Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deletion by User:Jdavidb. Closing because A. This is under DRV now, B. Unless I'm misreading, *community* (vs. new anon) consensus supports deletion, and C. Guidelines clearly support deletion. I'm sure this won't be uncontroversial, but DRV can elect to relist this if they feel it's best. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quailtard

Previously {{prod}}ed with the reason: Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary (from User:JiFish). "Quailtards" isn't "Truthiness" (from User:CrypticBacon. This term is not widespead enough for inclusion. Gets 5 google hits. Delete. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Actually it gets 6! google hits now...

• Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a one-time joke; not likely to ever be encyclopedic. --Allen 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. — TheKMan^talk 00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What makes this different from every other Daily Show joke that will be forgotten by next week? Exactly. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avalon 05:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident#Comments and satire. That we're even discussing this is silly. I added it to WP:BJAODN. --User At Work 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• While I plan to introduce the phrase "wingless qualitards" as often as I can into future conversations, it's a single joke from a TV show -- on basic cable, no less. Delete. --Calton | Talk 11:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Well if you thought it should be deleted, why isn't it still {{prod}}? Delete. r3m0t ^talk 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bungopolis 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FYI, the article has been BoingBoing'd, which should explain the influx of unsigned votes. Kamek 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep it. Or is Wikipedia really so boring and its editors so literal??? --Michael.slavitch 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC) User's first edit --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. But no more boring than, say, Ottawa or Winnipeg. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that BoingBoing outed this not to save quailtards, but to show that Wikipedia nannies are loons. You've already lost.

• Delete per nom. Voting is being influenced by BoingBoing appearance. This is not significant. --Mysteriojack 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The keep nominations are likely sockpuppets. They aren't even signed.--Adam ^(talk) 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - No need to delete it now. If it really is as transient as the 'Delete' voters claim, it can be deleted in a few months. But I've observed several people "in the wild" using it, so it might actually be a lasting word. --Brouhaha 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its not encyclopedia worthy, its a temporary word that isn't even central to the Cheney hunting controversy. But it is probably not worth trying to fight the newbies coming here from the BoingBoing article link to vote keep, I've seen this phenomenon before in relation to the Fark.com fad. --Ben Houston 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Michael Slavitch's comment. Mdahmus 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. But you'll probably have to redo this again anyway, given that BoingBoing is now going to be sending hordes to stuff the ballot box. I like BB, but I wish crowds' reactions were a bit more considered. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a friggin' pop culture manual. Daily Show is great, but this isn't a Daily Show wiki. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Of course you should keep it. Duh. --64.171.214.254 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - patently unencyclopedic. Cyde Weys 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Brouhaha's comment. --digital_me 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Come on, it's not doing any harm. Lighten up. Pariah23 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --- This very commotion will make Quailtard worth keeping. 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Funny and compelling...and likely to stick around. And besides, what the heck do you have against BoingBoing? I consult both your sites equally...

• So this is where USENET net.kooks go to die. Michael Slavitch 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep: all it takes is a BOING BOING notice to bring them out. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have speeded this. I'm probably WP:IAR here, but I'm concerned that with a high-traffic site focusing attention here, there will be enough obstructive activity from folks coming in that this page will stick around too long and change the fact that there are presently on five Google hits. That would cause Wikipedia to be responsible (partially) for creating a new term, which in my opinion is a very damaging thing. (This is my answer to all of you folks who say things like "it's not doing any harm," which is a comment completely irrelevant to the purpose and rules of Wikipedia.) The article itself documents that the Daily Show created this word just this week. In my opinion, there is no way in the world that a "new term" created this week is presently notable. It should not be listed here until society is using it (and even then, we are not a dictionary). And we should be very, very careful to make sure we do not cause society to begin using it. For this reason, I felt somebody had to act quickly to delete this. Any admin may reverse my actions, and I won't complain, in which case count my vote as a definite delete. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Too late buddy. By your own actions you've just done it. Michael Slavitch 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Listed on Deletion Review. If you don't like criteria for speedy deletion, don't invent your own, move to alter the criteria. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Good. Considering this on deletion review is the right way to handle it. As I said, if you convince a single admin to recreate it, I'm cool with that and will let the community sort it out. Check out WP:IAR some time. It means we don't let the encylopedic quality of the project become a casuality to process. But it also means that if I IAR and some other admin disagrees, we default back to the existing process. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've checked out WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Both strike me as incredibly overly flexible clauses that allow anyone to circumvent rules at their whim. No offense to you. It's just I think you exercised very poor judgment in letting your personal opinion circumvent the right way to go about this. I agree with your end result, but not your means. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, that's cool. I agree that you are well within your rights to express your disagreement, to request review, etc. If you can convince any admin to give this a shot at AfD, I won't protest if they undo my actions. If you can convince Deletion Review to put it back, that'll be fine with me as well. I don't know how I can be any more amenable. Those policies are for precisely situations where we have to get to certain end results with certain means that are ordinarily proscribed. As for the possibility that WP:IAR might be overly flexible, if you don't like the policy, I suggest you move to have it altered. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• not that many mentions --Geedubber 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a few days. If you keep this up, you'll be forced to have a long entry. Michael Slavitch 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Leave it alone. It is currently redirected to the incident it describes, and I don't see anything particularly bad about that. Cdcon 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a joke repository. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --Hansnesse 02:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Schwantes

While this appears to be a viable article to begin with, the actress in question has 1. no Google presence at all, 2. no entry on the German Wikipedia, and 3. some rather dubious credits ("Suck my dick" comes to mind). Ziggurat 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete. Not verifiable. Mukadderat 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as impossible to verify. Tagged as {{hoax}}, since it probably is. Feel free to remove if I'm wrong... --Kinu ^t/_c 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All the titles that I checked appear on the Internet Movie Database (yes, including the one specifically mentioned by the nominator), but Marion Schwantes has no IMDb entry at all. If the films in a performer's filmography are listed by IMDb but not the performer himself/herself, either the performer is extremely non-notable or just a hoax. --Metropolitan90 02:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan --Ruby 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. TheRingess 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan90. Cnwb 06:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Century 21 Thomas

Unencyclopediac; does not seem to be a notable business enterprise. It seems there is not a need to have an encyclopedia article for every realty office. Accurizer 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising. Oliver Crow 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a franchisee of Century 21 Real Estate; thus, it fails WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. —ERcheck @ 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement --Ruby 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisment. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an ad Avalon 05:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just an ad Sperril 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not enough info given to establish notability. VegaDark 08:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn ad. Kuru ^talk 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an advert. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion03

Delete - page is Advertising. Page claims that Fusion03 is a secure application framework, but I can find no other reference to it. The linked external site appears to be a services company - Fusion 03 creative design, but there is no mention of an application framework product on their site. In any event this page is an example of Advertising. Oliver Crow 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I find nothing but Wikimirrors when I search for +fusion03+owasp. Legitimacy doubted. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - two unique ghits. Camillus (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Tip: just add -wikipedia to your search to remove wikipedia and mirrors from results. Camillus (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 03:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. eLNuko 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to be dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Crotty

Delete. I apologize. A good professor, but the article is just a resume without claims of notability. Professors are supposed to write articles. The question is how people evaluate them. Google search gives several dozen of various Jameses Crotties. If exclude most notorious ("James Crotty" -"american express" -"wildlife" -artist -photography), of remaining 300 unique google results I failed to find any third-party discussionss of the importance of this person besides various resumes. Mukadderat 00:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep 76 hits on Google Scholar Dlyons493 Talk 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he wrote a number of articles during his long life (as all professors do). Mukadderat 02:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Avalon 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The criterion on WP:BIO explicitly states, "Is this person more notable than the average college professor?" Take your problem with this (deeply flawed, IMO) criterion to the relevant talk page; keep it off AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is mentioned by name for his economic ideas in publications like Business World and Journal of Economic Issues. Note: this isn't quoting one of his publications, but the man himself. I can give you examples if you like.--Commander Keane 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Obviously meets standards for published writers. Monicasdude 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Monicasdude. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing outstanding in the trade Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Three dozen of quotations (half of which in his own papers) is not what I would call "heavily quoted". Unless we want wikipedia be Who Is Who (what!!! no article for "Who's'Who"?) for all untold billions of ever living people. mikka (t) 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article IS just a resume: it's lifted from James Crotty's home page [1]. I'm not sure that James Crotty can be considered more notable than average, either: on what basis are we making that comparison? I'm a prof myself, but definitely less notable than average, and I get more hits on Google Scholar than this guy, and more hits on Google than ""James Crotty" +economics": loose evidence to be sure, but I figure he should have passed that test easily if he really deserves a WP entry. The article needs to establish that he is, in fact, a more-notable-than-average professor, and it doesn't, and I doubt he is. Mangojuice 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no evidence that anything this man wrote had a readership of more than 5,000. Most academic articles have a readership in the hundreds. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In tying in with my 'keep' above I'll provide some evidence. I think we are here to descide if the person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The state of the article is irrelevent - it can be improved at any time (unless it's deleted of course). I found these pieces of evidence using the subcription base Factiva. I think if a person is quoted in the general media (newspapers in this case) then that is some sort of notability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, can we afford to keep this guy?
  • The Boston Globe. 21 December 2003. "Pollin's UMass-Amherst colleague, James Crotty, says the best way to understand the mixed messages - splurge or scrimp? - is to realize that the economy faces two big challenges."
  • Dollars & Sense. 1 July 2003. "The second paradox is what University of Massachusetts economist James Crotty calls the neoliberal paradox."
  • Daily Hampshire Gazette. 3 February 1997. "Unemployment rates are low, but there's a lot of churning in the market," said James Crotty, a professor of economics at UMass"--Commander Keane 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Daily Hampshire Gazette is a local paper; the other two are good IMO. Still, I don't think a couple of quotes in newspapers makes a great case here. Maybe if he was interviewed by a reputable paper or magazine... but anyone can get quoted now and then. As for state of article: you're right, but we delete articles all the time if they don't claim the notability of their subject. Mangojuice 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This reads like a CV/resume, which is certainly user-page material and not encyclopedia material. Vanity violation. Cdcon 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Papers don't confer notability, as per the guidelines for inclusion of academics. If he's written and published books, I'd reconsider. Stifle 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.Strong academic career and many papers on macroeconomics and Keynes. Robert Brenner several times responded to his critiques. Check his web site for details.

Also Mukadderaat, who are you that you decide who is a good or notable professor and who is not. Yo u most probably haven't done 1 percent of what he has done for economics. Ramil--71.195.182.195 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Response of Robert Brenner, prominent American economist to Crotty's critique. http://www.tidsskriftcentret.dk/index.php?id=165

Mukkaderat, do you know what is American Economic Review? If you know you should also know that economists are not published in this journal. Your stance is biased and most probably stems from your dislike of the heterodox economics.

• Copyvio with [2] - I can't believe no one here did a simple Google Search for the string "James Crotty". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you read above you will see that the copyvio is noted. We are debating the notability of this person. The quality of the article is irrelevant.--Commander Keane 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshi Haruki

Only notability seems to be Haruki's theorem and Haruki's lemma (neither yet created). Perhaps an article for Haruki's theorem should be created and this article merged into it, but if neither of those deserves an article, neither does he. -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (I can never remember whether I'm supposed to but the vote in the opening)Weak Keep. See comment below. I don't know if it's proper to withdraw the nomination, but I'd like to do so, if allowed. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. He is very notable - List of publications gives 81 publications on the American Mathematical Society. This means he was involved in the derivation of 81 new theorems. This needs to be expanded. Blnguyen 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have access to MathSciNet -- however, although 81 publications is an indication of notability, not all publications indexed in MathSciNet are actually referreed, nor does a publication in a referreed journal necessarily have a new theorem. However, I'll accept Honsberger below as a strong indication that the theorem is, at least, notable. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: For someone as old as he is, it's not surprising that he has that many publications, especially when one considers that there is some duplication of work and additional expository articles on that work. I find that looking through his publication list, it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy although the fact that he has kept up production is a testament to his work ethic. On the other hand, he has published in some respectable journals (although not so prestigious to make it an automatic keep). I will abstain, but my inclination is that unless the results cited in the nom are of such significance and/or his other activities (perhaps as educator, influential figure, etc.) are significant, I don't particularly feel compelled to vote keep. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He's got a write-up here: Honsberger, R. "Haruki's Cevian Theorem for Circles." §12.4 in Episodes in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Euclidean Geometry. Washington, DC: Math. Assoc. Amer., pp. 144-146, 1995. --Ruby 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable mathemetician as per B. L. Nguyen. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. Monicasdude 14:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article must be expanded, of course. --Neigel von Teighen 14:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. --Terence Ong 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Haruki's Theorem. Multiple references - just do a Gsearch <Haruki theorem mathematics>. —ERcheck @ 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Request: With the nomination being withdrawn by original nominator and no delete votes, can this be made a speedy keep? —ERcheck @ 01:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in his field. WesternMustang 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in field. --Dogbreathcanada 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was belated speedy keep, incorrect nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A kiss could be deadly/Temp

I have asked the creator to only make temp pages from his/her own user page. Bobby1011 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

comment...which begs the question "why?" In any case, it hardly seems like a reason for deletion. This band gets some tens of thousands google hits, and appears to have done some touring, so they would be very likely to reach the notability level for an article. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The user likely created the page by following the link provided in the CopyVio text at A kiss could be deadly, which is legitimate grounds for having a subpage in the Main namespace. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I read the A kiss could be deadly page with the copyrights violation tag. You're right, it's shouldn't be deleted. But it will have to be deleted once the text is transfered, or won't it? Bobby1011 06:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• The temp page will be deleted by the administrator who settles the copyvio issue. Microtonal 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination should probably not have arisen. It was correct of the creator to make a temp page, as that is what you do when a copyvio arises. Stifle 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slad

Looks like an ad. Delete ILovePlankton 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, wikify and format, valid stub. It seems to be a real town in Gloucestershire. [3] Great name, too. — Smerdis of Tlön 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable place. How the heck does "Slad (or Slad Valley) is a village in Gloucestershire, England off the Stroud District. The B4070 runs through it and it lies between Gloucester and Cirencester." sound like an ad.? Jcuk 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see how you could think this was an ad. Chairman S. | Talk 12:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the nominator, I reworded the article somewhat; the original version said that it was a good way to get from Gloucester to Cirencester, and mentioned that there was a pub there. Smerdis of Tlön 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Smerdis of Tlön's rewrite.--Isotope23 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Punkmorten 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Zammit

Vanity article from Johnzammit. Not sufficiently notable.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ILovePlankton 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - CSD A7, tagged as such --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio --Ruby 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity.Blnguyen 06:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN bio, don't believe it qualifies as speedy as makes minor claims to notability. VegaDark 08:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy; the creator might have mistakenly created the page as a user page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of a censorship fork deleted by an overwhelming consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures). If you want to fork, get your own site. — Feb. 17, '06 [01:18] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free)

This censorship fork has already been up three different times for deletion under various names. Every time the overwhelming majority of votes were for delete. Last time was ten to one. Can we finally just delete this thing and lock it? Descendall 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I am the one who AfD'd this. Last time that this experiment was tried, it devolved into an article called "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures)" that ironically had several pictures of abuse, just the ones that a single editor decided were not "offensive." This is exactly the kind of thing that wikipedia doesn't need. --Descendall 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortwave transmitter Jülich

I'm not sure what to make of this. Ideas? Keep following improvements made to the article. Fang Aili 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Delete as empty article, boarderline speedy. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice picture with some decent information, but the image itself doesn't warrant an article. We can delete this article without losing the image, which will still exist at its image page. I will look into where to link this image so it doesn't get lost and/or forgotten. CrypticBacon 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The image is released to promote the capabilities of the thing, and the article is nothing but the image, so we are talking about a blatant ad --Ruby 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/o prejudice; perhaps an article could be written about the transmitter; here the picture is the article. Add link to the image from the Deutsche Welle page. Smerdis of Tlön 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised by Jcuk, Smerdis of Tlön 17:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ruby.Blnguyen 06:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as empty page. VegaDark 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep now that page has expanded. VegaDark 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep have expanded the article somewhat Jcuk 10:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the expanded article. Maybe rename, e.g. Deutsche Telekom Jülich shortwave transmitter? Fg2 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator, CrypticBacon. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asset recovery

Previous AfD nomination resulted in No Concensus, with 5 deletes and 4 keeps. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy. CrypticBacon 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as self-ref dicdef. See also my vote in the previous AFD. Stifle 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago. I fail to see any compelling reason to renom at this point. A simple google search shows that this is a business term that can be expanded. If the nom does not see any content then why not use some of those google hits, or even go right to google scholar, for material that can be added to the article. -- JJay 09:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps we could have some explanation for why the nom has previously speedy tagged this article, then left uncivil edit summaries with Kill This in all caps [4], nominated once for Afd, then placed a Prod tag [5] following survival on AfD in violation of Prod rules, and has now renominated for AfD. That is a lot of activity for two weeks for an article on a valid topic that can be improved. -- JJay 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• No problem! Because "This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy.", as stated in the nomination. --CrypticBacon 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• See above where I talk about expansion. That, or perhaps use of merge tags, would have been a reasonable approach as opposed to edit warring with the editors involved in the article. Furthermore, if you feel the information belongs somewhere else, why have you tried four times to have it removed? Why was no comment ever left on the article talk page?-- JJay 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn Sorry for violating protocol, I wasn't completely familiar with the the new prod rules. I have my doubts as to how good or thourough of an article this can become, but who knows, maybe it will turn into something more than a dicdef. Otherwise, if in several weeks it isn't expanded, we might just consider merging it into the aformentioned articles? What are your thoughts? --CrypticBacon 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's fine. Why not leave a message like that on article talk page? -- JJay 10:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Zelenka

Looks like vanity. Delete, unless notability is established. - Mike Rosoft 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Zelenka planned to become the world's tallest professional techno dancer at 7 feet 8 inches tall with a massive wingspan of over 14 feet." Right. Sounds like a poor man's Joe Zelenka. And isn't that a picture of Mike Jones? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I also find it funny how "someone" changed the information to something less likely to raise scrutiny (i.e., only 6'8" with a 6-7' wingspan) after it was caught. Maybe they should also change the part about Big Momma's House 2, which came out after this guy's supposed drug overdose. This is looking more like a BJAODN candidate by the minute. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Good catch Kinu - that picture of Mike Jones is this BET image. —ERcheck @ 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after reverting this AfD (blanked) I vote to get rid of it per Kinu --Ruby 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys do not know anything about John. Maybe next time you vote to delete a page you should know something about the topic. John did have a wingspan of 14 feet, he was almost 8 feet tall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs). 02:20, 17 February 2006

• • And vandalizing pages like you did to Beno Udrih is more legitimate how? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Even if the article were true, there is no assertion of notability. As supposedly being a well-known dancer in Columbia, South Carolina is not generally accepted as a claim to notability, I have applied the nn-bio tag to it. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate all of you, I hope you all die and rot in hell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs).} 05:26, 17 February 2006

• Delete.Blnguyen 06:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Please note: This isn't a personal assault on you. This is a review of the validity of the article. Don't attack us please and read wikipolicys. ---J.Smith 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 13:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. eLNuko 14:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. Mangojuice 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Revert--AlF 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Revert to what? Mangojuice 19:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. So this 8-foot-tall guy, his arms hung down to the ground? rodii 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7. Nothing personal. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 09:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete I wish you guys would understand that this is actually true! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs).
  • Ravithisis, even if it is true, it would probably be deleted. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7 nn-bio, possible G3 vandalism (obvious hoax). Stifle 22:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert C. Park

Notability is asserted, but judging by name of the author, this is likely to be vanity and nn.Blnguyen 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity --Ruby 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Videos appear to be referencing Subfighter, and online forum, rather than commercially produced. Delete per nom and WP:BIO. --Hansnesse 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 16:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and remove the link to this article from Robert Park. Vslashg (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for nn-bio/group. enochlau (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top NE Freshman Distance Boys

Highschool athleticlistcruft. Blnguyen 02:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Who else is missing?" Perhaps... anyone to make inclusion of this list worthwhile? --Kinu ^t/_c 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Could even be Speedied. Cnwb 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Ó Maoileoin

Appears to be written by owner of this website, which seems very amateurish and nn, resembling a blog. Blnguyen 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Clearly self-promotion, and not even very good at it. Fan 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Blatant WP:VSCA of the bloggy variety. If your website is hosted at freewebs.com, I'm going to guess you're probably not notable. Don't condone this behavior with a userfy, either. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn website --Ruby 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I request that this article be deleted. My intention was not self-promotion. I am a new user and I should have thought out my entry more carefully before I submitted it.--The Great Ó Maoileoin 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, then Delete. O tempora! O mores! O Maoileoin! -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Kudos to O Maoileoin for learning about Wikipedia inclusion policy, by the way. Hope you stick around. -ikkyu2 (talk)
• Delete as nn website, vanity. --Terence Ong 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus without prejudice against a redirect. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nufonia must fall

"Kid Koala wrote a book..." need I say more? Bobby1011 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not worthy of an article --Ruby 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly written. I was going to speedy it earlier for hoax/NN/made up in school, but decided otherwise once I found some hits for "Kid Koala" and "Nufonia must fall". —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It is an actual book (print or CD), found it on Amazon (ISBN 1550225588). It does not seem mainstream but author may have a cult following. I could see keeping it if it was written better. Accurizer 03:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This process is supposed to determine the subject's notability, not the standard of writing. Cnwb 23:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that non-notability is the only reason for deletion. (Then again, non-notability is such a slippery criteria for deletion anyway.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Hansnesse 03:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge content (if any is salvageable) to Kid Koala, which is not much more than a stub. dbtfz^talk 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Firstly, Kid Koala is a notable turntablist. I'd say this book is cerainly notable: A review from the BBC [6], on Popmatters [7], and from the Ninja Tunes website [8] are just three selections from the first page of Ghits. Cnwb 05:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Kid Koala. -- Dragonfiend 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have rewritten the article to make it more clear. It is a book released by a notable musician. Cnwb 23:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Kid Koala (indeed, a notable musician). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Inherited notability. Being a stub doesn't make an article deletable. I have to wonder, too, why User:Accurizer found the book on Amazon, but chose not to improve the article by adding the ISBN link. Certainly the article can be expanded with relevant and meaningful content by someone with more familiarity. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeley Davis

NN musician. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, too. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 03:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete nn artist --Ruby 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sparta (band). The guy is not notable enough to have his own article. dbtfz^talk 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep. The band is clearly notable. Who am I to say which of its members are? dbtfz^talk 06:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Member of notable band. Cnwb 06:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep hes in Sparta now and was in Denali/engine down Defunkier 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep Sparta have released at least two albums that does it for me Jcuk 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep Sparta have released at least two albums that does it for me Jcuk 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep Sparta has released two LP's which have been critically lauded internationally, as well as Keeley Davis' involvment in prominent indie bands from the US east coast - Denali and Engine Down. He's one of the more prominent members in the east coast/international music scene. On a personal, albeit biased note, if we're looking at his deletion, might as well delete Maura Davis, Denali and truncate Sparta's entry. Crewcial 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --maru (talk) contribs

[edit] Kawaii

An honest effort at bloating a dic-def of a non-English word.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No vote from me, I don't really think the supposed evidence of usage stands up to wiki's standards, and I'm prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep and tag for cleanup, as per discussion below. It seems like a reasonable entry to me, with considerable bits of useful information. The anime/manga community seems to have co-opted this word for its own purposes, and the aricle addresses that. It's notable, it's interesting, it contains useful information for a researcher; why would we want to delete it? --FreelanceWizard 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you consider "useful"? Or "notable"?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I consider the topic "notable" because I hear the word in this sense in common use, and I consider the article "useful" because if I were researching the anime/manga subculture in the US, this article would be a helpful source (along with the other articles in its categories). Your opinion, it would seem, differs. My vote remains keep, however. If you believe the article has problems, you can certainly improve it. Given your list of concerns below, perhaps it would be beneficial to alter the article to recast the term as something used by Americans, where the usage is apparently not the same as it is in Japan; better yet, one could make a comparison out of it. I can't comment on that, not being knowlegeable on Japanese culture. I agree with Ikkyu2 and Saberwyn on this one. --FreelanceWizard 07:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (I'm not sure how my comment here got mangled with someone's sig, or why other people took it upon themselves to mangle it further, but I've corrected it, I think. --FreelanceWizard 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

This is the same conclusion I've come to after hours spent banging my head against the brick wall that is certain users on the article's discussion page. While the word has been adopted by a specialist interest group, (which doesn't mean it's becoming a loanword) it's meaning has been altered in the process. The current article doesn't address this and operates under the mistaken idea that kawaii is some specific, defined style of anime / drawing / fashion. If this can be rectified then there may be a place for the article to define what the word has come to mean when used in manga and anime fan circles and then this can be contrasted with the meaning in Japanese. Barryvalder 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that etymologies that are limited to small fan circles are not presently considered worthy of Wikipedia articles, although they may be in the future. Do not correct me on my word choice with "small fan circles". While there is a considerable following in the US, there is no "altered meaning" for the word for the majority of these people, who merely use the word as-is, along with other "trendy" Japanese words that they have pulled from anime, such as "genki", "kakkoii", "ohayo" etc. If you can find some kind of proof that the word is being used in a non-Japanese fashion (that would be a loanword by the way) then it may be advisable to rewrite the article, but as you just stated the article doesn't address this issue and thus contains no valid information. As per the previous comment, if you were a researcher looking for information on Anime/manga culture ... wouldn't you rather check out anime (which explains the word kawaii) and manga?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My initial conclusion was that which I could make from the views of those who pushed the article for all they could. I was assuming, probably naively, that those people spoke for fans of anime and manga. Anime / manga fan culture is not my area. The everyday use and meaning of Japanese words is. If it's the case that fans of Japanese culture use the word with the same meaning as it holds in Japanese, and not as the name of a specific style etc, then the article is entirely without value beyond it's initial dictionary definition. As you note below, the vast majority of the article should either be employed elsewhere, or deleted outright. Barryvalder 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Freshgavin, I'd check out anime, manga, and anything else that looked interesting or relevant in the related topics or category sections. A good researcher doesn't just read one article and stop, especially when using a source of possibly dubious validity. By the way, I'm with Barryvalder and others on this; it should be kept, IMHO, but it should also be cleaned up. So, I'm altering my vote somewhat to keep and tag for cleanup. I really don't believe a strong case for deletion has been made, though there might be a case here for merging what may be useful from the article (which, again, is speaking more to US anime/manga subculture as far as I can tell) into another article and changing this into a redirect. --FreelanceWizard 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, now Weak keep per below. I think this one is a judgment call. I judge that the article should be kept; I can respect others' opinions that it might be unencyclopedic. I think, however, that since we are not to act as though we were constrained by space, and since this is clearly a good faith effort to explain the English-language significance of a loanword, that we should keep. If there were blatant advertising or evidence of other bad faith, I'd reconsider. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Loanword co-opted by the many and varied anime/manga fan communities. Also a cultural fad within Japan and the abovementined communities. However, it could do with some sources. -- Saberwyn 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It is not a cultural fad in Japan. It is merely a common adjective.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking of the "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" fad, which was apparently studied by Yamane Kazuma, along with the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media marketed and referred to by this term in Japan, the US, and Australia. -- Saberwyn 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're being sarcastic. If it was considered fashionable to be "cute" in hollywood, and the London Times posted an article that said so, would you consider that a reason to make "cute" a valid Wikipedia article? Also, the whole "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" section doesn't belong here anyways. It has nothing to do with the word "kawaii" except for the fact that girls like to write in a "cute" or "pretty" style. I would have thought the fact that the research was called "Female Teenage Writing" and not "Kawaii writing" would stand for that.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The one place that "the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media" isn't marketed and referred to by this term is in Japan itself. My conclusion from the endless war-of-words on the article's discussion page is that the fundamental misunderstanding over the words's use in it's native country is a huge factor in the unreliability of this article. "Animals are often drawn in excessively Kawaii style" one user insists on writing. What I've attempted to get across is that in Japan there is no such thing as Kawaii style, making the statement meaningless OR. If any article is to exist on this topic, it has to address the Japanese meaning and the meaning being given when used in English. Barryvalder 10:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Explained above. Also, the misunderstanding with "kawaii style" comes from the fact that it is common in Japanese to suffix "-kei" onto some adjectives which may be translated as "kawaii type" or "style", but there is no implication of a specific style of kawaii, simply that X is of a "cute"/"pretty" persuasion, as opposed to a "sexy"/"ugly"/"glamorous"/etc. one.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Even if you accept the validity of WP:WINAD as grounds for deleting anything, only articles that are just a definition and can never be more than just a definition fall squarely within its terms. What's already there already brings it out of its purview, and the fact that someone considers the additional encyclopedic information "bloating" overextends the category. Smerdis of Tlön 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "bloating" was that the editors (particularly one) was adding inutile information to make the article look much bigger than it actually should be. The accusations of cultural influence and transition to English are completely unfounded.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they original research? We don't have to exclude completely unfounded theories, or "accusations" as you jokingly call them; we just have to source them. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really want to classify it as "original research", though there is obviously quite a bit of that. I'm just more concerned about the collections of material that has no relation to the actual word, many of them POV.

• Kawaii characters typically (but not exclusively) are drawn with large eyes and small noses and mouths (this comment refers to anime style, which has no relation to the word kawaii)
• Pets are often drawn in a kawaii style (this statement means nothing more than "pets are drawn cutely")
• Kawaii characters generally have angelic personalities (original research, I see no reason why the author would want to say this if not just to get a picture of his favourite anime character added to the page)
• Kawai is a Japanese term (it's not a term, its a word. by saying "term" the author is trying to bloat its importance)
• Kawaii should not to be confused with "kowai" (Japanese speakers have very little trouble distinguishing the two words, this is a statement fit for an introduction to Japanese textbook)
• The term can be subjective as Kawaii can be used to describe anything an individual considers cute which can include attractive women. (a completely worthless statement. Saying an adjective is "subjective" is no more useful than saying that "good" is POV)
• Kawaii merchandise is extremely popular in Japan (should say "cute/pretty things are popular [to certain groups] in Japan" and be moved to "Japanese culture")
• The two largest manufacturers of such merchandise are Sanrio (manufacturers of "Hello Kitty") and San-X. (original research, sourceless, and POV)
• The proliferation of mechandise regarded as kawaii is considered by some to be an expression of a female-led youth movement (equals: girls like cute things. Useless information.)
• Kawaii can be also used to describe fashions. (another useless statement. It is a widely used adjective and can be used to describe almost anything you like, much like "cute" or "pretty" can. The author then goes on to describe fashions that are considered cute in Japan, which should be part of "Japanese culture")
• When the kawaii 'craze' began to develop in Japan during the 1970s (sourceless OR. A correct statement would refer to the "boom" that Japan experienced in the early 1980s, thus allowing women greater freedom of choice in fashion, another tidbit for the "Japanese culture" article, or possibly one on the boom itself)
• Previously Japanese writing had been written vertically using strokes that vary in thickness along their length. The new style was written laterally, preferably using a mechanical pencil to produce very fine, even lines. (absolutely rediculous OR statements. Japanese has been written horizontally as well as vertically for more than a hundred years, nothing to do with "cuteness". Mechanical pencils are just another example of influence from western cultures, again nothing to do with "cuteness".

I don't have the patience to pick out any more of this article's flaws. It's pure junk.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, it seems your criticisms are on the grounds of verifiability. I confess that when I see this sort of writing, my instinct is to assume good faith. I don't have any way of verifying either your assertions or those in the article. Will change my vote to "weak keep" to reflect this. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I commend you on assuming good faith. I called this AfD because I felt it should be deleted on the grounds of it being a Japancruft dicdef. Most of the points I just complained about above have been deleted before (in fact, the whole article has been deleted recently) and I didn't really feel like trying to rectify all those points before listing it for deletion as a one line dicdef, basically throwing myself into the edit war that already exists. As it is, I'm listing the first line of the article for transwiki (the article already exists) and the rest of it is trash and should be deleted.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Terence Ong 08:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete now Rewrite needed This article, as it stands, is horrendously inacurate. The article is full of OR, pointless information and misunderstandings as shown by User:Freshgavin who expertly picked the article to pieces above. My main objection with the article is the fundamental misunderstanding of the word's use in Japan. It means cute, adorable, darling etc and that's it. What is put forward by some authors of this article is that kawaii is a specific style or writing (it isn't), a specific type of animation (it isn't), a specific type of fashion (it isn't) etc. I've been attempting for a few days to correct this misunderstanding, but some users are insistent on the existence of a specific, definable kawaii style. My conclusion is that the word has gained a different, distinct meaning when used in English. The Japanese meaning and meaning when used by fans of Japanese culture are two different things. If this is the case any article on the topic has to make this clear from the start. A large percentage of the article is also given over to the idea that the word is becoming a loanword in English. This has stood with essentially zero evidence save for Gwen Stafani saying it in a video (while in Japan, it's worth noting), and more recently, a list of words created by past and present students at some university in America. The article needs to be torn down and started from scratch (if at all). Barryvalder 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — CJewell (talk to me) 12:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite per Barryvalder. I've deleted the loanword reference from the article because there is zero evidence sourced that this is truly becoming a loanword (linked "source" is problematic and you can see my argument against it and Barryvalder's better argument on the Talk page). I'm slapping it with a disputed tag for now because while I think it should be kept, there are legitimate concerns about the factual accuracy of the usage of this word in English that need to be resolved through better sourcing.--Isotope23 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, you didn't say why you thought it should be kept!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, because I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion.--Isotope23 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Not everything here's going to be Masterpiece Theatre, folks, and while this is admittedly an example of something that makes baby otaku cry, it's an honest attempt to define something beyond the simple scope of a dicdef (though, again, admittedly in need of work). I have heard from a friend about the kawaii handwriting phase, though to be honest, that probably deserves to go into another article, if not its own, as it has minimal bearing on the this. If not, redirect to Moé, since it's a similar concept (and probably what some of the authors of the original article had in mind).--み使い Mitsukai 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And unlike kawaii, moe (hepburn please) is encyclopedaeic material (slightly unfortunately), as it has a super-slang like status in Japan, describing a concept/culture/fad/state of mind? and is not simply a part of speech.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but where moe (I actually prefer the Hepburn, I just copied from the article's redirect) is the slang term there, kawaii seems to be gaining currency as the slang term here. As I said before, the article needs better justification than it's got right now, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. In any case, if we cannot save the article, that is why I recommended a redirect as a fallback. I don't think outright deletion is going to do any good in this case, but if no one can come up with a good reason for the existence of it as a seperate entity, then there are other ways of dealing with the issue.--み使い Mitsukai 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one more note. A "delete and rewrite" vote would make more sense than a "keep and rewrite" vote because it would actually force a rewrite, whereas keeping it almost guarantees that it won't be "completely" rewritten at all. Also, a redirect implies a "delete and redirect".  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianGCrawfordMA (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep and Rewrite. Having lived in Japan for several years, I can tell you that "kawaii" (or "cute", since many young people there use the words interchangeably) is definitely a cultural aspect of Japan. Even big tough guys can be very frequently seen with cutesy character goods (such as Hello Hitty). "Kawaii" permeates the culture in Japan. The post office has cute mascot characters; almost every corporation has cute mascots; it really is everywhere. I do agree that the article needs some work, but it absolutely should not be deleted. --nihon 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that cuteness is very popular in Japan. That information should be represented within the culture of Japan article. A huge problem with this article is the fundamantal misunderstanding that the word kawaii represents a definable, distinct style or movement (wether it be anime/clothing/writing/etc). Living in Japan, you'll be aware that if you went into a manga shop and asked for the kawaii comics you'd get met with blank expressions. There's no such thing, just subjective judgement. This article, if it's to exist at all, can be made up of two or three sentences. The rest of the details as it stands are sourceless, lacking in evidence, and worthless POV. Barryvalder 08:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Culture of Japan article is too long as it is. This is absolutely a distinct cultural concept and is worth it's own article. As for walking into a comic shop and asking for "kawaii comics", you would be met with blank stares because they would assume you were a stupid gaijin, not because they wouldn't know what you're talking about. No, there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics", but that's because "kawaii" is so ingrained in the culture. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The culture of Japan can be any length it needs to be. With regards your startement as to how Japanese people will react to a question based on the race of the person asking it, well that is a very daft arguement Nihon. Would Japanese shop staff regard Africans as "stupid blacks" for asking the same question? Best to keep your sweeping generalisations and borderline racism to yourself.

Where do you get off calling me racist? If you can't form a coherent argument without calling someone racist, then I suggest you find someplace else to play. It's no more racist than how you'd be met in any other country in the world when asking a stupid question of a shopkeeper. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this as it's getting wildly off topic, but your asertation that Japanese shop staff will respond to customers based on the race of the customer is an incredbibly daft thing to say. It lacks any kind of basis and then you go on to give a sweeping anthropological statement covering ever member of the human race. This is even more rediculous. With such a comment you are treading a very thin line between generalisation and just plain ignorance, but I'm fairly certain you didn't understand the implications of what you wrote, so I can only ask you be more careful with your sweeping generalisations in future. This is a place for factual discussion, not the place for your very own sociological and anthropological conclusions. Barryvalder 23:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As you say yourself, "there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics."" The fact that there is this kind of specific, defined "kawaii style" is something most of the article hinges on. As we've long since established this isn't the case, the only information left is that cuteness is highly very valued in Japan. This can be summed up in two or three sentences and doesn't require all sorts of guff telling us what things might be regarded as cute. Barryvalder 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a translation of the Japanese article would nicely flesh-out this article. Nothing has been established here. There are just a few people telling a larger group that what they've observed isn't really what they've observed. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What you've observed? That would be OR then. We're trying to created an article of fact backed up with evidence. Not what you, or anyone else, has observed and made a conclusion on. For the record, the Japanese article is a definition is a definition of the word and when and how it is used. It makes no reference to any kind of kawaii movement Barryvalder 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, article definately needs and deserves improvement. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering most of the false statements that I criticized were written by you, I'm shocked by your comment.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true, if it were criticism by someone else I would have listened. Someone who hasn't actively blanked cited sections or attempted to delete the article. You are questioning the "legitness" of cited sources, the other party claims Rice University is some place nobody has heard about... Really guys, obviously article is not a featured article yet. There needs to be improvement. OBVIOUSLY and country to your claims, it is imposible to visit japan and NOT run into SOMETHING that is a product of the kawaii kraze weather that is anime/manga merchendice or company mascot. There is no definate kawaii thing as it is so heavly integrated.

• Kawaii Craze is similar to the Comic craze of the US in thelate 30s to early 50ies. During the Golden Age of Comic Books superman merchendice etc sold at ridiclous levels. In the US more people are likely to know who superman is rather than who the president is. Any native english speaker may/should thake comic craze for granted. It is perfectly casual for people to wear superman outfits in haloween. You do not reference people wearing superman outfits as a product of "comic craze" even though thats what it is.
• Of course comic-craze and kawaii-craze are poor comparasions. After all Kawaii was never restricted to paper and has been an ongoing craze spreading overseas.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Barryvalder and clean up. Freshgavin, let me guess—you want to delete, right? rodii 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to make sense.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is, you started off saying "no vote from me" but you have commented on this page sixteen times, all of them rebutting people who want to keep the article. Why be coy? —rodii 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are just on a delete kick. Deleting this article will not make WP "make sense". It will, however, remove a decent article that only needs a little improvement in order to be better. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why Kawaii_Neko would vote support? ;-) Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, merging into Culture of Japan or Cuteness as this is a dictionary definition and original research functioning as nothing more than a place for hobbyists to accumulate trivia. Kawaii is just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Yes, cute things are popular in Japan, nobody's denying that. And they're also popular in many other places by other different names. People are trying to portray it as an intrinsic aesthetic or Deeper Thing like (for example) Wabi-sabi but it simply isn't so. You do not improve or clean up dicdefs, they simply don't belong here. To those pointing at the length of the article as its validation, I point out that a dicdef can be inflated to whatever size serves the author's agenda, as has happened here. The Crow 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Using your argument, the same could be said for "Cuteness": it's just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Unless you've lived in Japan, you won't likely know how much "kawaii" is ingrained in the culture there. "Kawaii" is everywhere in Japan. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, if we're pulling out the "who knows Japan" card, I have lived in Japan, I do speak Japanese, in fact I am married to a Japanese. I understand this may not be as sterling a credential as having memorized a dozen comic books, but believe me, I do know what kawaii is and what it is not. It's an adjective. It is not a concept. The Crow 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii is integrated into japanese culture and "kawaii kraze" in japan is like nowhere else. You didn't notice something everyone takes for granted (only happens if you are either "assimilated" into a culture (and hence ignore lots of obvious aspects) or if you are not a good observer and I do not believe it is the latter). The Kawaii-kraze is cited to exist by universities as well as various other notable works. Just because you havent noticed doesnt mean it doesnt exist. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit weary of being misrepresented on this subject. Yes, cute things permeate Japanese culture up and down, top to bottom, in and out and I've seen it firsthand. I have seen 50 year old men with Hello Kitty seatcovers on their cars. I'm not disputing that cute things are popular in Japan, mmkay? Nobody is disputing that. I'm disputing that "kawaii" is anything other than an adjective used to describe what someone's vision of cute is. It's always subjective. The Hello Hitty industry is not classified as "the kawaii industry" in Japan. Retailers do not order another lorry of "kawaii merchandise". There's no "kawaii" section of idol mags or manga shops or video rental places or clothing retailers or food or absolutely anything at all. There is no central authoritative body of work that can rule out something -not- being kawaii. Reading more than this into it is a common error of orientalism, the tendency of uninitiated Westerners to project novelty and significance onto elements of Asian culture beyond their true significance. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a long-standing and well-know concept within Japanese culture and evidences itself by items such as Hello Kitty and similar fare. Inserting this into the "cuteness" article ignores the uniqueness of the Japanese concept. Jtmichcock 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a concept. Articles springing from Japanese culture are where we boast Japanese uniqueness.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How is "kawaii" not a concept? "Kawaii" is absolutely a concept; it's a concept of "cute" that permeates almost every aspect of Japanese culture. You can find it everywhere. You're talking about things of which you have no real experience. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As you seem intent on playing "I live in Japan so I know Japan" card, I guess I should also state (just for the record you understand) that I also live in Japan as I have done for a number of years now. I know of which I speak. Cuteness is very popular in Japan, but it's not a concept. It's an adjective, always used subjectively. Barryvalder 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete / Merge per the Crow. Freshgavin's and Barryvalder's points are both very good, although, I don't see a whole lot of salvageable non-OR to work with. Neier 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. Yes, I'm flip-flopping. Nihonjoe's comments regarding the length of Japanese culture is a good one. Also, the lack of non-OR in the current article is a better argument for rewrite than merge, anyway. I know that Kawaii is ingrained in the country. Pictures of the Hello Kitty festooned dump trucks working construction sites, or of the cartoon characters on the salaryman's bank book would help convey that point. There is encylcopedic material for Kawaii – unfortunately, the current article doesn't do a very good job at presenting it. And, it seems that attempts to fix the article are getting caught in some minor revert wars by a couple of users, so it may take some time to fix it. Neier 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Anime-brainwashed Keep! Kawaii is more than just a term- it is a veritable movement on par with, say, Gothic Lolita. --maru (talk) contribs 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This simply isn't the case. There is no kawaii movement. This implies there is a specific, definable kawaii style, which there isn't. Cuteness is highly valued in Japan and it has an impact on many aspects of Japanese culture, but suggesting it's a movement like Gothic Lolita is entirely without evidence or factual accuracy. Barryvalder 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and deletion nominators must attempt to be more cognisant of the source material they nominate. -Zero^Talk 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. wtf. find something worthy of deleting. aa v ^ 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Honestly I find this nomination somewhat worrying. People who come to an encyclopedia wanting to know the meaning and context of Kawaii in Japanese culture should be told, not directed to an entry in a dictionary. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - to the statement by nom that the Culture of Japan article "can be any length it needs to be", I do not agree. There is an optimum length which should be exceeded only with good reason, see Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Summary_style among other places. The article is not bad as is in its current state and I see no reason for a delete. Calling it "japancruft" seems rather pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and see what comes of it. I've got to admit to hearing this term since ... oh forever. Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Deleting this article wouldn't be very cute. Cyde Weys 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I see no reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - After seeing this article, I believe that Kawaii is already becoming an exotic, "you-found-it-here-first-in Wikipedia" type of a nouveau concept.... and not just for the otaku people either.--Endroit 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we close this yet? --maru (talk) contribs 07:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its obvious concensus is agaisnt the nominator. Prolonging the discussion would be quite pointless. -Zero^Talk 08:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the consensus is against a deletion. The strength of feeling in favour of a rewrite what comes across most strongly for me. Barryvalder 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes that "rewrite" does not mean anything productive here. At best it means "do nothing" and at worst it means "add a lot of original research". I look forward to the vigorous participation of "keep" voters to remove the OR from the article as it is, and guard against addition of more OR. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. — FireFox • T • 15:18, 19 February 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete votes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British involvement in Rhodesia/to do

This is not an article. It clearly belongs somewhere else but not as an article. I originally tagged as CSD; however, Xaosflux removed the CSD flag. I am not sure of the reason. James084 03:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I just realized what Xaosflux did to this page. I have listed this page for AfD in error. Administrators: Please disregard and remove this page from AfD. Thanks. James084 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloquium (College of Engineering, Guindy)

Appears to be just some kind of annual meeting which plenty of universities may have. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramanujan Rolling Shield. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. The relevant information is already in College of Engineering, Guindy. Kusma (討論) 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to College of Engineering, Guindy. dbtfz^talk 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I realize redirects are cheap, but do we really need to have such frivolous redirects? Let's stop the nonsense and stop setting a precedent for having redirects for Conference/Colloquium/Workshop at (insert name of university). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 12:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I merged all the content to College of Engineering, Guindy. utcursch | talk 11:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramanujan Rolling Shield

174 google hits, and a bunch of those (if not all) appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia content. Does not appear notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colloquium (College of Engineering, Guindy). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. The only relevant information is already mentioned in College of Engineering, Guindy. Kusma (討論) 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to College of Engineering, Guindy. (It can't hurt.) dbtfz^talk 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Avalon 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe an article about a math quiz is okay but not an article about the award you win at the math quiz --Ruby 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Besides, isn't the Rolling Shield what you get after beating Armored Armadillo in Mega Man X? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per all above. --Terence Ong 07:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. linas 00:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I merged all the content to College of Engineering, Guindy. utcursch | talk 11:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The National Bitter Melon Council

Listed as copyvio, plausible claim for release made. However, it does not seem to me encyclopedic. Chick Bowen 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable organization for which the article reads like a (poorly written) advertisement. The organization's website already has a link from Bitter melon, which is good enough. dbtfz^talk 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• The article almost sounds like the NBMC is an arts and cultural organization that uses the Bitter Melon as a metaphor, but reading it carefully it looks like a promotional organization. Delete, do not redirect. Thatcher131 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Organization's name gets only 152 Google hits, zero Google news hits. I've read the article and visted their website and I'm still not sure whether a Bitter Melon is a real thing or a metaphor. Either way, this organization doesn't seem that notable, and this looks a lot like spam. ergot 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. - Rudykog 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Oxy-fuel welding and cutting Adrian Lamo ·· 05:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxyacetylene

The current content of this page is just an operating manual for an oxyacetylene torch. There is a more encyclopedic article at Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, however a proper merge would (in my opinion) require blanking this entire article and then redirecting Oxy-fuel welding and cutting here, and I guess I'm not bold enough to do that without consensus. Thatcher131 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Oxy-fuel welding and cutting per nom. dbtfz^talk 04:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per dbtfz --Ruby 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Speedy redirect per nom. Be bold; the way Wikipedia is set up, you can't screw anything up by being bold. On the other hand, this AfD consumes a lot of community resources, including the time of a lot of skilful editors. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is I'm relatively new and I got spanked once before for making too drastic a change without "respecting the work of prevous editors" (although the person who complained had a vested interest and we eventually worked it out amicably). I will do the redirect now and clear the AfD from the article. Thatcher131 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Someone replaced Oxyacetylene by a redirection, which should not have been done while it was under AfD. I reverted that blanking. Anthony Appleyard 09:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on folks, let's Wikipedia:use common sense here. Redirects don't purge the article history and we're getting a strong consensus here. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oxyacetylene contained two lists of information, which needed to be merged. I merged them, and merged in matter from Oxy-fuel welding and cutting. I then merged all of Oxyacetylene's contents into Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, but I have left also a copy of it in Oxyacetylene to satisfy the AfD rules. Anthony Appleyard 10:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect to Oxy-fuel welding and cutting and close the AfD since Redir seems to be the consensus here.--Isotope23 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect already Come on people, you're completely missing the point of WP:IAR. Everyone thinks it should point there, there's no dispute, and a redirect can easily be fixed later if it's a problem. You're doing process for the sake of process. AfD has rules to make things smoother, but it would be smoother here to just ignore the rules and close it early. Night Gyr 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Don't merge The only content in the article is unencyclopedic instructional material. If you want to keep it, put it in wikibooks. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Night Gyr 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect, don't merge Oxyacetylene (or oxyacetylene set) is a term commonly used in industry. Also agree that the existing content is more suitable for wikibooks, there is a lot of good content there but it is more a HowTo. — Graibeard ^(talk) 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect; the information doesn't seem to be too encyclopedic. No need to merge; perhaps a paragraph or two could be excised, but then, there's no source given for all this info. IMO, the oxyfuel welding/cutting article is in worse shape now than it was before ("Setting up the equipment"? What is that doing there?). Anyone who wants to write a good oxyfuel welding article will be able to do it without this content, and this content, being unsourced and largely unuseful, isn't what the article needs. Also, question—does wikibooks require references? I would imagine so, but if it didn't, this couldn't potentially go there. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Redirected to Oxy-fuel welding and cutting. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpyMasterSnake

Delete? Not in English? There seems to be a Turkish language site that this refers too. Maybe an ad? Cgbikes 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising eLNuko 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a mess of an advert. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious advert. Stifle 22:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. - Rudykog 10:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Frog

This looks like spam and there does not seem to be any notability listed here. James084 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. dbtfz^talk 04:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam about spam reporting software, cute --Ruby 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, spam (and definitely cute) — Graibeard ^(talk) 07:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN software, spam. VegaDark 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've heard of it and run it before... but that may just be a product of my line of work. No opinion yet as I look into what the general notability may be.--Isotope23 15:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I transfomed the empty useless shell into something with words, and sentences, and an image. --x1987x 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Like CVs, ad articles can be edited to be NPOV and informative. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was kept.

Note that the discussion went on to consider whether this article should be renamed, rewritten or made into a redirect. No clear consensus emerged on that topic. However, those decisions can best be decided on the respective Talk pages and do not need to be decided in an AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thermal Protection System

The "Thermal Protection System" article has been made redundant by the Atmospheric reentry article that includes a section on Thermal Protection Systems and the Space Shuttle program article. It is proposed that the Thermal Protection System article be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Atmospheric reentry article. Egg plant 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per nomination, speedily if possible. 211.30.35.62 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nomination, agree with speedy if possible (someone who has time and wants to be bold is welcome to, in my opinion...) Georgewilliamherbert 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm too tired to be bold.  :::hums "holding out for a hero", by Frou Frou, has low standards for heroes::: . Adrian Lamo ·· 11:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely should NOT be deleted. The Space Shuttle program article was way too long. In line with Wikipedia:Article size, and Wikipedia:How to break up a page, sections are being moved to other articles INCLUDING this TPS article. Other examples of sections moved: NASA Space Shuttle decision, Space Shuttle abort modes.

The shuttle TPS is a major component of the orbiter, and unique to the shuttle. This article covers that, not TPS in general. Detailed shuttle TPS info doesn't belong in the Atmospheric reentry article. However this article should probably be renamed "Space shuttle thermal protection system". Joema 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from now. I change my vote to Rename to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as above. - Rudykog 10:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The term "Thermal protection system (TPS)" is normally used in the aerospace industry for both ablative and reusable TPS. Aeronautical engineers and informed laymen linking into Wikipedia through Google would need to see a disambiguation and redirect link to Atmospheric reentry where ablative TPS is described. Reusable TPS as "thermal soak" and "passively cooled" TPS is already described under the "Thermal Protection Systems" section of Atmospheric reentry. The term "ablation" is already redirected to Atmospheric reentry through a disambiguation. The significance of ablative versus reusable TPS is not provided in the current Thermal Protection System article and would be inappropriate if the article was renamed to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. The best course of action remains to delete Thermal Protection System with a redirect to Atmospheric reentry. The new content recently added to Thermal Protection System should be transferred to Atmospheric reentry. Egg plant 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First, the Reentry article at 66kb is already over the recommended size limit. Adding the Thermal Protection System content will make it even bigger. Secondly, there needs to be a dedicated article on shuttle TPS, just like there's a dedicated article on Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. The shuttle TPS is unique, not used by any other current spacecraft, and is a prominent and well-known part of the shuttle system. The article content is already 100% shuttle TPS, not general TPS, so it should be renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. If you're concerned about people querying on just "Thermal Protection System", let's do a disambiguation page for that. Joema 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the answer! I like the way Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and Solid Rocket Booster are setup. Have a disambiguation page named Thermal Protection System that redirects to a renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System or Atmospheric reentry. Concerning the Reentry article going over the recommended size limit, I'd like to reduce the size of Atmospheric reentry by tossing out "Feathered reentry" but I know people would get worked up over that so I've taken the easy path of ignoring it. Egg plant 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Feathered reentry" is too small for a separate article; it wouldn't reduce size that much. How about this:

• Leave a small section on TPS in the reentry article, put the bulk in a separate article on "Thermal Protection System". That's in line with Wikipedia:How to break up a page.

• Put a top link in the new stand-alone TPS article: This article is about aerospace thermal protection systems. For the U.S. Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System, see: (link).

• Put a similar top link in the shuttle TPS article pointing to the new TPS article.

• Fix up any previous references so they point to the right articles.

• Advantages: avoids going through redirection page for people querying directly on Thermal Protection System.

Why not do a disambiguation page? Google shows about 98% of TPS references are either (a) shuttle TPS, or (b) other aerospace TPS. If three or more separate TPS articles are needed, maybe then do a disambig page. What does everybody think? Joema 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my earlier (deleted) reply, I got overly philosophical and went off-topic. I agree that a disambiguation page with redirection is a good solution if the "Thermal Protection System" article is retained. Egg plant 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swivel gun

Article Pivot gun has mergeto Swivel gun tag but Talk:Swivel gun says it has been transwikified to the Wiktionary. I think the pivot gun and swivel gun articles are notable enough for Wikipedia Thatcher131 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per nom. It's a good article with a neat image. Wikitionary or not, it has a place here. — Graibeard ^(talk) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per nom. These should later be merged. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I merged in from Pivot gun. Anthony Appleyard 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The tag appears to be left over from last year when the article wasn't much more than a dicdef; it was subsequently expanded but the tag seems to have been forgotten about. However, merging the two articles is a bad idea in my opinion. A swivel gun is not the same thing as a pivot gun: swivel guns are specifically small cannon on a swiveling mount, while pivot guns are usually much larger weapons mounted on a rail or track. I'll have a go at expanding the two articles over the weekend. -- ChrisO 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the different kinds would be nice. Thatcher131 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the articles and added a pic of a pivot gun. Hopefully this will resolve the confusion! -- ChrisO 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have reverted Swivel gun and Pivot gun to as they were before my merge, since it now seems that my merge was not justified. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I knew I was right to wait before voting --Ruby 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good article. Very good article. Not great, but very good nonetheless. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pivot gun

Article Pivot gun has merge tag proposing merge to Swivel gun but the Swivel gun talk page has a notice that is has been transferred to the Wiktionary. I would prefer to keep Swivel gun in Wikipedia and redirect Pivot gun, however seeking consensus. Thatcher131 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, per nom. Not much here and it's basically a dupe of swivel gun. Merge as a section. — Graibeard ^(talk) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no need to merge after rewrite. — Graibeard ^(talk) 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to swivel gun. I have merged its contents to pivot gun. Anthony Appleyard 17:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have reverted Swivel gun and Pivot gun to as they were before my merge, since it now seems that my merge was not justified. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite and keep. Swivel guns and pivot guns are not the same thing. I'll rewrite the article to correct this. -- ChrisO 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Now done. -- ChrisO 13:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ChrisO's rewrite. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild_Wayland_Wrestling

Delete. Non-notable, appears to be a bunch of teenagers wrestling in their backyards. They have gotten themselves added to dmoz, which gives them a few google hits, but this doesn't make them notable. Xyzzyplugh 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ruby 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 05:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Worthythorn vandalised this vote; his (implicit) Keep vote read as reproduced below. Sandstein 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am 27 years old. We BEGAN as teenagers wrestling in our backyards, but if you had actually take the time to read the article, you would note that we are an organization now, fully bonded and licensed by the Kentucky Athletic Commission.

• Delete as above. NN even despite what the above comment says.Blnguyen 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. NN has been presumed from lack of familiarity, and not proven. Editors having a lack of familiarity with Kentucky doesn't mean that the topic is non-notable. The state of Kentucky would probably be unhappy to know that they are deemed NN. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Protest

Neologism for, umm, I'm not too sure, something to do with deleting articles from Wikipedia Cnwb 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Consider this my own brand of Wiki-Protest --Ruby 05:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The creator's talk page may offer a clue as to the purpose of this article. Cnwb 05:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is all we need. Herostratus 06:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonviolently, of course. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vandalism. --Hansnesse 07:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Chairman S. | Talk 07:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, legitimizing vandalism? begone! — Graibeard ^(talk) 08:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonviolently to remove inappropriate content from Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense article. --Terence Ong 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV attempted justification of creator's blanking and spurious AfD's of sex related articles that s/he apparently disaproves of. It's vandalism no matter what you try and relabel it as. I'd go borderline speedy on this as page creation vandalism and consider blocking user permanantly if s/he doesn't learn to play nicely.--Isotope23 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And then there is this edit. Pornography and sex-related articles, and Èclairs! If it were not so clearly vandalism, I'd be inclined for BJAODN. --Hansnesse 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Daniel Case 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm protesting this protest. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as WP:POINT, I'd like to point out that destruction of information, while obviously vandalism, could be seen as violent, although not physically. Makemi 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just attempting to disagree with WP:POINT by coining a term. -- Mithent 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Camillus (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Wiki-Delete as per above and it's a pointless neologism too, kind of like prefixing everything with e-. Therefore, it can't really be improved. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJADON - or maybe just plain delete. See all of above. CAPS LOCK 05:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partypants

Nonnotable TV trivia (name of computer password in an episode of House.) Merge was proposed but Partypants is already in the House entry and 4 comments on the Partypants article recommend deleting instead of merging. Nothing notable enough to keep as a redirect. Thatcher131 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no password articles --Ruby 05:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. -- Saberwyn 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no further discussion required. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I speak as a fan of the show: you have got to be kidding. Delete. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Passwordcruft? That's a new one.... Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki under CSD:A7 (article about a band failing to assert its notablity). Stifle 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Ares

• Delete Non-notable, created for self-promotion-Jersey Devil 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be speedied, band is unsigned - no notability is claimed. No Guru 05:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only about 5 Googles - they got some downloads at [9] but its dead Jim Defunkier 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete ({{nn-band}}), tagged. Stifle 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yespinoy

Delete. Appears to be advertising and non-notable. Cpc464 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Cpc464--Jersey Devil 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is something I would use, yet I will still vote to delete it as an ad --Ruby 05:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds like a nice enough site. Too bad we're not the classified ads. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if Ruby would use it, I should be able to read about it. Kappa 11:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also has multiple independent coverage and passes WP:CORP [10] [11] [12] Kappa 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and clean-up, don't delete for the sake of deletion. Jdcooper 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up and expanded with proof of notability. Stifle 22:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. NN presumed from lack of familiarity, not proven. Local/regional notability is notable. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Driving rock movement

I'm pretty sure this falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and am having an extremely hard time finding anything related to this genre. The closest search for driving rock and its creators is disappointing to put it mildly. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CrypticBacon 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (Also see AfD for "Sonny Guerrini".) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete marketing strategy disguised as genre, linked to unknown musician--excuse me, "singer/songwriter/guitarist/car"--Sonny Guerini and nonexistent web site drivingrock.com. rodii 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonny Guerrini

• Delete Seems to be made up, link doesn't work, little over 400 hits on yahoo search engine [13], and states the supposed person was born in 1988 which would make him 17-18.-Jersey Devil 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also, the "movement" he's famous for is listed for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. rodii 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle 22:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted per PROD, with no objections on AFD. — Phil Welch 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republicans Block Investigation of Domestic Spying Program

Democratic press release. POV. Don't see an applicable speedy category. Can we get rid of this faster than prod? Thatcher131 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• (Speedy) delete as blatantly non-encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 06:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Press release = POV. Grandmasterka 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as clear breach of NPOV. Certainly it is appropriate for John Conyers' website but not ours. What is the protocol when something is both on AfD and proposed deletion or PD? Capitalistroadster 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV/soapbox --Ruby 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV article. --Terence Ong 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV essay.--Isotope23 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy this and get the NPOV soapbox folks outta here.--み使い Mitsukai 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a political bulletin board. Daniel Case 03:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV/soapbox Sandy 15:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a news source. --TML1988 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATW1

Already tagged with "prod" but removed by an unlogged user (presumably the same one who created the article, based on the user name. This appears to be an advertisement from the owners/operators of the podcast station. Weak nomination, for the record. CrypticBacon 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete podcruft. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. I had no idea independent music sounded like vanispamcruftising. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Podcasting is an independent outlet from the start, so its not notable to say this is an early podcast of independent artists --Ruby 14:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable and/or advertising. Angr/talk 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomic Nervous System Templates

Delete. Concept unique to Integrative Manual Therapy, another article created by same author. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Manual Therapy. AED 06:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Where does this stuff come from, and can we put a cork in it? -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An advertisement for pseudoscience. At best, this should be merged with that article on IMT, which also needs to be rewritten, if kept, to include scientific criticism in accordance with WP:NPOV section 12.2. I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, though, since I have this feeling it'd go edit war on me. So, out of WP this must go. --FreelanceWizard 07:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X BILLUPS

Delete. Completely and utterly fictional. I liked the bit about Deal or No Deal, though. Cpc464 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Constitues a hoax.SoothingR 09:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense, as per nom on Deal MLA 13:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, brilliant name for a band though. X Billups was a fictional character from To Kill a Mockingbird set in Maycomb, Alabama -- with other mentioned characters (Atticus, Dolphus Raymond) as band members also likely part of the hoax. Probably some kids getting creatively bored with the book in class. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forums.gamemaker.nl

Delete. looks like a forum for Game Maker some kind of scripting language for game development. Advertising and non-notable EricR 06:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa ranking is fairly high, at 40702 and the claim of 25000 members would be quite high if it can be verified. Borderline notability, but the article looks like an advertisement, "As you can see the GMC is a great place to be if you would like to talk about Game Maker" is an illustration of that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Game Maker.SoothingR 09:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not look notable to me. --Terence Ong 15:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert, possible hoax. Stifle 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hoax? How? :/ See http://forums.gamemaker.nl/ for yourself.SoothingR 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh. Never mind. Stifle 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xamon Song

Delete. Non-notable and possibly fake, only 7 Google hits including Wikipedia. Cpc464 06:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 07:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is not fake. Go to www.xamonsong.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sevesong (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Book not on Amazon; "publisher" gets only 14 Google hits. Looks like vanity. ergot 00:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Claims importance ("used for Human Rights Education"), but the book looks too new, and there's no backing for the claim. UPi 2006-02-17 15:17 (CET)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plenis

Non-notable neologism. Only google hits I found were for plenis as a Latin word. dbtfz^talk 06:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete back into the well-deserved obscurity mentioned in the article, from whence this article never should have emerged. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While the article has improved since I had tagged it with {{prod}}, the worthiness of the topic has not. Kusma (討論) 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --DanielCD 21:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Korg (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, my apologies. Tokek 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bathtub hoax

non-notable. Tokek 07:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move, but not sure where. This is a notable and interesting piece of history. The Straight Dope article, linked in this Wikipeida article, says "to this day trivia books and even a few encyclopedias perpetuate the error". It appears to be a notable aspect of Filmore's presidency and should be preserved on Wikipedia, though probably not under this exact title. CrypticBacon 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, pretty notable factoids that still crop up occasionally. Gazpacho 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (merge to the Bathtub article as with Columbus and the flat-earther hoax) Gazpacho
• Strong Keep, a very notable hoax. Title is just fine. Grandmasterka 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't think of any good reason to delete this. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, indeed. Deserves an entry.SoothingR 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think AfD should involve essay questions or anything, but it's really nice to get a sentence or two from the nominator, no? "delete, non-notable" is ... a bit vague? Adrian Lamo ·· 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable hoax. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand per above. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable hoax by notable author, and a good thing to point to as a reminder that we have to verify everything here no matter how plausible it seems. Daniel Case 15:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable hoax. --Terence Ong 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Daniel Case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable. Kestenbaum 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as well-known hoax. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've actually read this Wikipedia article before, didn't see anything wrong with it at the time, and don't see anything wrong with it now. ergot 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Keep extremely worthwile (unsigned by Coinman)
• Strong Keep perfectly legitimate for an encyclopedia. It needs a major overhaul, but should be kept. Thanatosimii 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Expand. After reading the external links, I've realised that it is worth keeping. To show its notability, the article should cite notable instances where Mencken's article has been quoted as fact. Since I was the only one that was pro-delete and I've now switched sides, I believe the debate has ended.--Tokek 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was erase the article. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erase the Hate

Delete because this organization seems to barely exist According to this organization's website, they appear to have one member and haven't actually done anything. Suggest the article be deleted until such time as the organization actually appears to be active. MichaelBluejay 07:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Has been mentioned in recent media coverage [14].SoothingR 09:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article you cite has nothing to do with the organization that is the subject of the Wikipedia article in question. -- MichaelBluejay 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. delete the article, then.SoothingR 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even though it would be in my best interest to keep this article, it doesn't reach the threshold for notability (no Alexa rank for the website either) --Ruby 14:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Erase this entry per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Spiral

Unverifiable; content is primarily original research. Everything after the first two sentences appears to be completely made up, and even the name "Time Spiral" is unverifiable. EvilZak 08:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Take a look at the [MTG Salvation] Rumor Mill in the forums for verification. —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Forums aren't particlularly reliable as sources, especially when the name of said forum is "rumor mill". If someone could produce a copy of the email or the legal papers referenced by the posters in the forum, I'd be satisfied. android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ballage --Ruby 14:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I remember seeing the original source of this info, which was an official WotC survey that stated that those who were surveyed could win booster boxes of 2006 sets, and one they mentioned was Time Spiral.--Bedford 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless and until Wizards of the Coast officially verifies it. As it is, the "verifying" site's getting sued by Wizards, so this might just be a copyvio even if it is true. -- Grev 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Grev.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; now verifiable through the link Nightstallion has provided below. I would still prefer that this article be moved to Snap (Magic: The Gathering), since the name isn't really "official" until Wizards releases it through the normal channels, but I won't mind terribly if it remains with its current title. On a side note, linking to the source may prove difficult; is there somewhere this document can be accessed without having to jump through hoops to do so? android79 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I was the otiginal contributor to this article and, against the rules for deletion, I was never notified about the proposed deletion by the person who decided to arrogantly propose the deletion.--Bedford 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That particular bit of AfD "etiquette" is rather new; you can't really blame the nominator for not notifying you, and calling the nomination "arrogant" is just silly. Articles that violate WP:V ought to be deleted, and it looks like this one does. android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. Please let me know if a reliable source is found, so that I can revise my vote. Stifle 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think I've got a straight source; try to access the document linked to here (direct link: this). According to people in the forums, in this lawsuit filed against the user known as RancoredElf (who regularily provides information up front through anonymous sources, and who's right around 98% of the time), WotC accidentally confirms the next "large" set to be called "Time Spiral"; I'm afraid I can't verify this currently, as I've got a nasty fileblocker working against me here at work, so I'd appreciate it if someone could verify that for me. If it's true, that should be verification enough; lawsuits are easily verifiable through findlaw.com. —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The linked document is a 404. Stifle 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hah! This is the correct link; page 6, lines 8 and 9 state that the name released by David Rutter|Rancoredelf (Time Spiral) is the actual name of "Snap". —Nightstallion (?) 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, it's good. Keep, verified. Trim the speculation a bit though. Stifle 18:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Stifle, and also that future events ought to be acceptable. After all, we have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, and that's "crystal ballery" at its long-running finest. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SW-Fans

This is an article about an organization that isn't notable. Bobby1011 08:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NN, just an advertisment for their site/forums. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above --Neigel von Teighen 14:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert.OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gungan Council

This has got to be the single largest piece of fancruft ever created on Wikipedia. This article makes extensive use of the first-person and is littered with first-hand accounts of the "history" and goings-on of club activities, making them virtually impossible to verify. I kind of feel bad nominating such a large work for deletion ...but not that bad. Kill fancruft! CrypticBacon 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. A main contributor to the article removed my 'prod' tag before I brought it here. CrypticBacon 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of manuals. All this article does is state the rules of this forum, and how one can roleplay there.SoothingR 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above, but put this somewhere as an example of fancruft in case it needs to be explained. All that work for nothing ... Daniel Case 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per SoothingR and Daniel Case. This is some fancruft, not needed for an encyclopaedia. --Terence Ong 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft, but make a good faith attempt to contact the creator and offer a userfy. Someone spent entirely too much time on this.--Isotope23 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB and contact creator. Capitalistroadster 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per SoothingR and Daniel Case. I have to agree, the guy put in all that work for nothing.--み使い Mitsukai 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. youngamerican (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. I left a notice on the original author's talk page here. CrypticBacon 07:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Confrom this to a higher stander of quality.
  • Comment. Possible puppet vote - the above "Do Not Delete" was left by 64.184.31.158 who had no previous edits. CrypticBacon 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I, 64.184.31.158, deleted the Rules Section because that had no place here. I recommend trimming down the memeber's list.
• Do Not Delete There is nothing based to your arguments; the rules have been deleted as they have seemingly caused problems - but the rest is a list of members and a history; you cannot possibly argue against that!
  • Comment. This "Do Not Delete" vote was left by me, who put in a lot of time and effort to a glorious wikipedia entry that you are all insulting because you are jealous of TGC's glory. Kypzethdurron 09:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't provoke people, please.SoothingR 11:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Do Not Delete! - This article fits wikipedia and has a place in the history of Star Wars on the internet
      • It seems like Wookipedia is more of the kind of thing for that kind of SW-related content.SoothingR 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. This information should be placed on the group's own website. Stifle 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artist Suresh Muthukulam

Autobiography, self promotion. Might meet notability criteria, but I suspect not - well below the professor test. The text is from the artist's website, keralamurals.com. Solipsist 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. [15]. PJM 12:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. In fact, a possible copyvio from Keralamurals. I'm tagging it as such. —ERcheck @ 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio, I'm happy to leave it to WP:CP. Stifle 14:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. - Rudykog 10:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if non-CV material added. Rename to Suresh Muthukulam. Locally/regionally notable. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primitive skills

this seems to be a neologism of little likely longevity; it's simply a descriptive phrase, in fact. It was put up for deletion by Stifle in the new "deletion review" system, and the tag was removed by Kappa without explanation. When I replaced the tag, asking for an explanation , Kappa reverted me, saying that I couldn't win an edit war... I've therefore opened an AfD, which I suggest all editors should do when they see a "deletion review" tag. Unless it can be shown that this is an encyclopædic topic, it should be deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Kappa took the correct action here, the {{prod}} tag should not be restored. Stifle 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Primitive skills" is a "current buzz term"? Give a point to the author for a humorous entry, at least. CrypticBacon 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is simply a descriptive phrase. Not sure I'd call a neologism - I've certainly heard it used for a number of years, but it still shouldn't be here. Kcordina 11:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, likely search term. Kappa 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Term does appear to be in use, and it is not made up in school. Several Google hits, many using this term as described in the article. Incidentally, {{prod}}-tags can be removed for any reason meaning that the deletion is disputed. In that case it should be brough to the old and boring AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned above, it's merely a descriptive term which can be used in numerous instances. It's not widely recognized as being linked to a particular subject or study. PJM 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So next time someone types this in, we should invite them to create a new article for us? Kappa 12:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Do we have to create articles on every combination of words that people "type in"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  This is not just a combination of words, it's a "descriptive term which can be used in numerous instances". Note that we don't have to create an article for this term, since one already exists. Since it's an established and widely used term, if we delete it, we can expect it to come back again. Kappa 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps when it comes back it will be better than it is today. What's wrong with that?? James084 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Kappa and Sjakkalle. It will likely to be searched. --Terence Ong 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's jargon specific to a community, and if anything, it should be in a dictionary. Furthermore, it's pretty easy to figure out what it means without looking it up. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BrianGCrawfordMA. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa and Sjakkalle. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article all but states it is neologism. James084 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per my original prod nomination - non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect.

Reading the discussion, I concur that this term as defined in the article is original research. The closest sourced topic is "Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union" which currently redirects to Post-Soviet states. I am going to carry out the redirect. I decline to merge anything because the former Soviet states are already included and the non-Soviet states are irrelevant. However, if I missed anything, please pull it out of the page history. Rossami (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly Independent States

Except for the fact that this states aren't new for the last 10 years, encyclopedia should not contain articles having "newly" in the topic. Dijxtra 10:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not a useful list, the fact that none of the new states listed are actually particularly recent shows it isn't valuable. Kcordina 11:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename The links cited below by rodii show that the title Newly Independent States is used by the US government to refer to states of the former Russian Republic, not independent states that are new. This explains Grandmasterka's observation below. If that is to what the article is intended to refer, then it should be renamed to indicate that and make it clear that it is not a list of independent states that are new. I suggest Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union since that seems to be what the US government use. If rename is not agreed, then my vote is delete. Kcordina 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good suggestion. rodii 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not a useful list. Curious that East Timor and Eritrea are not present (the newest states!) Grandmasterka 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, if not Delete per Kcordina. PJM 12:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rename. Oh for god's sake. The NIS is an offical US government designation. See [16] [17] [18] [19] and thousands of others. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. "Has 'newly' in the topic" is not a deletion criterion. rodii 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, as per Rodii. Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seeing as it's a government designation. Stifle 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, if it's a term that's going to be used by a very notable entity (the US govt), it damn well ought to be represented in WP. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: But the proper, government term, is Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The current title is misleading as it suggests the article is about new states in general, hence my rename proposal. Kcordina 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair enough, but my point still stands.
• Comment: Note that Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union exists as a redirect to Post-Soviet states. Punkmorten 14:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Post-Soviet states. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rui Xiang, Tan

This article was deleted, then recreated a couple of times. However it now looks different from the first edition, so here we go for the last time. Punkmorten 10:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Delete as non-notable athlete. Kcordina 11:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn bio, please delete and protect the page from creation. I think a speedy will be better. --Terence Ong 15:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, this is most probaly sockpuppetry as the usernames are very similar. --Terence Ong 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keepsame case as hakeem. notable enough in all aspect, sports and tv.(Coleenmag 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment: User's only edits are to the article and this AFD. Stifle 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, overseas competition means a certain level of notability. also appear on tv.(Kennyang 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note. User's first edit.Blnguyen 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no olympic experience true. but think on behalf of tv appearance, should pass.(Mark waite 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note. User's first edit.Blnguyen 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. To those recommending "keep", please consider this WP:BIO guideline: Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. Thanks. PJM 14:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Google hits. lots of info on Tan Rui Xiang. Article on Team Singapore website. results of various meets. also found Quest Model site with rui xiang, tan inside google image search. Swift is a famous club in Singapore with Shammer Ayub inside too.(Kaiteng 14:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
• Note:User's only edits are to this page.Blnguyen 01:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you choose to refer to a Google search, you should link it to this page for others to see. PJM 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=tan+rui+xiang&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountrySG

(Kaiteng 15:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

• Delete; the above Google link is spurious as it doesn't put his name in quotes; the link below only finds five hits - Runcorn 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=%22tan+rui+xiang%22&meta=cr%3DcountrySG
• Keep; huh? no quotes means nothing ar? ok. hmm.but i think if you are smart enough, you can find rui xiang, or ruixiang or other combination. anyway, its the quality and content of the evidence also. thks! (Kaiteng 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Struck out duplicate vote. Stifle 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, international athlete. Kappa 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Drawing the line at Asian Games or at the very least at the SEA Games proper. Low Google hits too. Otherwise, he's not notable enough for inclusion. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not competed internationally at international level. no athletic achievements of notable skill.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: think competing overseas in various meets should be considered competed in international meet as SEAG is a recognized meet in the context. international level terms is defined as competing overseas with various athletes in dictionary. So should be no prob as for the meet in thailand and the singapore asian meet(Mark waite 06:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment - (he hasn't competed in the senior seagames)-you don't need to reiterate your vote for each of your comments - as you do not get another vote for a second comment.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Struck out duplicate vote. Stifle 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; we should support Asian athletes! having proudly represented the country in overseas meet is a strong proof of notability. in this case, with the addition of extra TV exposure, it should be enough. (Geishalover 06:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note -User's first edit.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep, appear on featured article on national association and tv.(Selvikalai 07:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note - User's first edit.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: appeared in magazine and posters too.(Kanett 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note -user's first edit.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; notable club, country and media exposure met. strongly keep this article.(Edhardy 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note -user's first edit. You guys do know that your votes will be discounted, right? Punkmorten 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per KCordina. Flood of socks. Oh, and assuming this is deleted, {{deletedpage}} it. Stifle 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notanbe in Singapore.(Sorensom 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note- User's first edit - there's no need to waste your time.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity bio article. *drew 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note, the users that has its first edit here, are likely to be sockpuppets. How come no one's blocking them? --Terence Ong 08:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SKC Corporation

Fails WP:CORP (not listed in fortune/forbes, no notable press releases found). Also, article is almost indecipherable and my attempted copyedit failed to reveal any rescuable information. Kcordina 11:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Generic, non-notable forum. Kcordina 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, WP:CORP. PJM 12:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has major press coverage like [20] [21] [22] Kappa 13:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. It doesn't mean that an article must be a Fortune 500 company or listed in Forbes magazine to be notable. --Terence Ong 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My copy of the Weekend Financial Times saw fit to mention Moody's upping SKC's rating in a front-page briefing. If the FT thinks they're important enough for that, they're most definitely important wnough for an article. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Ardenn 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yet another case of NN presumed from lack of familiarity. A little quick digging showed that SKC is not only listed on the Korean stock market [23], but is in the KOSPI 200 index, the South Korean equivalent of the NASDAQ 100 or S&P 500. Nationally/regionally notable is notable. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.--Tone 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lanterne Rouge

content already dealt with more effectively at Tour de France, nothing links here. MLA 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tour de France. Redirects are cheap. Stifle 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Stifle. - Rudykog 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection Manager Administration Kit

Not notable software package eLNuko 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn software, ad. --Terence Ong 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Seeing as Microsoft Connection Manager has no article, I can't see how a random plugin for it should either. Stifle 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leglessarmless

Band vanity. Does not establish notability Cnwb 12:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a long-winded band vanity article with sophmoric claims of notability. PJM 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn band --Ruby 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable band. --Terence Ong 15:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete like about 12 Googles Defunkier 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete this entire web page is about sharing information, and broadening your horizons, and informing you insipid people of new things!!!user: analytical_rhetoric
  • While Wikipedia is about sharing information, there are still guidelines as to what subjects are considered important enough for inclusion. You might like to have a look at WP:Music to see what is generally considered appropriate for bands and musicians, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for an outline of what Wikipedia is not about. You'll find that there are quite specific guidelines laid out as to what Wikipedia includes and what it doesn't. I hope this helps. Cnwb 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Shill. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paid basher

Article with no rescuable content for a non-notable neologism Kcordina 12:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. eLNuko 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Writer seems to be trying to make a point; thus inherently NPOV. Plus, any article that generates that many banners ought to be deleted per se. Daniel Case 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Shill#Shills on message boards. Ewlyahoocom 17:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ewlyahoocom. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-17 19:27Z
• Delete. It's a biased dictionary definition. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• If Plant (person) was in existence I would have recommended a redirect, but it's not so let's just delete it.--み使い Mitsukai 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ewlyahoocom — Graibeard ^(talk) 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Her Pegship 05:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator withdraws and there are no votes to delete. Stifle 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbots Deuglie

Not a notable place, barely a village. Map [24] shows about 8 houses. No claim to notability in the article. ::Supergolden:: 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the abbotts new googlies12:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Short of it being a glorified petrol station, I think all villages (and comparable geographic locales) deserve an entry. — RJH 18:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All geography is notable per precedent --Ruby 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if its on a map it stays.... Jcuk 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Faster than a speedy deletion - it's stubman!...erm... that is - I've extended the article into a more worthy stub. we've got smaller places, this should be a keeper, too. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm not sure all geography is notable (I'm undecided on that) but this seems to be. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Following Grutness' expansion, happy to see this as a Keep and withdraw AFD nomination. ::Supergolden:: 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandongardiner

Delete Hoax article, No Brisbane Bears or draft in the 60s etc. Imagine_B 13:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per nom. Mike Beckham 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per nom. Added CSD tag to article. James084 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete very obviously a hoax. Rogerthat ^Talk 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alert Holtman

Page is inaccurate to the point of seeming hoaxish. Holtman did not compete in Judo at the 2004 Summer Olympics. No athlete by the name of Holtman found on Athens2004.com search. The links are misleadingly labeled; they seem to actually lead to entirely non-international competitions. 17 English Google hits, none supporting the contention that he is a notable athlete. (98 overall hits) Jonel | Speak 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Some hustler's attempt to promote himself. Or a fan's. Daniel Case 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity hoax. --Terence Ong 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. Unverifiable. Fair use image with no fair use claim for the article has to be taken off it in the unlikely event that it's kept. Stifle 14:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azamat Abdoullaev, USECS

Autobiography whose subject, Azamat Abdoullaev, has reverted NPOV tags and other attempts at cleanup. Subject claims to have invented a major system of computerised ontology, but only gates 47 unique Google hits. One verifiable published book, published by F.I.S. Intelligent Systems, for which no search results (so almost certainly self-published, especially since the publisher name does not include anythign like "press" or "publishing"). Smells strongly of vanity, even after some claims have been toned down. Also rolling in USECS, his ontological database, which scores exactly nine Googles under its full name (the initialism is ambiguous, although googling the initialism also returns a fair bit of spam pushing the autor of the article). I call vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I call it vanity too. PJM 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. eLNuko 13:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promoting BS artist. Daniel Case 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly userfy the autobiography if he wants to keep it. Notability is not really established, verification is iffy. If it's so great, someone else will eventually write about it anyway. NickelShoe 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but it we should let the creator know that his articles are up for deletion. There's a lot of work on both of them. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Already did. It's awful that so few people actually do that... It's common courtesy, and the only way to actually have a debate about the article's merits. NickelShoe 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:Ontoquantum just did some major trimming of USECS. It doesn't add any more evidence of notability, but I thought you might like to know. NickelShoe 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe that User:Ontoquantum is a sock puppet for Azamat Abdoullaev although he denies it. They both work on the same articles. This appears to be original reserarch and should be deleted. Maustrauser 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have tagged Ontoquantum as a sock. Guy 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Kensson
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Is Azamat Abdoullaev cited within another article about one of his purpored achievements by someone else? If not, seems clear-cut case for deletion. Holon 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. It only took me two usecs to decide. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. *drew 06:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Azamat's bio is a self-bio, which is discouraged, and no evidence of sufficient notability has been shown. As for the USECS, this is original research unless and until this scheme of his gains usage or interest outside of its creator. Apparently, his aim is to create a universal hierarchical categorization scheme for everything that exists; best of luck to him on that. Such schemes, even if they catch on, have always ended up encapsulating the biases of their creators (see the Dewey Decimal System, for instance). *Dan T.* 13:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Ig0774 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Flamehaus

The result of the debate was to recommend the article for deletion.--File Éireann 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete. Contains no information on (completely NN) subject. Put up as a joke by somebody I know (I'm ashamed to admit). Closedmouth 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Somehow survived Speedy. J.J.Sagnella 13:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Traffic Rank for flamehaus.com: 1,227,433 --Ruby 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep it, its not doing harm - Suicidal_Banana
  • Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong 15:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• The internet has lost it's soul :( keep it
  • Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• dont delete it- FATTYBEAR...THE MAN WITH THE PLAN
  • Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete it. - Popbob
  • Comment Above User has made no useful edits to Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete it. - MOSES
  • Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable forumcruft. The puppet show isn't helping its case for legitimacy either. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per all above delete comments. Petros471 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete I've seen smaller and less noticable forums get by on wikipedia without any hassle of deletions, I don't see why Flamehaus should be an exception. True, it started off as a stupidity parade but I don't think that means it should be deleted
  • Comment user above has less than 5 edits, also care to state which over articles you're talking about?J.J.Sagnella 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deletehaus as per above.--み使い Mitsukai 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this meets WP:WEB and sections of it are attack pages. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster — Graibeard ^(talk) 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete utterly un-encyclopedic. Camillus (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd also like to point out that the IMDb message boards have over 8 million members, and they only get a cursory mention in the IMDb article, whereas Flamehaus only has about 40000 members. Hmmm... --Closedmouth 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JamesTeterenko 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Masters

• Merge with Magnum P.I. I don't think a character that never shows up in a series merits his own entry. Arundhati bakshi 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's true that Robin Masters never shows up in person, but that's not because he was a minor character; instead, the show deliberately kept the identity of Robin Masters a secret, teasing viewers (and Thomas) with the puzzle of "Who is Robin Masters"? I didn't see the show myself, so I don't know whether this was a major element or a minor quirk, hence why my "keep" is a weak one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Robin seems to be the only character to have his own page. Merge Thatcher131 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Magnum P.I. per nom; I disagree that he's not notable in the context of the show, but the characters in the show haven't been notable enough in general to have separate articles. If Higgins and TC and Rick and Icepick and Mac haven't got pages, Robin doesn't need one. Georgewilliamherbert 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The logic for deletion seems flawed. Vegaswikian 06:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as the nominator's vote was to merge, not to delete, and there are no delete votes. Merger doesn't need to come here. Just slap a {{mergeto}} tag on the page, and include the target page after a |. Stifle 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't know about the mergeto tag, but that's what I would favour, not ridding it from the encyclopedia, but putting it intp context within the Magnum P.I. article. Arundhati bakshi 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steady-eddys

WP:NOT eLNuko 13:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef chock-full of unverifiable assertions.Bjones 13:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Turning a general slang term into a specific group of people is dumb. Bad article and title. PJM 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a slang. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable slang. Arundhati bakshi 18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very clever and amusing. Light-hearted genius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.133.252 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy (band)

The band doesn't appear to come close to satisfying WP:NMG.[25]. PJM 13:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ruby 14:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, {{nn-band}}, tagged. Stifle 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• do not delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.148.148 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentadonakahedrin

Article name is spelled incorrectly (correct spelling is pentadodecahedron), practically empty, more suitable for dictionary. Accurizer 14:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can't find a speedy deletion category but it seems patently obvious that this should go. Wouldn't object to a speedy per WP:SNOW. Stifle 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy (copyvio). – Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryuta.k

Not notable band eLNuko 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I was about to list it myself, since article tries to assert notability but doesn't seem to understand how. 253 Google hits. Unless someone explains to us what's not in there and should be, it's a goner. Daniel Case 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of arl

Note: nomination cleaned up after three users tried to nominate it at the same time... — sjorford (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sufficiently similar to an MMPORPG that, with an Alexa rank of 2,575,908, it fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 14:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is non-notable. It gets 260 google hits, way too few in my opinion for a game of this type to be considered notable. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason Lord Hegemon 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. --Terence Ong 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. - Rudykog 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JamesTeterenko 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saeed rashid

Non notable Neigel von Teighen 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Neigel von Teighen 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A New Biographical Page(Falcon007 17:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
  • It's quite disturbing to see this commented as 'non notable'. If someone is not well represented on web, it doesn't mean that he was un-worthy. I ask for immediate removal of this hold.
  • Similarly, It's quite interesting to see how people try to ruin others contribution just to exercise there pseudo-intellectuallism and wild freedoms.
  • I created this page to motivate his pupil so that they come forward and represent their mentor.
  • I liked the vision of wikipedia in which people would contribute towards a better understanding of the world and any miss-doing would eventually phased out by regular contributers, but didn't know that some would kill it in the very start and destroy the very essence of wikipedia.
  • I will not urge it anymore. Prof. Saeed doesn't require wikipedia refference to justify his works. Thanks ...

You only get to vote once, Falcon007. I say Weak keep, he seems to have an extensive bibiolgraphy, though I don't know that we need an article on every book he's ever written. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Bibliography appears legit, and subject apparently played a notable role in Pakistani education, with building named for him. Monicasdude 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — How is he non-notable, at least as listed? Granted the article needs cleanup and some fact checking. Thanks. :) — RJH 18:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would vote to keep if we have verifiable proof that he has done these things. I don't know we have such evidence. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: as unverifiable. I can't verify any of these books' existence, let alone their importance. If the article needs "some fact checking" and "apparently played a notable role...", then it needs to be expanded in a hurry or deleted. The only external links are to a GeoCities site (which apparently isn't worth the $5 per month to remove the obnoxious ad) and a single school article in another language. If he's so respected by Alamgirians, why doesn't http://www.alamgirian.org have more than a single page or anything in English? If they have more, I wouldn't know since their search feature is broken - i.e., two junky sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Moderately Strong Keep Many of the books do exist as they are available in various libraries: try searching for Sa`id Rashid or Sajid Rashid; WorldCat returns at least 10 of the books listed in the article. Ardric47 04:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Well, I'm not able to see what Ardric47 is seeing - he guesses because it's a subscription service - but I'll take his word for it enough to change my vote to abstain instead of delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Columbia University (for example) (online at [26]) has 9 titles catalogued under Rāshid, Saʻīd (it might be easier to copy and paste the Unicode characters). Ardric47 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • thanks ... these are some of his books (Falcon007 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
• keep, looks notable. Kappa 13:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on principle. No valid reason given to delete. "NN" or "Non-notable" is almost meaningless - all it says is "I can't think of a good reason, I just want this to be deleted". Stifle 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh and move to correct capitalization. Stifle 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • already been moved. the link on this page with incorrect capitalization is redirected to the correct capitalization version.--Alhutch 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears to be a notable author and relatively important figure in education in Pakistan.--Alhutch 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Punkmorten 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master Of Masterpieces

(also Master Of Masterpieces 1/1 Basketball Hobby Collection)

Seems to be a guy who collects sports cards, and written by the subject DJ Clayworth 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's the most important masterpiece collection in Europe, worth about 1 Mio. $. It's fine if you write a new article about it. I don't have a problem with it. PatTheHead
• Delete. I'm not convinced that this self-proclaimed master is notable.SoothingR 17:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• userfy to PatTheHead 's page --Ruby 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a boring biography of some dude who collects basketball cards. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy the main article, delete the collection one. Stifle 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GTA LCS Cheat Device

This doesn't appear to merit an article of its own but should surely be merged with the parent article File Éireann 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response from mynameisJayden

If the goal of Wikipedia is to be as detailed as possible, then isn't it better that this be turned into a stub and be as detailed as possible? It could elaborate on how the application works, and therefore inspire more homebrews. The topic of how the Cheat Device works (through binary and commands) is in it's own a topic that could be better fleshed out. While I agree that this could be merged with the Liberty City Stories topic, I believe that many details are important and could only be fleshed out if given their own space. These details include:

• Each version, and the changes made
• Installation
• The features
  • Intent of the feature
  • Instructions on how to use that feature
  • Any bugs that exist, need to be corrected, or have been corrected (status)
  • Use of the feature other than intended
• How the programming works
  • HEX
  • Functions

In conclusions, it is important that each subject of Wikipedia be as detailed and as clear as possible. If this article were merged, it would lose focus on the above details, which are important to those interested. Thankyou, --Jayden 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And make a mention of the thing in the Grand Theft Auto game article Ruby 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Condense to a maximum of one paragraph and merge to GTA: Liberty City Stories. It's worth a mention, but the cheat device is simply a trainer but the cheat device is generally a trainer (with the addition of video and screenshot capture options), and thus doesn't merit an article. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ╫

• Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Context, Vanity. Cdcon 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge into parent article. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the linked web site already covers versions, and should cover the remaining concerns as outlined in the response above, and wikipedia is not bugzilla. At the least it can be condensed to an overview and then merged as per nom. — Graibeard ^(talk) 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merged. I've merged what's neccesary into Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. Delete or keep as per consensus.
• Delete Not encyclopedic with that much detail and does not provide any value as a redirect. -- JamesTeterenko 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Head-Space Project

Defunct website; don't see why it's notable. Daniel Case 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Daniel, you don't see why it's notable because it is not notable! ;) --Neigel von Teighen 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Traffic Rank for head-space.org: 923,697 --Ruby 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reconsider. This project was the incubator of highly influential community websites including Urban75, Circle Makers and iWorld, and was the pre-eminent online creative community for five years. (Later note) However, I have a personal connection, and have now read more about the rules for deletion; I am very clearly conflicted here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Felixv (talk • contribs).
• Delete per Ruby. Stifle 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as NN is being determined based on currency. Quite a lot of former entities would be NN and thereby deletable if that were a criteria. Winning an international award is something. In the lack of proved NN, err on the side of keep. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to The Sound of Silence. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound Of Silence

Not Noteworthy Alecmconroy 15:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect nn guild vanity to The Sound of Silence MLA 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Sound of Silence per MLA. Guildcruft vanity.--Isotope23 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Sound of Silence. This may not be a vanity page, per-se (if the given forum link is legit) -- but it's probably better for the Russian Wikipedia to make such a decision, if anyone cares to place such an entry over there. --Ds13 16:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Sound of Silence. --Terence Ong 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullpen (software development)

Wikitionary has an entry concerning a bullpen which addresses the subject of this article. James084 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef. --Terence Ong 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Rudykog 10:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croup (artist)

Delete as not notable, unverifiable. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon. Find me something that shows that this is more than just vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn artist --Ruby 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- an anon made it so there's no need to worry about pissing off a new user.--Urthogie 09:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Stifle 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xbindkeys

Delete. Lacks context, notability, importance. -- Krash (Talk) 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 82,700 ghits for xbindkeys, which is not an ambiguous term --Ruby 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (merge into Dames Point Bridge). JamesTeterenko 07:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Cury

Comment: This page was listed for speedy deletion as nn-bio. First pass, it would appear that would be the case. However, I found a reference to this individual at [27] (search for name). Again, at first glance it would be easy to think this person is non-notable. Afterall, he's just a grocery store owner. But, take this in the context of a series of events from 30 years ago. As a leader of opposition against a major project, he may have been frequently in the news at the time, and certainly to the region he was probably quite notable. This is difficult to verify today, since those news items would not be on the web. So, I'm bringing this to AfD rather than speedy delete, to allow for comment. --Durin 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I'm inclined to agree with Durin - good researching. I know nothing about this but it seems like something that may be notable. MLA 16:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Dames Point Bridge. Ewlyahoocom 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• ? I honestly don't know whether to delete or keep. We've now got proof this figure is notable, but I feel it would be very hard for this to be a high-standard article considering there are so few sources of information. J.J.Sagnella 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Made my Mind up- Merge J.J.Sagnella 08:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the relevant portion of the article with Dames Point Bridge. The basis of this article comes from a local club's publication, so he is not notable on his own. Cdcon 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm not wedded to it, but there's enough material to warrant an article on the man. --Durin 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice against it's inclusion at Wiktionary. If anyone wants to carry out the transwiki process, please contact me (or any other admin) and I will temporarily undelete for that purpose. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afnan

Nomination by Cunado19 was incomplete. Completing the process - no vote. - ulayiti (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - This article is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia articles should not be dictionary entries or categories of names. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic, dicdef. --Terence Ong 16:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This belongs in the dictionary. MARussellPESE 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC) On the fence Is this a given name? Can we have an example? If it is, we should disambiguate it from Afnán which has a very different usage to Bahá'ís. But, I'm not sure individual given names deserve individual articles. Then again mine does. MARussellPESE 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it can be expanded, and we've already got quite a few articles on given names at Category:Given names. - ulayiti (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radikala

Clearly an advertisment. Delete Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising eLNuko 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. -- Krash (Talk) 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no rank on Alexa --Ruby 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Destroyers

Page looking to recruit members of a anti-vandal squad. Total hypocrisy. Delete. Bobby1011 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsnese. --Terence Ong 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteI'm the creator and sorry to say it but destroy it b/c i put it in the wrong place and i have the wrong ideas--Dr. Mahongany 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whatever else, it doesn't belong in article space. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and send well-intentioned user to Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit. -- Krash (Talk) 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But we will meet again, Dr. Mahongany, and next time I shall not fail you. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't belong in article space. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per author. GRuban 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think it's hypocrisy; irony perhaps? --Pagrashtak 06:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 Barber Crescent

Improperly tagged as speedy. Smells hoaxy to me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and tell 'Craig Pearce' not to bother publishing his dissertation here either. ::Supergolden:: 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If Abraham Lincoln lived there, it might be notable. However, as there is no evidence that Lincoln ever visited Sheffield in the UK let alone lived there, it is unverifiable. The rest of the article is about a totally unnotable residence. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Please don't Delete This page is a valuable addition to the wikipedia encyclopedia, and Craig Pearce's dissertation will be an elightening and fantastic work which deserves to be read by many. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.114.214 (talk • contribs).
• I tagged it as speedy, as it's a blatant hoax (as I stated in the reason for speedying), and putting it to AfD is just a waste of time. Speedy delete, do not feed the trolls. Proto||type 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be a hoax. Not a speedy unless you can back up a claim of vandalism. Stifle 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete}} Rossami (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Marsh

Despite his good deed, not notable person eLNuko 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment He is in the local community. Pretty famous, in fact. I've seen more obscure articles than this survive Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimguytrucker (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 February 2006.
• Delete as non notable. -- Krash (Talk) 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete minor hero, not enough for a full article --Ruby 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment FYI, the Kove ranch mentioned in this story is the horse farm owned by actor Martin Kove, known best for his role in Karate Kid. This alone validates this entry in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimguytrucker (talk • contribs).
• Weak keep. Who knows? Some consider him notable, while others don't. Or maybe he might rise to fame someday. Mr Tan 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Econazi

Googles a whopping 325, with Wiki and clones showing up first. Essentially a word used by Rush Limbaugh and no one else. Also largely a dicdef as it stands but does not warrant expansion. Noted on List of Political Epithets. Marskell 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 16:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I favor merge/redirect to Rush Limbaugh, since the expression is illustrative of his views. — RJH 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a subtle violation of NPOV, I say Delete instead --Ruby 19:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Capitalistroadster 22:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plainamp

This is a stub about a piece of software currently on version 0.1.9. It is unverifiable because I can't find any information about it not written by the author. Will Loves Beer 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated in article talk page, as well as failing WP:SOFTWARE and being WP:VSCA. CraigF 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until it's a mature beta at least --Ruby 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Horus the falcon 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • plainamp is innovative by offering plugin loading/unloading during runtime. (notability #1.4)
  • plainamp was suggested for inclusion in the package manager tree of "ReactOS" (notability #6)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academy of War and Peace

Contested WP:PROP but no evidence has been presented for subject's notability. RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle 20:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in current form. - Rudykog 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cafeen?

Has been submitted to WP:PROD twice. Submitting here instead. Appears to be a non-notable student social establishment connected in an unspecified manner with Copenhagen University. RobertG ♬ talk 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, added context tag. Delete unless someone can cite the importance of this group.--Isotope23 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. Angr/talk 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge or redirect to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Stifle 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. - Rudykog 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idolizationarianism

Incorrectly tagged as speedy. It's a neologism. The page has been tagged with hangon, but no matter how much it's developed, it's still about a neologism. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 17:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On what fronts isn't it a speedy? It clearly states it is a neologism, it's poorly written and has no chnace of actually being a real word. J.J.Sagnella 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no CSD category for neologisms. Here is a list of criteria for speedy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion· Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you just use {{db|neologism}}? J.J.Sagnella 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You could, and the admin who came to it would remove the {db} tag with a comment like "not a valid CSD criterion". Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is, of course, exactly what happened. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete even Dubya wouldn't use this word. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the most rapid manner that is not officially a speedy --Ruby 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete / Speedy Delete and say it's not speedy. Reason: Wikipedia is not for words made up by you, especially when they don't make sense! This is not only a violation of encyclopedic material, but it also breaks standard english speech patterns. "ization"? "arianism"? I think it's more of a vanity page, just to get attention or troll. (example: "this word was made up by me".) I doubt this even qualifies for Wiktionary! Raccoon Fox 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I tagged it as speedy, as it's a blatant hoaxy neologism; it even states this in the 'article', and bothering to put this through the AfD process when it's such a clear delete is just a waste of everyone's time. Certainly classes as 'nonsense'. Be bold, and do not feed the trolls. Proto||type 12:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my vote. Proto||type 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Medical Schools Comparison

Is this really appropriate? James084 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Terence Ong 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- eek, and the data's wrong also. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencylocpoedic.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was sent to WP:CP. Punkmorten 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ezydvd

Looks like the rantings of a crazed corporation written in the third person -- or maybe its just copied from a corporate website. Google search on EzyDVD returns 340,000 hits, so I guess that makes it notable, but maybe this should be deleted so someone could start over. Ewlyahoocom 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and complete rewrite. --Terence Ong 17:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's a copyvio from http://www.ezydvd.com.au/franchise.zml. Listed as such on Copyright problems. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if no rewrite. - Rudykog 10:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promolux

Tagged as speedy. Advertisement. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advert. --Fire Star 17:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete asserts that it is the "first" but its still an ad --Ruby 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nine Inch Nails Songs Played Live

I'm favour of Wikipedia being a source of information on many different topics, but I believe that this is going a little too far. There appears to be little use for this list. (Prodtag was removed by Shagg187) SoothingR 17:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft. --Terence Ong 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Nine Inch Nails are big Defunkier 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to a list of Nine Inch Nails Songs, just flag those which are played live and those which aren't. This is very likely original research since few bands publish their gig playlists. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• And now for the latest entry in the Hit Parade o' Listcruft.... Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NIN is notable, so it has its own article. A list of songs they have authored is also notable, and is included in the NIN article. A list of songs authored under a special condition (live) is not notable, and deserves no more than a passing mention in the NIN article. Violates Listcruft. Cdcon 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NINcruft. What's next, List of Nine Inch Nails Songs Not Played Live? I just removed an enormous list of People who have never been Punk'd from Punk'd. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have also reverted Shagg187's removal of the AFD tag from this page earlier today. Essexmutant 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rynne 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --kingboyk 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Really and truly, this is a list of interest to only a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this page has been copied in its entirety to Songs performed live by Nine Inch Nails. If current page is deleted, the copy should be speedy-deleted because of recreation of deleted material. Rynne 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was also added the the Nine Inch Nails article but has been deleted. -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am the one who copied it from the NIN main article. It was just so big, it was rediculous, and I felt there was much too much effort put into its creation to just delete it. The only acceptable alternative was to move to another page. I would have no problem with it gone, though. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Shagg187, who wrote this article, authored another page containing the same list, Nine Inch Nails: Live. All additional content on Nine Inch Nails: Live was pasted directly from Nine Inch Nails#Members. Rynne 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia:Listcruft. -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No point in redirecting anywhere because this is a bad misspelling. No point in merging because what could be salvaged out of this article is already present in other articles. —Cleared as filed. 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnical cleansing in Croatia

Delete Propaganda, heavily biased, factually false statements, unsourced, redundant with all articles about the wars in Yugoslavia. Orzetto 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ethnic cleansing in general --Ruby 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ethnic cleansing. --Terence Ong 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since "ethnical" is not even a proper word so a redirect seems pointless, cheap tho they be. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. That's too horrendous a misspelling to be covered by a typo, so I don't even think it meets a criteria for a redirect.--み使い Mitsukai 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as embarrassment to intellect. Content is purely editorial too. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. rodii 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRAL. I am afraid the current votes are not sufficiently founded. This article is not, like, a hoax, or vanity page. One must seriously argue that the facts were distorted or events didn't take place. A more correct and neutral title could help. The redirect option is certainly misguided. You cannot redirect to an article that does not address the current content. Also, the absense of reputable references is a serious drawback. mikka (t) 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Pending verification. Alexander 007 17:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The events clearly took place. If there is a problem with spelling, fix it. In 1900, Dalmatia had approximately equal number of Serbs, Croats and Italians. Now it is 85% Croat. Serbs were expelled (and killed in a genocide) in WWII and from 1991-1995. Italians in WWII, and expelled after it (it is an issue in Italy nowadays, Berlusconi asks Croatia to give back the property of expelled Italians, called enui). So, there is a lot of substance here, and the article has its place. If you think it is POV or has language errors, you can fix that as per Wikipedia policies. It is not wikipedia policy to remove the content because of language error (or even POV) as far as it is written on wiki policy pages. Mikiolo 08:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary in 1911

The article contains no useful information and is redundant with the very detailed History of Croatia series and with ethnic cleansing. It is written with POV content that borders on propaganda and cites no sources; its very title and introduction seem written to picture Croats as murderers ("Ethnical cleansing in Croatia is a method which was used by Croats several times to change the balance in national composition of Croatia in twentieth century"). Even if it were a good article, it would be in the wrong place, since there are tons of article on the history and wars of Croatia. When it comes to Italian presence in Istria and Dalmatia, this map of the ethnicity of Austria-Hungary comes in handy: it is from an English source in 1911 (times and authors are not immediately under suspicion of POV). Italians are a majority only in coastal areas of Istria, claiming that "Istria was always a part of Italy" (which did not even exist before 1861) does not look likely. --Orzetto 12:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

the map you have produced is completely consistent with the article. It says that majority in Dalmatia were Slavs (Serbs + Croats). But Croats were a minority, i.e. Serbs and Italians were also a majority. Both were purged in ethnical cleansing, in several waves and that is the point of the article. from around a third croats are now 85% majority in dalmatia!!! Also, being part of a country (like Venice, Ragusa which had Latin, Italian and Dalmatian as major and official languages) is something not shown on this map. I discuss it below Mikiolo 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:179600VZ.gif

Venice in 1796

Italy might have not existed, but Venice clearly did. Until Napoleon Conquest, Istria and Dalmatia were part of Republic of Venice. After that Ragusa and part of Venice were given to Austria, not to Croatia (which was in personal union with Hungary). So it should be changed to never been part of Croatia, since that is clearly true.

Istria, Fiume and Zara were never part of Croatia until 1945, and Dalmatia was never part of Croatia until 1939. Also, if information does appear on some other places, this aspect of Croatian policies ought to be separately discussed. Just because some things are discussed in various other articles are not a good reason to remove an article from wikipedia. Would you remove Holocaust article because of the overlaps with final solution, WWII, SS and Himmler articles?? Mikiolo 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that POV is a reason to delete an article. The article in its current state is clearly POV, but if it can be sourced, with citations etc., edited to a NPOV, it could be a good article. If it cannot be sourced -- even by its POV authors -- that fact alone may convince the community that the allegations made in the article are false. And by the way, after reviewing enough articles, citations to population changes over time prove nothing in and of themselves -- demographics may change for any number of reasons and genocide is merely one of many possible interpretations (POVs). Carlossuarez46 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bwhap

Delete only 1 unrelated MSN hit, possible neologism, particularly useless J.J.Sagnella 17:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)