the adjectives Zordrac used above applies, nor do the bogus comparisons supplied by wikipediatrix convince. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too much like a Scientology directory and an encyclopedia is not the place one would look for such information. -- Kjkolb 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep-I found out there is a List of mosques so a generalized list of houses of worship is acceptable. On the other hand that list links to articles at Wikipedia so if this survives it should link to Scientology centers that are already important enough to have articles. Still some arguments on its usefulness, in the comment section below, have some merit. Then again Scientology is certainly not as noteworthy as Islam. Also it could use some annotation and links showing notability. For now the link simply seems to show that they exist and they are centers, which doesn't say much. Then David Gerard made some sense so I'll go back to weak keep and stay there.--T. Anthony 15:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Plus the list of mosques only lists mosques that are notable - not school/American town/radio mast notable, but notable notable. Unless there are really only three mosques in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it's possible that's the purpose of this list too, but there's no explanation as to what makes them notable either in the list or in a linked article, so hello WP:V. --Last Malthusian 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete agreeing with Calton, Kolb, mgm, etc... Eusebeus 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep it now it has been cleaned up Yuckfoo 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam and uncecyclopedical --Adam1213 Talk + 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments-moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers--T. Anthony 09:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft. --Bachrach44 15:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Move to WP:SCN project namespace. Not an appropriate article (WP:Not a directory), but Dave gherard has convinced me that the list is useful for the Scientology project. Note that a map showing the distribution of all Scientology centres, as suggested by User:Vilerage on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology centers would be a worthy addition to the article. I'm concerned that the article has been deleted while the AfD is open without citation of any CSD criteria: this is interference in the AfD process. --- Charles Stewart 16:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When did it get deleted? It's still there AFAICS. --Last Malthusian 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The page was recreated, but now non-admins don't have access to all of the edit history. Look at Special:Undelete/List of Scientology centers--- Charles Stewart 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It has not been deleted during the AfD. It was last deleted at 00:58 UTC 0n 12/7. I AfD'ed it 5mins later, at 01:03 --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed: I misunderstood what was going on. There is no problem here. --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I found the justification for Scott Burley's sppedy deletion [8]. He appears to be claiming the article falls under WP:CSD A3, a judgement I disagree with at least for the article in the form I first saw: there is too much structure for that. --- Charles Stewart 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just a duplicate of the CoS's list, and has no useful annotation and little possibility for annotation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice, I hate scientologists. Stifle 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is the only reason offered for this vote, I suggest that the closing admin disregards this vote. --- Charles Stewart 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed even though I'll admit I do hate Scientology. (I don't hate Scientologists necessarily, some of them don't understand it or got into in a bad period of their lives or other reasons I don't feel like judging them all)--T. Anthony 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the "I hate scientologists" quote to his name on the above table so it'll be easier for a closing admin to see.--T. Anthony 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a website for others. Jtmichcock 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: hard to maintain, low encyclopedic value, incomplete (for sure there's Scientology center in Prague not listed here). Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, which is all this article is. It is not a list of Wikipedia articles (existing or potential), which would be useful and should remain, but a list of links. Luigizanasi 06:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this ain't a recreation, as is obvious from comparing the actual article content. Furthermore, it's evidence that AFD nominators should be required to notify the relevant WikiProject - this is prime material for WikiProject Scientology. We'd really like this one to stay. Thanks. - David Gerard 14:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From the opening mission statement of WP:SCN: "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better develop and organise information in articles related to Scientology." There's no information and no articles here. --Last Malthusian 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • Also, if this data is useful to you, surely there are plenty of places it can be kept other than the main namespace. User pages, the project page, your hard drives, etc. --Last Malthusian 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If WP Scientology wants it, why don't we make it into a project page? I've listed this AfD on the wikiproject's talk page. --- Charles Stewart 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems ok.  Grue  16:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. Marginally useful. If the Scientology people want it then let them keep it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish people would stop assuming that "the Scientology people" are the ones who created this article and are pushing for Keep. Showing the full scope of Scientology outposts and their locations is highly relevant to anti-Scientologists as well as pro-Scientologists. Not to mention the average observer with no axe to grind in either direction. wikipediatrix 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

When I say "Scientology people" I'm not thinking of Scientologists - I'm thinking of David Gerard. Sorry for being unclear. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops.... gotcha. Sorry I jumped the gun, Haukur. Some other persons have made me cranky lately.... *smile* wikipediatrix 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing but a list of cities with external links, which is a blatant violation of the "Wikipedia is not a catalog of external links" dictum. I am not even going to bother tyring to figure out how to edit that ugly table to add my vote to the count. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wiki isn't an advertising base. A list of Scientology organizations is the work of the Church of Scientology, you want such a list they would be happy to provide it (I assume). Would you want a list of every First Babtist Church in California, for example? Terryeo 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we do have List of Ottawa churches, List of churches in the United Church of Canada, List of mosques in Singapore, List of churches in Adelaide, Places of worship in Hong Kong, List of Jewish youth organizations, List of churches, List of Buddhist temples, List of Catholic schools in New York, List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States, List of churches in Venice, List of Church of the Nazarene schools, List of Churches in the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware, List of Church of Scotland synods and presbyteries, List of Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod districts, List of Presbyterian Denominations in Australia, Romney, WV Churches, etc., etc. Better start deleting all those too. wikipediatrix 14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I disagree with those lists as well, at least those are lists of churches, not simply lists of cities which have churches and then links to their external websites. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

This article is a list of churches that just happens to be ordered by city. And I've already stated repeatedly that if the external links are what makes the difference, I don't mind if someone removes them. wikipediatrix 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But that's simply not true. Just look at the first one, under Argentina. The link is to Buenos Aires, Argentina, not to Scientology Center of Buenos Aires, or however they're named. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Zoe, the names of the cities are Wikified links because it is Wikipedia formatting style to do so. The links to each individual Scientology center is given as a reference link (y'know, the little number after each city?). wikipediatrix 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, which makes this nothing but a LinkFarm, something explicitly forbidden in WP:NOT. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

You're arguing in circles. Short of deleting it, what needs to be done to the article, in order to satisfy you? Just tell me and I'll do it. wikipediatrix 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps not very useful to many, but does it hurt to keep it? Like wikipediatrix said, there's a whole lot of lists on Wikipedia that shoulr be deleted if this one gets deleted. (List of trivia lists). (Entheta 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Last Malthusian, quote what you like ;) it's a weak keep. I just don't see any reason to delete it when Wikipedia is so full of lists. I'm not a "her", btw :) (Entheta 17:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

My bad, guess I just automatically assumed because of the 'a' ending :) --Last Malthusian 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- There is a big difference between some of the articles mentioned above, such as List of Ottawa churches, which are lists organizing information in Wikipedia, and the subject article, which is just a repository of external links. As such, it's something that one ought to look for on Scientology's website, not here. Skeezix1000 20:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One might just as easily posit that one ought to look elsewhere to a more official website for anything rather than on Wikipedia, by the same token. Should we also delete the thousands of TV show/movie articles and say that they're something one ought to look for on IMDB's website, not here? wikipediatrix 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You've misunderstood Skeezix's objection. Lists that are indexes to articles here on Wikipedia have a useful organisational role to play in this encyclopedia. Lists of links to content elsewhere on the internet are quite different: if a page consists mostly of these, then it is rather like a section of a directory, and WP:NOT expressly says that is not what this enterprise is about. We don't have a firm rule saying that such pages can never have a place on WP, but the onus is definitely on the article's defenders to say why such content is necessary. --- Charles Stewart 23:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The article is not called "List of Links to Scientology Center Webpages", and it was never intended to be that. It's "List of Scientology Centers". I only threw the links in as a sort of, you know, extra bonus. *smile* Like I keep saying (over and over and over), I'm fine with the external links being removed, because it's not about the links. I do maintain that a list of centers for this highly controversial and high-profile organization is extremely notable and extremely important information for researchers of all viewpoints. And hey, I'll be glad to create a separate article stub for each of the Centers, if that's what it takes. wikipediatrix 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • But this is not a "List of Scientology Centers". This is a "List of cities which have Scientology Centers". Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
        • What do you make of the suggestion of having a map of the Scientology centres (see talk)? --- Charles Stewart 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Short of deleting it, what needs to be done to the article, in order to satisfy everyone? Just tell me and I'll do it. wikipediatrix 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Other - Right now the article seems like a list of links, but it also seems that it has potential (and it may be needed for the related project). I have also noticed that the article was created and (speedy?) deleted in 9 minutes, and then it got an AfD (three minutes after re-creation/undelete). I think that time should be given, in order to let the contributing editors show whether this article is indeed needed, or it could be provisionally moved from Main_space to User_space, be expanded and worked, and then listed normally in Main_space. +MATIA ☎ 22:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a valid speedy deletion as nothing but links to external sites. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

• Projectify. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:30, 12 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. DES ^(talk) 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Centropolis Entertainment

This article is one in a series of problematic articles by User:Logoboy95 (contribs). While Centropolis is a real movie production company, most of the information in this article is incomprehensible, and the main text is inaccurate. The logo description may be accurate but is unencyclopedic. Delete without prejudice to the creation of a reasonable article about this subject. --Metropolitan90 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete withwithout prejudice. But Delete with prejudice for Centropolis_Entertainment_logos. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry, brain disconnect there. No objections to a decent page being created either now or in the future. Just this version of the page that does not deserve to live. Ben Aveling 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep what on earth is wrong with this? Its notable enough. Just needs a bit of cleanup. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have the distinct feeling it's copied from somewhere based on the user rating and popularity given. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Clean Up As it stands right now it's just a list of links, most of the other lists referenced are lists of wikipedia articles, which makes a little more sense. DeathThoreau 13:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Mgm points out, this is almost certainly a copyvio. — Haeleth Talk 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten as suggested by others.Logophile 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What about if it isn't? Being deleted wouldn't mean it can't be recreated. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. the vandal who created this article has been blocked indefinitely, and the logo is copyrighted. The article can be recreated if needed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Regency logos. Mushroom 03:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Strong delete for the logos page and all others like it. Keep the main studio page and cleanup. --FuriousFreddy 19:42, 12 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 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buying Real Estate in Brazil

Hmmm where to start? Wikipedia is not a how-to, so I wonder what this could even be rewritten to. At any rate, right now it's an advertisement for some real estate company (advert warning tag added). Seems likes a copyvio but I can't find the source. So uh, take your pick. --W.marsh 06:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete advertisement apparently copied from website. B.Wind 08:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: speedy delete for copyvios is limited to commercial content providers, people who make money directly from the content that has been copied. Advertisements are meant to promote a product or service and are not a product for sale themselves, so they cannot be speedily deleted, if the restrictions are followed. -- Kjkolb 01:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be an advert. Stifle 00:25, 9 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 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical Lies

I tried to fix this up, but it stops making sense at all in the second section and becomes truisms. Couldn't find a speedy category for it, as it now is no longer nonsense. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless the article is significantly improved.67.161.240.111 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• As written, delete. The third section is false as it proves nothing but is true in both cases: every number is equal to itself (this is the reflexive property of equality in algebra). The first section is a common homework problem in intermediate algebra class, usually with the instruction of "spot the fallacy"; the middle shows the fallacy of multiplying both sides of an equation by something that could be zero. Only the middle should be saved... and sent to the Talk page of Elementary algebra. B.Wind 07:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useful material already at the "Division by zero" article. Gazpacho 07:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gazpacho. I think. Relatively interesting, but not exactly accurate and I don't think its encyclopaedic anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gazpacho. JPD (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Also note the existence of mathematical mistakes. Uncle G 12:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• No useful content; it contains basically nothing but several variations on a bogus proof that a*0=b*0 -> a=b (or just as mistaken a^2=b^2 -> a=b which ignores the possibility that a=-b). Delete Mathematical Lies. Either delete mathematical mistakes, or consider creating List of common mistakes in mathematics or something similar. - Mike Rosoft 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly expand in Mathematical humour. Stifle 00:25, 9 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 Pomerium. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge the information from the two articles should they so desire. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pomoerium

This appears to be a dictionary entry. Suggest Transwiki to the Wiktionary. Snorgenhorpher 06:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Transwikify per nom. Its resource is a dictionary... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• By all means copy it to the Wiktionary but deleting it here seems a little officious and it would withdraw the implicit invitation to develop the encyclopaedic aspects of the subject. With a relatively obscure topic like this, we may need to wait some time for that invitation to be taken up. (RJP 10:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
• Redirect to Pomerium. rodii 13:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to the OED pomerium is an obsolete form of pomoerium so the former should become the redirect. It looks as though the former is mainly about a specific pomoerium though - that of Rome. Dlyons493 Talk 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Rodii. I think that pomerium is the usual English spelling. There's also an early music ensemble called Pomerium. Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think the Oxford English Dictionary should be taken as authoritative on which version should be the redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 13:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: in Classical Latin, pomerium is the usual form, and the one that occurs in White's and the Oxford Latin Dictionary. [9]; pomoerium is an archaic suggestion from Varro. Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Zordrac. Stifle 00:26, 9 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. bainer (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] C-Moon

Substub about a band, except I can't find this band on AMG or Google. Also, the german version of this article has been deleted for vanity reasons (as near as I can tell, I don't speak German) for whatever that is worth. At any rate, no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC can be found... by me at least. --W.marsh 06:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - If I put in their city, it gets a lot easier. Google gives me 216 hits. Now, I got google to translate the pages for me. According to this they have 2 albums, thus meeting WP:MUSIC (that seems to be the german version of allmusic.com). They also seem to have played at a big concert on world youth day [10]. Whilst it is too difficult for me to figure out precisely what they are doing, it appears as if they are some kind of celebrities. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the German version does seem to be deleted [11] although I am not sure how relevant that is. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• The German deletion log states: (Hobbycombo ohne Plattenvertrag, nur Selbstverkauf) which pretty much means garage band with no record contract, only sells self-created CDs. Are those albums on Amazon.de? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google.de can't find it on sale on Amazon and it doesn't appear to be sold by any other reputable sales entity so far. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, from what I can tell of the Machine translation of this page [12], which is the german AfD for this band, the german wikipedians thought these albums were self-released too. I'm all for being understanding of non-English bands, but that it doesn't seem like they meet WP:MUSIC in any language. --W.marsh 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page, nn band. The page Zordrac cites above is, as they say, selbstgeschriebt. Eusebeus 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spearhead 16:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabrina Sato

I'm not sure I understand the point of this article. It seems to be borderline vanity, though it's likely not written by Ms. Sato. Also, the associated image is likely copyrighted. Snorgenhorpher 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a Google search indicates that she is some sort of celebrity in Brazil, and the associated image (a magazine cover) would support that. See also pt:Sabrina Sato. --Metropolitan90 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as nom misunderstood article. She should be kept because she's totally hot if nothing else. Major claims of notoriety. Playboy centrefold talked about a lot [13]. 49,300 is pretty good. Seems to be famous. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Portuguese entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a well known celebrity in Brazil. Carioca 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and lets change our bias Yuckfoo 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well-enough known. Eusebeus 06:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She seems to be fairly well-known in Brazil. It might be good to contact a Portuguese speaker(Category:User pt-N) though to add some information from the Portuguese Wiki.--T. Anthony 09:13, 8 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 (already deleted, I'm just putting the box around it) Enochlau 08:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] C2 (Rapper)

Rapper (ahem, White Rapper, as the article asserts) with unreleased releases and planned releases and stuff like "The mixtape was never released do to unknown reasons" but no actual releases! No label, Nothing on AMG except a shell for an almost certainly unrelated electronica act. Fails the guidelines for notability found in WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 07:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. Mo0[talk] 07:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - nn vanity, no references. The distribution extent of most mixtapes can be measured in feet, yards, or meters. B.Wind 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't go close to meeting WP:MUSIC with no albums released, let alone the 2 required on a major record company. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT isn't this a rapist/musician from a Law and Order episode? 132.205.45.148 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Stifle 00:27, 9 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 01:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to gender

If there's an actual fallacy called "appeal to gender", this isn't it. This, on the other hand, is an original essay, characterized by bald factual claims about disputed subjects, a complete lack of verification or sources, and little internal consistency. Even if the subject is real and notable we'd be better off deleting this article entirely and rewriting from scratch. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• If references cannot be provided, delete; if references are provided, the article needs a little "smoothing out" as it drops the reader into a discussion rather than leading into it. B.Wind 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - quite accurate with what it says. Google search finds supporting articles by the bucketload. [14] or [15] or [16] or [17]. Common term in regular use, very studios, accurately and neutrally presented. Needs to be expanded with refs quoted in article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

213 hits on Google is a bucketload? The links you provide are not supporting articles, they simply contain phrases such as "teaching techniques that appeal to gender differences" and the like. squell 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not verifiable and doesn't cite sources. No evidence of this term being in common use. — squell 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. This is another case where, as Squell notes above, Google may give a misleading picture. ESkog | ^Talk 15:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. A more plausible Google search phrase ("appeal to gender" "logical fallacy") brings up only Wikipedia and its mirrors. If this is deleted, don't forget to delete the link from Logical fallacy as well. — Haeleth Talk 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Turnstep 18:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Jtmichcock 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, class essay. Pavel Vozenilek 22:03, 9 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 01:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Western scholars

Western scholars an article about Islamic scholars? What scholarly work can we use to make an article about Western scholars of Islam? If it's a list there's really no reason to split it. The reasons go on...

See also: Non-Muslim Islamic scholars, Orientalist scholars of Islam

--gren グレン 07:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- there's already one article, Historiography of early Islam, that discusses historians of Islam. That could be expanded. Zora 07:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see the point to this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless non-article. Tupsharru 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Tupsharru. Stifle 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-encyclopedic.Jtmichcock 02:04, 9 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 as per Zordrac. Johnleemk | Talk 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Christianity scholars

What is this? The fact that a scholar of Christianity is Muslim doesn't make them special. Scholars of Christianity are all religions. gren グレン 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

See also: Islamic Christianity studies (although this has more potential)

--gren グレン 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge dicdef to Islamic Christianity studies. Gazpacho 07:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge List_of_Muslim_Christianity_scholars to this and expand and keep it. I see no reason why we can't talk about muslim christianity scholars. Its an unusual mix and quite encyclopaedic. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Gazpacho. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Should be "Muslim scholars of Christianity" anyway... AnonMoos

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S.Swaminathan

Non-notable resume/advert

• Delete. Gazpacho 07:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• One-and-a-half-hour-old article says essentially nothing (no specifics such as location, for example). Likely vanity. Nothing in the article asserts notability. Delete B.Wind 08:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am not sure why a motivational speaker is considered to be vanity. [18] and [19], about the same guy portray him as an expert in the industry and a world leading expert. Mind you, it was hard to piece through it all with 913,000 google hits for Swaminathan, since adding management consultant still gave me 163, and they aren't all about him - plus it seems that he did other things than management consulting. But those 2 articles above suggest that its the same guy, and if so, he's an expert who warrants his own page. Just because he's not from USA/Europe doesn't mean he's not notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The two people in the articles don't look the same. Tintin 13:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No sufficient proof that he is notable. Tintin 13:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as in my opinion notability should be established beyond doubt to find an entry here. This entry appears like a veiled advertisement. I would request other editors who may be aware of his notability to please comment. --Bhadani 14:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article had a phone number and e-mail address in it when created. I remove such information when nominating a suspected vanity. Gazpacho 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page, non-notable. Eusebeus 07:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No reference's given. Raghu 11:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zordrac, the google search you provide only searches for his last name, the first five entries show that the hits are not for the same topic. --DDG 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:27, 9 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. bainer (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deltagenesis

An open source software foundation created just last month.

• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for 4 google hits Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Samw 18:17, 10 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.

Result of the debate was Speedy Delete - SoM 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Joyner

Not notable/vanity page. A vanity tag has been in place since 18 October 2005. Registers 59 Google hits, none of which reference this person outside of Wikipedia. Movementarian 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as no claims for notoriety. I believe that qualifies for speedy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio. Also, I highly doubt the "misplaced user page" tag. Turnstep 18:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (tagged) Stifle 00:31, 9 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 01:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Republic of Shireroth

An online micronation with 25 members, unencyclopedic, delete--nixie 08:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't tell whether this is a children's club, a role-playing game, or total fiction, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Gazpacho 08:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - that is possibly the longest article I have ever seen nominated for deletion. Its such a shame to delete so much work. Unless its a copyvio issue off the page http://shireroth.org/, which it doesn't seem to be, I say to keep it just for effort. However, I believe that 25 members does not meet Wikipedia criteria. If online forums need to have 5,000, then I imagine that so do micronations. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• They could always request the material so they can put it on their own website. Votes are best based on the merits of the article itself, not the effort the creator put into it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No doubt the members had some hand in the article. They could always userfy it if it's important to them to have a wikipedia presence. rodii 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• As the author in question, I'd like to keep it. I understand if it needs to be deleted, but realize that 25 people is larger than some other (secessionist) micronations that have Wiki pages (for instance: the Republic of Minerva, which has "tba" instead of a citizen count; the Dominion of Melchizedek claims less than fifty; the Principality of New Utopia also claims less than fifty and is mostly fiction; finally, the Kingdom of EnenKio may or may not exist).

Furthermore, Shireroth is a nation--granted, a nation that claims no territory or even independence, but a nation nonetheless. We have existed for five years and fought (and won) against the plagues that most other online political simulations succumb to.

=FaxCelestis 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP Most micronations of today are considered large if they have anything above five "citizens" or members. This hobby may be small, and it's easy to brush an article about it aside, but this is the largest and oldest micronation, and as such deserves the tiny disk space it takes up here. -foghorn5950|^(talk) 9:57 PM, 7 December 2005 (UTC +5)
  • No prior edits by this user. Gazpacho
• Live and Let Live Shireroth is the godfather of micronations, deleting this means almost total rejection of the hobby itself- we have stood longer than any other, and as was pointed out, we're doing a lot better than others that have been allowed to keep theirs. And really, why do you need to nitpick at this stuff? Surely you have better things to do than take on a page and 25 protestors? -Oz Mons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.128.41.59 (talk • contribs).

• KEEP Shireroth is, by the standards of the hobby, huge. It's peak population is may seem small compared to some random generic forum, but over the years it has earned a place in the hearts and minds of many people and comunities. I has has links with a TV show with one of the highest audiance participation levels around (of non sports related or prize giving shows) -Conglacio 3:29 AM, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP Calling Shireroth the largest and the oldest is a bit of an exaggeration, but as micronations of its type go, it is quite old, the oldest yet standing of its tradition; and it is larger than most micronations than it has contact with (the Kingdom of Lovely being the notable exception). If, despite this, having only 25 people ulimately makes it unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then so be it; but this will also exclude for the forseeable future all other members of a vibrant and diverse community, which itself is, as a whole, poorly represented in Wikipedia. -Shyriath —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.52.31 (talk • contribs).

• Delete nn.--Bkwillwm 05:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete completely unnotable project that should be put on a personal webpage not in an encycopedia!! And thanks to FaxCelestis for pointing out other very suitable AfD candidates above. Eusebeus 07:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable in sources outside the micronational community. Sam Vimes 13:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP I think this is an interesting article, and we should give it time to see if others thing the same way as well. Obviously a lot of time went into this article, so let it stay! It is worth it.--Drake44444 11:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No prior edits by this user. Gazpacho
• KEEP This is more than a children's club, or just a message bourd, it is a thriving micronation of over 5 years, which in of itself is a feat, which has a sizeable, in micronational terms, population. The Micronational community exsists, and just because individual micronations are not massive in scale, (5,000+) members/citizens does not make them any less real, or any less worthy of mention in an article. This article interfers with no other articles of similar name that I can see, there are NO copyright issues over the name or the micronation itself. The Imperial Republic of Shireroth has a citizenship spanning many nations and continents. Why is it many who may not even know what a Micronation is to begin with are seeking the deletion of this page, passing it off as simply a "children's club" or some juvinile group. Yes, many members find their age to be under 25, does that make them, and what they have built any less substantial. Is not this article informative, and is not that the point of an encyclopedia? To allow people to look up and research information, no matter how obscure. Now I recognize there are some lines that need to be drawn. but saying a Micronation of sizeable age and population is unworthy of mention, is drawing the line in the wrong place. If you are seeing this as unworthy of mention due to the age of members, that is ageism, in it's purist form. If you are judging it by it's current citizen base, you are judging it by the wrong criteria. Shireroth has endured much as a political model for many years, and through it's trials and tribulation much can be learned about government, political-science, psychology, sociology and even religion/spirituality. The point is; this article is more than just the organization that it covers, it is all that has been learned and discovered through the project that is the Imperial Republic of Shireroth. To delete this article would be to deny the world information, possibly useful, possibly not, but it should be up to them to decide. (Please forgive any spelling errors, I did not have time to spell check)--Erik Metzler at 23:34 UTC Dec 8, 2005
  • No prior edits by this user. Gazpacho
• Major clip or Delete. Way way way too long for a start, seems like webcruft. Wikipedia is not a free web host, this article belongs on the site's own page. Stifle 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Shireroth is a well-established and senior micronation, and to delete it is pointless. It certainly is worth being in an encyclopedia, since it has had numerous successes, for example an appearance on How to Start Your Own Country. --Graius 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Try Uncyclopedia first. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Josh Parris#: 04:28, 12 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 A7 non-notable biography and A6 attack page. Capitalistroadster 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Binson

Short, uncategorized article with no biographical info or proof of the subject's significance. Primary intent seems to be to belittle the subject and his taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, has POV problems (too bad we can't speedy it as an attack). B.Wind 08:53, 7 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 A6 attack page and A7 speedy delete. Capitalistroadster 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baz Ladaria

Short, uncategorized article with no biographical info or proof of the subject's significance. Primary intent seems to be to belittle the subject and his taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unlike the previous nominee, this merits a speedy delete for being an attack article. Perhaps we can bundle the three (including the next nominee) together and speedy all three...? B.Wind 08:56, 7 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 A7 non-notable biography and A6 attack page. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iggy Clifford

Short, uncategorized article with no biographical info or proof of the subject's significance. Primary intent seems to be to belittle the subject and his taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, serious POV problem, could be called an attack article (in which case it should be speedied). I'd suggest bundling with the previous two nominees and speedy all three. B.Wind 08:59, 7 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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hangin' With...Andrew Gold

Short, uncategorized article that doesn't even clearly indicate what the subject is (probably a VH1 program?). Primary intent seems to be to belittle three individuals (articles also nominated for deletion) and their taste in music. Engineer Bob 08:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - one-off VH1 program which is not notable in itself. Article has serious POV problems, but it's not as hostile the previous three nominees. It might be best to bundle the four nominations into one and speedy delete all four of them as an attack on the three individuals. B.Wind 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless more is added to the article, I am not convinced. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this is even real. A TV show in which a musician plays three different versions of the same song at different speeds? I doubt it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Stifle 00:31, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International defense organization

Article about a largely empty website for an organization that may or may not exist. Likely A4 or OR, putting it here to be sure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article is about the organization, not the website. As for the organization, it exists - that much is certain. Its existence is corroborated by a United Nations document I found in which the organization is up for conversion into a "specialized agency of the United Nations." The Wikipedia article offers as much information as can be gathered about an organization that few know about. Just because it is a somewhat esoteric entity that falls beyond the public's radar does not mean it shouldn't have a page. Perhaps with some public interest, details about the organization will begin to emerge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Written (talk • contribs).
• Delete absent verification. The UN document refers to the International Civil Defense Organization. Gazpacho 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - tough one but I am veering towards keep on this one. It's suitably interesting for an encyclopaedia. The web pages definitely exist. What they are all about is another matter. But enough to warrant speculation. Reminds me about that terrorist group that was planning to destroy the twin towers on September 11th, 2001. You know, the S11 group of anti-globalisationalists. Oh man did they ever get in trouble after the planes blew up. So many people thought that they were involved. Of course, they insisted that what they meant was that they were going to disrupt things with a violent protest and a few smoke bombs. Reminds me a lot about that, or the affiliated Earth-something or other terrorist group of environmental protestors. I forget what they are called. Whether this organisation is a terrorist organisation is another matter entirely. I don't know what they are. But seems interesting enough for Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Um, wild tagents aside, being "interesting" is not enough to warrant inclusion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. Seems an org by that name exists [20]. But I think we need more info than that. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Click the PDF link and you'll see that the text refers to the International Civil Defense Organization. FCYTravis 10:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Unverifiable absent sourcing. FCYTravis 10:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• "It is unclear whether the website is the legitimate front for an "international defense organization" or some kind of prank." That makes it a clear delete as non-verifiable and non-notable. -- Kjkolb 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kjkolb. Eusebeus 07:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever - I think you all take too narrow a view vis-a-vis the "non-verifiable" and "non-notable" lines of thought. A great deal on Wikipedia is not verifiable, or not notable in one way or another (check out the entry for Wongo.com - what the hell is that nonsense?). When I use wikipedia, I use it as an all-encompassing resource. If something's out there, regardless of what its true nature is, I'd like a wikipedia article covering it. We know this website exists, it seems mildly interesting. It could be an organization, or it could be a rock band, or something else - however, it exists. The article addresses its existence. Sure, this isn't "Babylon 5" material or anything badass like that, but why delete something just because you don't know about it? In any event, I'm indifferent at this point. Delete it if you like, leave it if you like. Whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Written (talk • contribs).

If you can find something substantial about it, I'll change my vote to keep. Regards, Ben Aveling

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1-Up Zine

A "handmade independent" fanzine with only three issues in four years. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - 3 issues isn't enough. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity, going by the creator of this article. --Apostrophe 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable ands possible vanity per Apostrophe. Cool3 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Apostrophe. Stifle 00:31, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shout voice trump

Non notable religious theory. The user that created it, named User:Shout Voice Trump, has had exact copies of this pasted on his user page and user talk page, so it comes off as spam for the referenced website in the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. CDThieme 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NPOV original research. --Nick 05:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The user, being me, accidentally put it on the user page and user talk page trying to learn how this all works. The doctrine is not a just a religious theory but is a world wide group of people whose uniqueness is of great interest in all seminaries and theological studies. I will go to my talk/user page and figure out how they work. 23:12, 6 December 2005 postscript: I just left a better synopsis of this article at your, Mr. Gustafson's talk page. Slowly I am figuring this out. Thanks for your overview.

--- If an individual is not of seminary or theological background, this article may seem trite. However, within the large religious community this article is a vital resource for understanding this group of people. ---

Here is a copy of what I submitted to Mr. Gustafson:

Hello, Hope this is the proper spot. I have just started working on an entry on shout voice trump. Having studied the Rapture doctrines and seminary theology, this doctrine is unique because it involves people instead of belief. This doctrine is actually a large group of people worldwide. I have been researching it and currently have added some of the basic reference links I was directed to.

Your comments about user page and talk page need clarified. It took me awhile to figure out how Wikipedia works. I finally signed up with a username that would match the article title thinking that was proper. Then I tried to create the page accidentally on the user and talk pages.

Thank you for your considerations as I continue to expand on this group of individuals. You could say, that just as there are Methodists or Catholics, there are now a group of people who are Shout Voice Trump'ers for lack of an official title. I have had trouble finding clear resources and considered building a website but have now decided that the quality of Wikipedia would be the best choice for consolidating information for the research community. Above unsigned comments from User:24.151.228.4 aka User:Shout Voice Trump.

• Keep - I am convinced that it is a genuine good faith attempt at an article. There are references that help to support the article's point of view. There are issues relating to its notability (36 google hits) and the way in which the article is written. It is clear from the history that the author is trying to make the article as good a quality as he possibly can. But the AFD was put on the article almost immediately on creation. I believe that, as with all but nonsense articles, an article should be given a good chance to develop, say perhaps 1 month, and then we can judge. It is too early to really say one way or the other. So for the moment I am saying keep. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• We could let this fester here for a year, the article could grow to featured quality, and that would not change the fact that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, period. You said it yourself: 36 google hits. No wikipedia article of any quality will change that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if this really is a worldwide group of people, they're awfully quiet about it. I'm getting just 24 unique Google hits. Not ready for an article yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• From Author: Type in William Branham, the author of this movement and you get 291,000 hits at Google. As I previously mentioned, there is no official title for this group of individuals. (Branch Davidians at google is 200,000 hits.)

Also, look at it this way, Wikipedia would be one of the main sources for research on this topic. Also, at Google type in shout voice trump without quotes, 237,000, and you will see the validity of interest in this scripture and interpretations, which I plan to include. ie: other interpretations, rebuttals, size of movement... I found one site WMB1.com that shows church groups worldwide. It has also been translated and distributed throughout the world. Here is a quote from Bibleway.org "To the millions of believers around the world who have heard and received the Message which God has sent through His prophet, William Branham..." From the same site, India alone has had over 2,000,000 books printed. From my research it looks like the move has turned from who William Branham was to what his message, I Thessalonians 4:13-18, has produced.

Comments from User:24.151.228.4 User:Shout Voice Trump.

• Suggest merger with the William M. Branham article. I have no doubt that this is a good faith attempt at an article. Google, on the other hand, yields 3 pages of results for "shout voice trump", none of which seem to identify a particular body of followers. While the teachings are worthy of an NPOV article, not sure these three words are the best choice for a title. The phrase itself is not something that is likely to be searched for. External links in the article also identify Branham's name, not "shout voice trump," as the common thread. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until it gets bigger or more notable for some other reason. -- Kjkolb 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient notability, per Andrew. Eusebeus 07:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• From Author: Looks like I've been outvoted. This has been a good learning experience and I appreciate the moderator/editors close watch on Wiki to keep it a valuable Internet resource.

• Keep if given a major clean-up. Also needs a new title. The current one doesn't make sense. If this group has no official name perhaps the article can be called Branhamism. Logophile 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia cannot name something that doesn't have a name, that's Original Research. CDThieme 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion is made that this religious movement/doctrine/whatever ever made any impact. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for the promulgation of religious dogma. Pilatus 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral No place for dogma discussions, but I am familiar with this group and they have made a worldwide impact. For one, Oral Roberts ministry was inspired by their founder. I talked to one and he said just call us Christians. hmmm. (forgot to signin sorry)
• Strong Keep. See no valid reason for delete. File under biting the newbies. -- JJay 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• "No valid reason for delete"? Then you clearly do not seem to grasp deletion policy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I could never clearly seem to grasp things as well as you. Thanks for the kind remarks. -- JJay 04:23, 13 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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limmunize

Website founded in February this year. No explanation of signficance, no Alexa rank either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --QEDquid 09:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Groucho 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:33, 9 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 01:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CADnet

non-encyclopedic

• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 09:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --cj | talk 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB proposed guidelines, and only event of note is a conflict with the owner of Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic). Maybe recreate as a redirect to the webcomic to dissuade recreation? Saberwyn - 10:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:13, 9 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; besides the arguments presented, if this was not written by the contributor, this article would constitute a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Banister

autobio or PR effort, not sufficiently notable Lunkwill 09:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Not sufficiently notable (CEO, written a book), also appears to be an autobiography/PR article. (I'm also putting up Enginet, which appears to be a trademarked service, but in the context presented is a neologism invented in this author's book). Lunkwill 09:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Notable enough for mine. Written a book see [21] which has been reviewed. He seems to be invited to speak at forums and be interviewed see [22]

Capitalistroadster 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity page. [139] distinct google hits most of which are bios from promo engagements. Book is also nn. If this is kept, it must be cleaned up and have noisome POV content like: heir to the legacy of both Marshall McLuhan and Joseph Campbell removed. I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here and he's never heard of him.... Eusebeus 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because I can't stop laughing. MuLuhan says Banister doesn't understand his work at all. Gamaliel 07:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• (Jim posted this on my User page, but has now posted his own reply below along with his vote) Lunkwill-- I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly... responding to your nomimation for deletion of my biography entry. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate forum. I was encouraged to post on wikipedia (which i use and love, btw) by professor colleagues, students I've taught, and a number of others who use wikipedia. It wasn't written by me, though it was posted by me. And it's hardly vanity. Everything in the narrative is veracious. I'm not sure I understand how one "qualifies" to be an wiki writer. Seems self-selecting, at best; and I'd think that as long as information is verifiable and not overtly "marketing," then it should be okay. The writer didn't know how to post... I did... and the article was not written in a vacuum. It was patterned off of existing, approved articles. I'm happy to provide you any number of references to support the veracity of the information, and I'd appreciate you not deleting the bio. Cumulusguy 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Cumulusguy 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I'm frankly surprised at the vitriol from a couple of you. If you're going to review, please do, but do your homework. The cursory opinions as to the content of my character or thought-leadership are not informed, nor helpful.

Gentlemen, I didn't write the article, but I did post it. Why is it a transgression to endeavor to see one's work recognized and recorded for posterity? The information is completely accurate-- every word-- whether or not one agrees with the editorial. It is ironic that most of the (written) objection is around the references to McLuhan and Campbell. I suggested the writer use the entries for those two great thinkers as a template for how to write/post in wikipedia. I suggested them as exemplary not because I feel I belong in their pantheon-tier, but because they are two role-model thinkers I have studied and admired. The words heir to the legacy of both Marshall McLuhan and Joseph Campbell were not written nor suggested by me. They are paraphrased words spoken by my students and audiences. If they offend you, my apologies. It is an aspiration I continue to pursue, and if you'd read my book or attended one of my lectures, you might even agree. Furthermore, I see the word "promo" in some of the comments below. I don't sell my book, nor my services at my lectures. My lectures are designed for erudition, not revenue.

If necessary, I'm pleased to provide recommendations from many "notable" folks as to the legitimacy of the information, the deservedness of the posting, and the veracity of my efforts to add to the body of knowledge around digital media literacy.

If I was *truly* being self-promotional... I would have included links to the world-wide press on the breakthrough hybrid tv-game project I created and I'm doing with Ron Howard and Fox (airing next year), or posted more than just a link to the Hollywood Reporter's 75th Anniversary Future of Entertainment edition which decided my work was deserving enough to single-out on the cover alongside only four others-- Neil Gaimon, George Lucas, Jim Cameron and HBO's Chris Albrecht. But I didn't. I stuck to the tuition aspects of what I do-- educate others on all I've learned so that they have the leg-up I didn't have. They can decide for themselves whether my thought leadership is worthy of following. If you think writing books designed for tuition is a money-making proposition, then you've never written and published such a book. ;-)

Anonymous insults and cursory reviews should not be the order of the day in wikipedia. That is not my understanding of the spirit of this body-of-work. If you're really going to review, then please do your homework. I was careful to read the guidelines for posting bios, and I believe we've adhered faithfully to them. If you'd like to be more specific about what exactly you object to, I'm happy to consider editing to suit the majority of reviewers. Many thanks. Jim Banister

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enginet

non notable neologism Lunkwill 09:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: neologism which appears in a single book, fails google test. (The results refer to a trademarked software/service or other things unrelated to the contents of this article). I'm also putting the author's (auto)bio up for deletion: Jim Banister. Note the single author with all edits to both articles. Lunkwill 09:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Stifle 00:35, 9 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 unused dab page. bainer (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic (disambiguation)

Delete. Unnecessary disamb page. All items now refer or redirect to chiropractic. Edwardian 10:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unnecessary disambiguation. -- Kjkolb 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 13 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] 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicky cat

non-notable cat

• Delete - This could have been speedied as A7, if only A7 wasn't restricted to persons ! JoJan 10:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I marked it with the speedy tag, the same user that created this also created an article about themselves that has been deleted. — Wackymacs 10:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I think we can bend A7 that much! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:38, 7 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 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moth Complex sub-articles

This is a combined AfD for the following three articles

• Learned My Lesson
• Vin McCreith
• Damien Murphy

These are sub-articles related to the recently deleted Moth Complex (AfD discussion, their first single, bassist and drummer respectively.

These articles relate to a band that has been deleted from Wikipedia, and as such appear to have no further purpouse on the Wiki, until Moth Complex can be recreated as a WP:MUSIC-abiding article. Saberwyn - 10:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ESkog | ^Talk 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Benw 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:18, 8 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 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Night elves (band)

Band that does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria.-- JoanneB 11:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 17:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spearhead 16:04, 11 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 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amour de soi

Is a dicdef of a french term. No encyclopedic value could come of this article, IMO, and yet doesn't fall under speedy criteria. jnothman ^talk 11:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 11:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Probably delete; I was going to suggest redirecting to Narcissism, but this term doesn't appear to be commonly used in English. — Haeleth Talk 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to French Wiktionary, or delete if you don't have the patience to. Stifle 00:36, 9 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 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cocoa Smart

Appears to be partisan advertising for a non-notable product MPF 11:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Just another ad. Bergsten 13:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, advert. Stifle 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam, Spam, Spam. Jtmichcock 02:06, 9 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 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "rotary rj ilha do governador"

A very long history of a Brazilian Rotary club, most likely translated straight from the club's own website, with a horrible title. I speedy deleted it once, but it was immediately recreated, so I decided not to enter a delete war. Judging by the number of notice boxes at the start, this may be beyond hope of salvage. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 11:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Much stronger delete. An individual chapter of Rotary International is not sufficiently noteworthy for an article of its own, and from skimming I don't see anything that makes this particular chapter significant. Anything that might make the case for significance is lost in the machine translation of club meeting minutes from the 1960s. This title has no business in the English namespace. A mechanical translation of a copyrighted original source text may also be a copyvio. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect to prevent re-creation. It's non-notable, a possible copyvio, and not accessible to English-speaking readers. Crotalus horridus 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP and Smerdis of Tlön. Blackcap (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Cool3 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a very important topic. delldot | talk 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, way too long and inaccessible. Stifle 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  LOL at "This page has too many boilerplate texts. Somebody fix them before the article disappears off the bottom of the screen.". Stifle 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Even after I ran it through a couple translation programs it came out looking more like an advertisement or something. Sorry about all the boilerplate boxes, but especially after translation it looked like something nonsensical in the Wikipedia context. Bdelisle 01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement and possible copyvio. Also delete Rotary rj ilha do governador. Carioca 20:38, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Labadia

"A word associated with a cult radio show", as the article states.-- JoanneB 11:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this nomination was too concise: the word can not be found on Google in this context, neither is the show that the article refers to (that the word supposedly comes from) mentioned in the schedule on the radio channel's website. The Livejournal that the article links to, does not exist either. Therefore, the information is extremely hard (if not impossible) to verify. --JoanneB 12:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is on the website, if you look in the schedule. The vagueness was just temperally while I try and work out a way of phrasing what I mean. The live journal does exist, if the link is dodgy that must be because I mistyped it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bouncebackability (talk • contribs).

also, the only reason labadia was chosen is because it was the only word we could have used which wasnt already used.

• Delete While the station that the show airs on might be as notable as any other similar organization (we do have student run newspapers on here), a self-admittedly small group of hardcore fans doesn't seem to fit any criteria for notability. If the show is considered notable (there seems to be no real reason for that assumption as there are no doubt many shows with a similar format) then this article should be merged with a article on the program. DeathThoreau 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:40, 9 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 to MuggleNet. bainer (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emerson Spartz

Subject of article is webmaster of MuggleNet. Although MuggleNet is notable enough, the webmaster is not, particularly since all the information on the page is from the Mugglenet website. The article has numerous photographs that are copyrighted and whose use is questionable, at best. Jtmichcock 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and severe cleanup. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]]]] 05:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Updated vote: Delete per nom or weak merge. Even when a website is notable that doesn't make everything associated with it (webmasters, servers, forum members, etc.) notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: vote updated to include merge option after considering Mgm's points on my talk page. The problem with covering webmasters is that, with only the rarest of exceptions, all information about them comes from themselves and their websites rrather than books, academic sources, or mainstream publications. Since this particular webmaster interviewed Rowling, I guess a certain amount of verifiable information exists. I trust that only the truly verifiable (and non-trivial) information will be merged when the time comes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Opposition to the top two entires. The website is globally noted by distinct fandoms that show interest in its main topic (Harry Potter). So it is entirely just to make the webmaster notible for this achievement and the popularity it has gained. Darlyn Perez 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Even if the website of this individual is noteworthy in some respects, this information seems better suited as a sub-section of the MuggleNet article. It just does not seem relevent to have an article on a webmaster, and on their site also. Why not combine the two? There are obviously numerous successful webmasters out there, it seems irrelevent to have an individual article devoted to each one as well as their website especially for a fansite.

• Merge any useful information into MuggleNet, although there doesn't seem to be much there. The plethora of pictures is unnecessary. Joyous | Talk 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Anyone who was personally invited by J.K. Rowling to interview her for the release of book 6 is quite notable in my opinion. The images are likely a copyright issue. All but one or two should be axed. If not kept, it should at the very least be merged. Link to the interview in question is at the Pottercast entry on deletion review - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with MuggleNet and Redirect to that page. There's only the one site he has that has notability and integrating the information in one article makes the most sense. Jtmichcock 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with MuggleNet. feydey 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with MuggleNet. But in any case, I hope people will remove some of the family info etc. It almost seems to border on stalking, or something. -- 71.198.189.142 11:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with MuggleNet. It seems the best way to handle it short of revising the whole page, which would leave us nothing more than a stub :). Initially I'm for the deletion of the article but I think subordinating it within the MuggleNet article would be a good compromise.--Chinfo 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. When he does something else notable, we can have a breakout article. Gamaliel 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 24.224.153.40 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please discount this anon vote. They have not provided a reason. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 12 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 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Kotchanski

Non-notable radio show.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 12:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The graveyard is currentally appling for world record for longest time a woman has spent on air (its been done, just need ti officially validating), it is the first radio show which is totally interactive, it has given the best student radio station (URN, won more awards than any others) it's record listenership. It is also presented by the youngest mayoress in the country.

• Delete nn. Eusebeus 07:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student radio show. I had one of those too, they aren't really notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 12 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 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moments Videos

The particular company is number 1 on google when you search for Moments Videos, but no alexa ranking. I'm thinking its just advertising. dr.alf 12:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, article provides little or no context. Also fails to explain why the company is notable (e.g. different from other wedding video companies). — squell 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. A speedy delete as empty would be fine as well. PJM 14:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per PJM. I don't see anything possibly encyclopedic here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertizing. Stifle 00:40, 9 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. Enochlau 08:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SySDSoft

Startup company that is non-notable dr.alf 12:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Notability is not a deletion criterion. Try again. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-7 13:11
• Delete per WP:CORP. (By the way, little or no content is a speedy-delete criterion) Pilatus
• Speedy Delete, almost-empty article. Stifle 00:40, 9 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 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conducting Business in Canada

Wikipedia is not a place to publish essays, original research, or how-to guides. Possible copyvio. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Possible copyvio, a similar article on Ireland was on Afd recently, it is tradition to give a gift from your home country, the United States shows US-centricity. Dlyons493 Talk 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the claim that Canada is more conservative than United States. By what standard? - Mike Rosoft 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't detect a copyvio and is more a howto guide. Capitalistroadster 17:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Buddy wrote a hilarious article, but it is not encyclopedic. WilyD 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone think the article can be salvaged as appropriate with a massive rewrite and a more appropriate title like "Business Culture of Canada"?
• Delete unencyclopedic, inappropriate content. Eusebeus 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay. Stifle 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an essay. Jtmichcock 02:06, 9 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. Enochlau 08:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree

Delete - ad. Natgoo 12:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• See also Kidding Aside, No Kidding!, and The World Childfree Association (which the author "moved from childfree site to improve format"). Uncle G 13:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Natgoo. Stifle 00:42, 9 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 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India BPO

First-person promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising and marketing/corporate jargon; substantive content covered by Business process outsourcing. Sliggy 13:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Apparent copy vio from [23] Dlyons493 Talk 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. PJM 14:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the text is not from a commercial content provider, so it should not be speedily deleted. -- Kjkolb 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment site says Copyright © 2005 DefenceWelfareCall.com. All Rights Reserved.
    • I didn't say it wasn't copyrighted. I said it wasn't from a commercial content provider, which is someone who makes money directly from the content that has been copied. The content of this article is advertising their business. People don't pay to read advertising, like they do for a newspaper or encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 18:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Sligfy. Fails speedy by a few inches. Stifle 00:42, 9 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. Enochlau 08:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Natural

Very minor band, no apparent hits in Google -- doesn't appear to fit with WP:MUSIC Tim Pierce 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 14:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, you've heard it before but I'd love a speedy category for this. Stifle 00:43, 9 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.

Article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Barkai

Seems to be a vanity article. Creator is user Ybarkai and content is wholly plagiarised from [24]. I would speedy this but some sort of notably seems to be asserted. Delete. Zunaid 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Page was created by Ybarkai on 28 June 2005 and last edited by this user on 20 October 2005. It has been tagged as potential vanity since 13 November, i.e. almost a month has passed for the user to move the info to the User space if created in error. Zunaid
• Speedy delete, copyvio. PJM 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7; it's the CV of a most nn individual. Eusebeus 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio tagged and bagged. Closing AfD. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (As a sidenote, quite a few songs do have their own entries. Feel free to nominate Baby's in Black for deletion.)

[edit] Mandatory Suicide

Songs do not usually get their own entries. Merge into the album it's on if applicable. Stifle 13:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agreed, fair comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:128.243.220.21 (talk • contribs).
• Delete or redirect to the LP's article. PJM 14:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Which would be South of Heaven. Punkmorten 17:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, songs do get their own articles quite often ... if they become notable. This one is rather too obscure a recording to justify its own article, so delete. 23skidoo 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - individual songs don't usually get 36,300 google hits unless they are very notable. The song lyrics and topic have apparently influenced a lot of other places, and so its chart notoriety is not the only deciding factor. Apparently it is used in discussions of satanism and other areas. Not to mention that a band was formed by the same name in honour of the song - usually a good hint that its important. Also rename article to Mandatory Suicide (song) to avoid confusion with the term that has been in somewhat widespread use as a result of the song, and also to avoid confusion with the almost-notable-enough-for-wikipedia band by the same name. And disambig "mandatory suicide" as well. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, songs are rarely notable enough for their own article. Also, only 808 of the search results are unique. -- Kjkolb 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom; info covered at main album article. Also, a Dutch band took the name, so the number of google hits is actually 25,000, which I grant is a lot. As to the above point, the 808 unique hits (I get [831] is from the Google sample of 1000. Extrapolating,that would mean roughly 20,000 unique hits which is pretty large. Eusebeus 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree with the nominator's assumption that songs are "generally" not listed. There are guidelines for song notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. However, if the article does not prove its own notability, then I will assume it does not meet these guidelines. --DDG 20:01, 8 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 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ođđa mailbmi

Songs are not notable. Stifle 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, quite a few songs are notable. There is nothing here to suggest this one is, though. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, while some songs, like Happy Birthday to You are indeed notable, this one isn't. PJM 14:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm, did you hear that song? It's artistically notable and the first big song of the band, maybe it's only slightly not in the most people's taste. I thought Wikipedia should be about every more or less notable thing or it's not a universal encyclopedia. Efenstor
• I've got an idea! I'll remake the article to that about a homonymous single CD, then it won't be so meaningless.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Efenstor (talk • contribs).
• Delete nn. Eusebeus 07:28, 8 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 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sverre Johannes

It was marked for speedy deletion, but the stated reason did not fit within WP:CSD. I'm hence creating the AfD for User:Ranveig. I abstain from voting. Enochlau 14:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from Ranveig on Talk:Sverre Johannes:

I'm Norwegian and I've never heard of this "famous" person. Also, Norway has very little nobility. Google gives a few hits for a private individual, which suggests this is simply a vanity page or something similar. -- Ranveig 14:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Never heard of the bloke either, and as said by Ranveig, Norway have little nobility. Probable hoax/vanity. Sam Vimes 16:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is not remotely serious. Punkmorten 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like vanity. CLW 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unconstitutional "Ingen Grevskaber, Baronier, Stamhuse og Fideikommisser, maa for Eftertiden oprettes." Fornadan (t) 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Seems unverifiable. Stifle 00:43, 9 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. – ABCD^e✉ 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Katanga Islands

The article states that the Southern Katanga Islands are an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Office of Insular Affairs has never heard of this territory, and some claims made in the article are rather unlikely. Listing on AfD for a few more eyes, Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. Pilatus 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits for "Southern Katanga Islands" see [25].

Nothing in Google News either see [26]. Capitalistroadster 17:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. FWIW, Katanga is a place in Africa, I believe part of the Congo, that occasionally comes to light as a result of a series of civil wars that has been going on since the late 1950s. It isn't an island, and were it U.S. territory we should make haste to palm it off on someone else. Smerdis of Tlön 20:04, 7 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dfg (band)

Band that fails WP:MUSIC, no allmusic.com page, (however if you search their site for dfg you get a different band called Dog Faced God). In short, not quite notable enough just yet. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 04:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain Check out Greenbelt Festival and decide for yourself. Im not quite sure, playing with U2 is big but who knows. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well just because U2 played at this festival, which has been held every year since 1974, doesn't even mean that they played the same festival in the same year. Even if they had, that doesn't make every band that plays in the same place as them, noteworthy. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They've had Iain Archer perform with them live and contribute to their latest CD, along with Jars of Clay, Lambchop, and Eden Burning... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.32.72 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 December 2005.
• Keep, 195.173's assertions establish notability. Kappa 03:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this AfD discussion in hopes of generating a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable band. Stifle 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this non-notable band. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:35, Dec. 14, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Syndicate

Previous afd (brought by article's author and immediately withdrawn): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Syndicate

Like Nox Arcana, this band's albums are all self-published, and the bulk of the article was posted by Vargo's webmaster. (See the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo and Wikipedia:Deletion review for details.) Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and the article's origin brings up verifiability and original research problems as well. —Cryptic (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. From allmusic.com: "This particular album was a huge success on MP3.com, where it held six spots in their Top 20 positions during Halloween." They've been around a while, they seem to have some fans and a bunch of albums (even though self-published) They might not technically meet WP:MUSIC but that is a guidline. I think they are notable enough. Herostratus 07:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Herostratus and adjust WP:MUSIC to include huge successes on MP3.com Kappa 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this AfD discussion in hopes of generating a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• This does not look like an article about the band. Right now it reads like a vanity page for this Vargo guy. Delete unless made into a proper article. No need to adjust WP:MUSIC for rare cases. It's coverage in music press that (might) make this band encyclopedic, not their mp3.com success specifically. Friday (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The band is fairly well known --- at least I'd heard of them well before seeing the Wikipedia article. Their albums are widely sold in the pop-up seasonal Hallowe'en costume and decoration stores that appear in October. Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone else, especially note Kappa's recommendations. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Kappa. --DDG 19:59, 8 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. Enochlau 09:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleo of Alpha Chi

Non-notable college organization Paul 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random frat/society. Stifle 00:45, 9 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. Enochlau 09:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B876 road

This is a backroad in the far corner of Scotland. Like all other B roads, this one has no importance in the larger scheme of traffic engineering, B-roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into arterials designated A-road. This page came up for deletion once back in August, when there was no consensus to delete, since then therre has been a consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Delete per that consensus discussion. Pilatus 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all numbered roads... even B roads.Gateman1997 19:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pavement silliness. Denni ☯ 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Eusebeus 07:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Centralized discussion. A roadmap on the county article would serve the exact same purpose and be a lot more accessible. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per consensus on B-roads. Stifle 00:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep B roads as per my comments in the discussion. --SPUI (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SPUI. -- JJay 05:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:44, 13 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). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shape (Sugababes)

Songs are not notable. Delete against prejudice (the Sugababes are my favourite band) Stifle 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC) The rework and votes make me withdraw and request a speedy keep as nominator with no delete votes. Stifle 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I have expanded the article. Hit song from 2003. If not kept, should be merged with Angels with Dirty Faces. Capitalistroadster 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps move to Shape (Sugababes song). chocolateboy 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good rewrite. Punkmorten 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but consider renaming to Shape (song) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep charting song in the UK. Merge to album if not kept. Article should be renamed Shape (song) (or Shape (Sugababes song) in the event more people made a song by that name). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 8 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. bainer (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Image

A Star Wars fanfic. Article claims that it is notorious as an example of bad fan fiction. Google does not concur: it returns 69 hits for the phrase, of which only 13 are actually unique, and of those 13, just two relate to this fanfic - one is its page on fanfics.cc (the source of the "screenshot" in this article), and the other is a single comment on an unrelated Livejournal blog entry (the one linked to in this article). The claims of notability are thus not verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. While I'm sure it is terrible, the simple fact that something has no redeeming qualities is not enough to make it notable, especially for the reasons cited above. DeathThoreau 15:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with nom. --Viriditas 02:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert for unfinished fanfic. (Murder of Image currently has three chapters, and shows no sign of ending any time soon.) Being badfic has no bearing on that particular issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roy A. Young

Very obscure, not notable. The google test only picks up Wikipedia and it's refferal sites.

• Delete, the submitter --Mecanismo 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Many pages link to it. Punkmorten 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Federal Reserve chair Ashibaka tock 23:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is linked to and important Yuckfoo 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. See what links there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, appears notable enough. But needs lots of expansion. Stifle 00:45, 9 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. Enochlau 09:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PCosh

Delete. Cannot verify artist's notability. Google search on 'Phyllis Cosh art' returns only the source page and several mirrors of it.-- Syrthiss 15:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete too obscure, maybe a pet project with a touch of vanity --Mecanismo 15:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:45, 9 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 Request by author (but consider creating Wikipedia:over wikified). Thue | talk 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Over wikified

Funny, but not encyclopedic :o(

• Speedy Delete trash article --Mecanismo 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Warofdreams talk 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Har har har. --Last Malthusian 17:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN This very funny article. LMAO - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Joke/patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion and for BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 18:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's been copied to BJAODN. Now delete. --Misza13 ^(Talk) 18:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've created a monster, and I agree that it must be killed (Delete). Avengerx 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, endorsed by author. Also, it's vandalism. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

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

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

The article has been speedily redirected. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nihil aka Annihilus

Obscure, void of encyclopedic value, probably just nonsence, orphan article --Mecanismo 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy redirected to Annihilus. Punkmorten 21:47, 7 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. Enochlau 09:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A moment's peace

Doesn't seem to be a band worth noting hereNfitz 07:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spearhead 16:06, 11 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 - SoM 13:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carla Matadinho

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, attack page. Stifle 00:48, 9 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. —Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicano Power Revival Orchestra

Obscure, non-notable

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Stifle 00:47, 9 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. —Kirill Lokshin 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Equine-Ranch

Advertisement, only content added by one person, most likely the owner. Metalcore424 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you it's not the owner who made the page ¬_¬

If this was advertisement there would have been things for signs up and stuff. You're going to delete my hard work because you didn't read the entire article apparently and only the first paragraph. This is supposed to be an article about the game not an advertisement. It explains how the game works and it's features. Just because one person worked on it so far doesn't give any reason for you to delete it. Next time, please don't jump to conculsions on something that hasn't even been up for a day. Also, it's still being worked on. Give it a chance. Gokusan 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not because it's an advert, but it is a non-notable webgame. Stifle 00:47, 9 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 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Bevilacqua

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 21:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, succesfull football players don't generally get 1 unrelated google hit on them. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Stifle 00:48, 9 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 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our children's world

Seems like a chain of bogus articles from this contributor. --Schmiteye 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a Google search for "Our Children's World" Ritchie gives 3 unique hits. Punkmorten 21:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the only external source I found for this article. There is hardly anything about this book which is verifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Schmiteye. Stifle 00:48, 9 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 02:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ritchimon

The only Google references are sites that download Wikipedia dumps. Looks like a hoax to me. See also Skunkzilla by the same "contributor". --Schmiteye 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, someone's personal creation. Punkmorten 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the first sentence in the article. Stifle 00:48, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shamanic Training for Personal and Planetary Transformation

Obviously just an ad for some unlikely (and lucrative) new-agish nonsense. Too many wikipedia policy broken to count... Mtarini 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:37, Dec. 14, 2005

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skunkzilla

Looks like part of a hoax from the same contributor. See also Ritchimon.--Schmiteye 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, someone's personal creation. Punkmorten 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft or hoax or something. Stifle 00:51, 9 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. Enochlau 09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dead 50's

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment see [27] and [28]. Their planned trip to SJOCK festival in Belgium was cancelled.[29] They do have an allmusic entry, but it's empty. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • www.dead50s.com is in fact hosted on geocities. That and the empty allmusic entry are why I rolled this forward instead of reverting it (since the tagger didn't provide a rationale). —Cryptic (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another non-notable band. Stifle 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band. Spearhead 16:07, 11 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 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin S. Kenney

Reads like one big advert. NN. Delete.

• Delete --Quasipalm 15:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probably vanity and marketing attempt --Mecanismo 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, claim to notability avoids CSD A7 but doesn't deserve a page. Stifle 00:52, 9 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. Enochlau 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nylon fiber

orphan article, which doesn't seem to add much to the nylon article --Mecanismo 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nylon then. No need to bring this to AfD. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nylon and merge anything not covered there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm. Stifle 00:52, 9 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 intelligent closing and deletism. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design and Creationism

This is yet another (what is this number 7 or 8?) WP:FORK by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) to push his bizarre religious view of science. — Dunc|☺ 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks. If you are saying that I have a "bizarre religious view of science", you are making a personal attack. Uncle Ed 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed contacted me on IRC about this, and I just wanted to put what I said to him on the wiki: 15:53/27 < Phroziac> Ed_Poor_in_exile: I don't think that's a personal attack. I think it's quite incivil and rude though. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No. That's right. Had I wanted to be rude I could have been more personal about his motives. Continuing to ignore consensus on this issue however is rude. — Dunc|☺ 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another personal attack. For the second time today, I ask you to stop attacking me. Please do not call me rude. Uncle Ed 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, please. he's not making personal attacks. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 17:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Appears to be Wikipedia:original research, delete. Morwen - Talk 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork, OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More original research, another POV fork, and yet one more waste of time. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with FM. Bill Jefferys 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, yay. Another POV fork, yay. More devaluation of the excellent rule on personal attacks by overuse, yay. --Last Malthusian 17:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fork. No references cited either. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fork. ...dave souza 18:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. ESkog | ^Talk 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research/PoV essay. — RJH 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary and factually spurious (as ID does not uniformly regard fossils as authentic, and certainly does not agree with scientific intepretation of them). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research.Gateman1997 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as uncited, POV fork, factually incorrect original research. -Parallel or Together ? 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. original reserach. I strongly urge Ed Poor places greater efforts at citing his sources so that we can verify his claims. Thanks. El_C 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another personal essay. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, No original research and WP:POINT. Stifle 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, why can't we all just be friends? Creationists be nice to evolutionists, and evolutionists be nice to creationists. Croat Canuck 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an essay. Jtmichcock 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Kill, Destroy, wipe, Blow up with 1000kg of TNT... - SoM 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why are we tolerating this behavior from User:Ed Poor? --ScienceApologist 19:02, 9 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. Enochlau 09:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MSN Scripters

Delete nn chat room cruft. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above --Mecanismo 15:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:54, 9 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 copyvio and redirect to Dark Lord of the Sith. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark lord of the sith

Trash, nonsense article --Mecanismo 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio. Should be replaced with a redirect to Sith Dark Lord of the Sith once it's deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Darth Vader as that's the character more commonly associated with this phrase. 23skidoo 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the copyvio. If you want a redirect, I think it's best put at Dark Lord of the Sith or Dark lord of the Sith. Current article has incorrect capitalization. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess that settles it. Redirect to Dark Lord of the Sith after deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sith, Darth Vader is too narrow since he was not the only Sith Lord. Jtmichcock 02:10, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah davis

Incomplete nomination by 195.92.40.49 (talk • contribs). Leithp (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand per 49 Google News hits. Of course also move to Deborah Davis. Punkmorten 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough, but major expansion and updating required, and move per above as well. 23skidoo 22:02, 7 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. Enochlau 09:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oven rack guard

Delete : apparent advertisement for product, already edited-out elsewhere, added by probable spammer. --Zigger «º» 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree, a product ad. Bergsten 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Stifle 00:54, 9 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 02:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fish eaters

delete This never can be more than a dictionary definition. Mostly this is to promote this website. Term is no longer in use, as if it ever was used commonly. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dictdef. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Delete and redirect to Offensive terms per nationality, if this is accurate. —Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictdef. Also, I LOVE Fish and I'm Anabaptist! Ha! Catholics and Protestants aren't so different after all. Croat Canuck 02:00, 9 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 article has been merged and redirected by the involved parties. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk On Corners Special Edition Europe/USA

Talk On Corners Special Edition Europe/USA has now had all of it's information merged into the basic release page Talk on Corners. So this page is now surplus and should be deleted. Kevinalewis 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it has been properly merged, then replace the page with a redirect - #REDIRECT [[Talk on Corners]]. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. - Mike Rosoft 16:47, 7 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] 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freon star

Google search for "Freon star" gives only five (irrelevant) hits; two more for "Freon stars". I suspect it is either a hoax, or some obscure crackpottery. Delete unless verified. - Mike Rosoft 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy userfy (done). Yes, you're right, this was pretty much made up on the spot. I'm impressed it was caught within twenty minutes. It's interesting to think about, though, perhaps these could actually exist somewhere. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[[30] is so odd...]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of purported cults

Previous AfD discussions:

• Talk:List of purported cults/Delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cults
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deadly cults
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements

I re-nominate the article for deletion due to inherent WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problems. The four months since the last debate have proven, that it is beyond repair.

The intention of the article is to present a list groups which are named "cult" in the media. No reference to scholarly research on this topic has been provided by the contributors, so they replace that with their own research. Starting with a selection, which media outlets should be considered most authorative. (British Broadcasting Corporation, Encarta online encyclopedia, The Guardian, The New York Times, Salon.com, Washington Post, if you bother). Then there is the equivalent of the one drop rule in place: A group is added to the list, if it is named "cult" in one article of one source.

Pjacobi 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All attempts and proposals have been rejected, with the negative result of a status-quo that is not acceptable. Delete as per nom or implement one of many proposals raised to NPOV the article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to List of groups referred to as cults, a list sorted by the number of reputable sources as per WP:V. Those groups with more sources at the top, thpoose with less at the bottom) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep So if it's hard to make a certain list, we shouldn't try? Or not try until every last person is happy, which again reduces to never making the list, or making an empty list, since members of groups so fingered would always complain, no matter how it is done? Does anyone envision us ever making a list of, not cults, but even purported cults, that everyone is going to agree on, especially members of the groups listed? Should we just remove 'negative' words from the language, since those described by them disagree with those words being applied to them? In any case, I don't think it is a violation of NPOV to state that a certain source has declared a certain group to be a cult, it's just a fact. Whether the original source is NPOV or not is a different question for a much different day. We shouldn't avoid hard subjects just because we're always going to have bitching and moaning. Or should we?Tommstein 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are good questions but not applicable here, IMO. There where proposals made that could have resolved the dispute that you, amongst others, chose to ignore and continued editing the article without attempting to find a resolution. I find your characterization of "bitching and moaning", unacceptable as it assumes bad faith on the part of many editors that have attempted constructively to resolve the dispute. Status quo is not an option, not when a disputed tag is on the page for several months. We either find a solution that gains consensus, or this article will remain in disputed land and will end up on AFD again and again. Note that the issue is not that is not NPOV to say that the Guardian referred to People's Temple as a cult. The issue is that to have NPOV, all conflicting views needs to be presented, and that is not the case here. One small mention in a periodical is enough for inclusion, a one drop rule that is unacceptable in such a controversial article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't go around falsely accusing people of crap. I only recently made my first edit to that page (a couple of weeks or so ago, I would guess), and I haven't seen any grand proposals for fixing it; in fact, when I asked a question, I never got a response from anyone. It's undoubtedly easier to make up false accusations against people, but please don't. As to the Jehovah's Witness that keeps messing up the article, he hasn't presented any solutions to fix the article, he's just trying like hell to put his group in the most favorable light possible by making up all-new 'non-unanimous' categories pretty much just for his group, while apparently being unaware that his proposed category is exactly the way the present categories work (and that there are a lot of groups on there that have a lot less sources next to them than his). Are you saying that if I want an article to change, I just have to slap a disputed tag on there, and leave it "for several months" until I get whatever it is I want? Members of these groups are going to dispute the article no matter what we do. I do not foresee all such members coming to a consensus that they are in fact cult members. In such a case, the decisions have to be made without them, whether everyone is happy or not. How do you propose presenting their side of this, posting statements next to each source where each group declares 'we say that we're not a cult?'Tommstein 07:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep with POV tag. We cannot have a precedent that equates citing sources with original research. There is an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there can be an article about this. This list has improved over time. Gazpacho 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In my not so humble opinion, citing sources can be original research. This is not only a serious problem in the cult articles, but in the pseudoscience category as well. There are zillions of primary sources for all sort of positions. Selecting and weighting these, instead of relying on secondary sources (academic studies of the topic, review articles) is original research. --Pjacobi 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make something original research, unless we outlaw primary sources as being against the original research policy. Then again, these sources in question aren't raw scientific studies or anything of the sort anyway; the authors presumably obtained facts from wherever, and evaluated them; those facts were presumably obtained from somewhere else also, etc.Tommstein 07:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my point. An encyclopedia would better outlaw raw primary sources as as original research in non-trivial cases. --Pjacobi 07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this isn't the place to discuss changing the encyclopedia's original research policy. Press articles aren't raw primary sources anyway.Tommstein 08:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Press articles wouldn't necessarily be raw primary sources for List of cults, but they are for List of purported cults. See arguments at previous AfD. Also note, that the current list doesn't care at all, what the article in question is saying about the group in question, but only whether it is called "cult" somewhere in it. --Pjacobi 08:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The "purported" is there to make it clear that the "cult" designation is not absolute, and that people have to source entries. It supports the very policies you claim that it violates. Gazpacho 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A proposal was made to name the article List of groups referred to as cults in the media but was not accepted. If it was accepted, this AfD, would have been redundant. Such a name for the article would made it clear that the groups included may or may not be cults, only that they were referred as such in the media. Why do you think it was not accepted? That is the real question.... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the article would then be misnamed probably had something to do with it. There are government reports, cult-watching organizations, all kinds of other stuff besides the media. "Purported" serves the purpose just fine, as Gazpacho pointed out above.Tommstein 06:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and protect page from further nominations for deletion. Come on, if its survived twice, does it really need a third try? Its obviously valid. POV it and get on with trying to improve it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- the article as written seems to be about as NPOV as it can get, it serves a useful purpose to people studying New Religious Movements, and the system is designed to err on the side of inclusion when no consensus can be reached. IMHO that is a reasonable position to take -- keep as is, NPOV tag and all. Haikupoet 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — nicely referenced list; encyclopedic information. — RJH 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Haikupoet and RJH --Irmgard 22:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --but narrow list of cults to those assemblies whose founder has not died and still guides the cult. Any organization with enough stability to survive the death of its founder has passed from cult to movement. Endomion 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - hating the idea of the article does not make it deletable - David Gerard 14:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and narrow the citera for inclusion to news programs, papers and periodicals only.--HistoricalPisces 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep will always be controversial, but intro gives adequate context to understand the inherent POV nature of "purported" CarbonCopy 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per others who voted keep in this and two previous AfDs. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:51, 13 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 02:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People with an Aquarius sun sign, People with a Gemini sun sign, People with a Taurus sun sign, People with a Leo sun sign, People with a Capricorn sun sign, People with a Libra sun sign

The logical conclusion to this list is to have 12 lists, one for each sign, which combine to include every single person who has a page on wikipedia. My personal feeling is that this is a bit exessive, the lists will grow way out of control, and that a list like this isn't really necesarry anyway. Keep in mind that birthdates are already covered under dates. For example, February 7 mentions that Charles Dickens was born that day, so there's no need to aggregate all of these people intro astrological signs. --Bachrach44 17:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I fully agree with Bachrach44 --Neigel von Teighen 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. these are lists, not categories. users who don t like them can simply ignore them. other users interested in western astrology will find these infinitely more referable than looking up separate lists for each day - here people of the same sun sign ll be all in one list. -Mayumashu 17:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• That's a bad argument, though. Don't like vanity? Just ignore them! Don't like hoaxes? Just ignore them! Don't like vandalism? Just ignore them! Delete for being unencyclopedicApostrophe 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

if you don t like sports, delete it, if you don t like music, delete it - the counterargument to this in its extreme is as foolish too. my point was different (i admit unexplained). if these lists are in category form, people will say they are not important enough to warrant cats since the cat name would appear on every person page and that is far less ignorable. people without interest in this topic don t have to visit these pages, and in that way they are ignorable. whatever - the matter does boil down to if people consider these cats encyclopedic or not, as you mention as well. i think they are, every other user to vote here thus far feels they are not (more by gut reaction (this is non-science, superstition) than logical argument (this is of passing interest to many - has a worldwide audience as interesting trivia; and it isn t vanity). encyclopedicness is in drawing a line in the grey zone importance - what s important to any of us will vary). -Mayumashu 05:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• note:AFD nomination was done with just People with an Aquarius sun sign. After that I noticed several other similar pages and decided to combine them for the sake of simplicity. Vote is still Delete. --Bachrach44 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it may be relevant to note someone's sign in an article about them, these lists are not encylopedic. Cmadler 17:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I looked at some of these pages and they have very few entries so they are not usable as they stand. If the creator wishes to compile more comprehensive lists before submitting them, they might be considered useful for those researchers who want to compare character traits, as I am not aware of any other way of finding lists of people by birthdate on Wikipedia (though I'm sure there will be something similar somewhere on the Web, in which case why go to the trouble of duplicating it?). The Astrological Association certainly has data of this sort. Actually, lists of people by birthdate would be more useful and more manageable than by sun sign. In any case, if someone is born around the 18th-22nd of the month, it is impossible to be sure of their sun sign without some complicated calculations, and knowing their time of birth as well. I trust the compiler realizes this. --Shantavira 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

the ideas are to have the lists as any page expand gradually over time. people with birthdays from the 18 to 22 could be treated with asteriks until they re properly calculated signs were determined. no sight on the net has compiled a list as long as there can potential be. -Mayumashu 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not useful. Quite frankly, a list like that would go on forever in theory, taking up way too much space for an issue only a few care about. Coolgamer 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is the dawning of the age of delete allious. A textbook category situation at best, as a list offers nothing in this situation that a category doesn't. And, frankly, I think they'd be pretty stupid categories regardless. Lord Bob 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd like to register a similar voice to everyone else. These would make categories rather than lists. STUPID categories, but categories nontheless. Mo0[talk] 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Bachrach44. --Edcolins 22:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While an article on astrology might be appropriate, this is definitely not encyclopedic. Users wishing this info should hit the New Age section of their favorite bookstore. Denni ☯ 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- it is one thing to describe obsolete thinking and/or pseudoscience. It is entirely a different matter to espouse it in an encyclopedia. Haikupoet 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. I have no problem with articles on astrology, but this is just silly. It can be deduced from their birthdates. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

but the point again there is that birthdates are on separate pages and in chronological order. these lists would be on one page and in alphabetical order, far more referable. -Mayumashu 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This needs to go. Eusebeus 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Eusebeus.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Here are my reasons:

1. It's extra work for people (like me) categorizing bio articles to look that up. Especially since, unlike birth-death-nationality it's not apparent. You have to go look up the sun sign based on the date.
2. It's trivia.
3. Even if you believe in Astrology, a person's sun sign tells you nothing useful. You have to run a chart.
4. It would be basically only the fourth category that would apply to everyone (after birth-death-nationality). It's just a huge amount of data and work. Maybe a bot could do the work, I don't know. But still.
5. I'm not super enthusiastic about seeming to endorse superstition. Herostratus 20:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nobody's that interested in astrology are they? Categories are sufficient. Stifle 00:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Martg76 20:09, 10 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 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A love story from romsås

0 google hits seals it for me. Punkmorten 17:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as per Punkmorten. Sounds like nonsense, but sadly not patent nonsense. CLW 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yikes. Unverifiable, wrongly titled, probably doesn't even exist... Sam Vimes 13:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sam Vimes. Stifle 00:54, 9 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.