Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Bank of Cuba

There's no such thing as the "Bank of Cuba". It's actually called the Central Bank of Cuba. Alr 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Rename Banco Central de Cuba, the name used on the official webpage. Bkwillwm 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll do that now. Still, in it's current form, this article is a dicdef. Alr 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Rob 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep may be very short at the moment, but surely both encyclopedic and capable of expansion without much difficulty. Dicdefs should not necessarily be deleted, providing they are likely to expand into more than just dicdefs. PatGallacher 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, major national institution. Should remain in English as this is English Wikipedia. Gazpacho 02:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP Basically what the nominator is asking for is a move, which AfD is not needed to do. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per PatGallacher. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per CanadianCaesar - the nomination intended a move, not a delete, and there have been no delete votes cast. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per CanadianCaesar. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:29Z
• 'KEEP I'm unsure if this meets the speedy keep criteria --Chazz88 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the copyright notice on their official site [1] Put a redirect on the Spanish/Portoguese name. We're an English Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, obviously notable. I'm not sure about the direction of the redirect; Category:Central banks appears to show that there isn't a clear policy in this specific field. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Videogame List

Non-notable website, sort of an ad but more of a speech. but Alexa rank is about 560,000. Delete. CastAStone 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• The site is older than similar sites listed here (Klov, MobyGames) and the content is wider. No reason to delete (User:Kamehamehaaa)
• Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:30Z
• Keep --Chazz88 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Tim Pierce 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Sorry, but not notable enough. The information available at KLOV, MobyGames & GameFAQs already trump this site. It doesn't matter how old the site is if it's a poorly developed concept. The size/scope of its list of games is duly noted, but the coverage of said games is nothing but flimsy and unsubstantial. Searching for Super Mario Bros. on the NES, just look at the spareness of the information in the resulting games. All 5 of those games barely have any information, and Super Mario Bros. 1, 2 & 3 are arguably the most popular games listed in the database. No reason in my mind to keep this article as "notable". - Liontamer 22:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Liontamer. You can call me Al 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Incognito 05:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Quarl. Stifle 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Clean up, remove POV, then Keep per Kamehamehaaa. Notability is not based on the quality of a website, but on how well-known or important it is. It would seem that this site is far more notable than many other websites that have articles (and should also be kept). -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. I've cleaned, wikified, added some more info and tried to remove POV Kamehamehaaa

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The J&P Sports Network

I bring you a site with a whopping grand total of

36

Members!!!! (Does not meet WP:WEB for the pedantic) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• "...a new sports site created in early December 2005. Created by friends Paul & Joe..." Obvious delete, although I wish them well and maybe someday they will rank an article. bikeable (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• speedied <font color="#2e8b57">Peregrine</font>[[User_talk:PeregrineAY|<font color=#006400>_^AY</font>]] 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native Guns

This appears to be a non-notable rap group. They have no listing on allmusic, and the small number of links returned by Google are mostly either geocities or myspace pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The second half of this article is a copyvio of their MySpace webpage, http://www.myspace.com/kiwi Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article appears well researched and deals with an important Filipino hip hop/rap group. Yes, it's absolutely correct that non-USA rap (or any non-English language rap for that matter) is not generally covered by All Music Guide, no matter its quality or importance to its local culture or subculture, all the more reason such groups be covered here. Badagnani 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review WP:MUSIC. Which inclusion criteria does this group meet? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, these musicians are born and raised in California, what do you mean by non-USA rap group? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • An Internet search shows that the group is well known and performs widely in Filipino and Asian Pacific American cultural festivals, and that it is one of the more active and well regarded hip hop groups in the Filipino American hip hop subculture (probably the third most important hip hop subculture in the U.S. after African American and Puerto Rican American). Further, the group's work frequently appears in Filipino and Asian Pacific American print and radio media. Has also toured throughout the U.S. and Canada. From WP:Music:
      • "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."
      • "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
      • "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources."

Badagnani 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC based on the article, and I can't find anything that would show otherwise. And there really is no systemic bias against Californians. - Bobet 13:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lets start a systemic bias against Californians! (actual reason: fails WP:MUSIC per above). --Pboyd04 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article on the Native Guns should not be deleted on the grounds that they are a not only a staple in current Filipino-American hip-hop culture, but of independent (indie) hip-hop music and are also well known activists for human/Asian Pacific American rights. They are known within that community and yes while they are NOT on allmusic.com, so aren't Francis Magalona, or Andrew E. who's impact in the history of Philipppine-based Filipino hip-hop cannot be disputed. Neither are even "Asin" or Florante who are national stars and heroes and whos anti-Marcos songs such as "Upuan" and "Balita" played a big role in the inspiring the famous 1986 EDSA People's Power Revolution and also have had their songs along with Freddie Aguilar translated into more than 20 languages and have become hit songs in other countries other than the Philippines. What these artists meant to Philippine-based hip-hop and rock then is exactly what the Native Guns mean to the Filipino-American hip-hop community now. It should also be noted that the Native Guns' Kiwi, (born Jack DeJesus) went to high school with the world famous Black Eyed Peas' Apl.de.ap (Allan Pineda) as well as Will.i.am and was one of the influences young Allan had upon moving here from the Philippines. Furthermore the Native Guns have been featured in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, and were named one of L.A.'s "Top 10 Most Intriguing Bands" by the L.A. Alternative Press. Links:

Native Guns featured in Canada's Vancouver Georgia Straight Weekly-[[2]] Named one of L.A.'s "Top Ten Most Intriguing Bands"-[[3]] Featured in asianweek.com- [[4]] Fil-Arts Fest- [[5]] sfweekly.com- [[6]]

The duo was also featured in Jointz Mag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.85 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC) User:Wikipedian13

• Keep Well written article. I see no reason this should be deleted. Check two you 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm amazed- this is an incredibly informative article on the underground asian hiphop scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.86.7.193 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Hey this is Kiwi of the Native Guns. i just found out about all this recently, so bear with me. anyway, as far as the article, yes there's some cut-n-paste, but whatever's written about us looks satisfactory. not sure how else to go about this. we're also mentioned in an article on wikipedia regarding filipino hip hop [[7]]. i can clean it up if need be, but for the most part, it's accurate. if you need me to add or clarify anything let me know groundworkmusic@yahoo.com. as far as whether or not we're 'worthy' of being on here well that's not my decision but i think the track record speaks for itself. sorry if i didn't follow the format, i never even heard of wikipedia until now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.4.166 (talk • contribs).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete probably qualifies as band-vanity.  ALKIVAR™ 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V. If we can't verify what you say is the truth, then we can't have it in the wiki.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on writeups in regional music and culture magazines. Tim Pierce 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above comments. Jcuk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am a doctoral student writing about cultural studies and social transformation at UC Berkeley. Native Guns and Kiwi are one of the top hip hop groups within that APIA community, and in terms of messaging, bridges everything from the personal to the community and the international. Native Guns is well known and loved in the community from LA to the Bay to NYC and Chi-town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.134.213 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Falls under:

1. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
2. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

Information is verifiable under multiple sources (specifically within the APIA music and activism scene), including:

• Locus Arts- [[8]] Vancouver's Under the Volcano- [[9]]
• APAture- [[10]]
• UCLA's Ethnomusic archives (call #200305_0005)- [[11]]
• Festival of Phillipines ART & Culture- [[12]]
• East Bay Express- [[13]]

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

• comment - Some people make bad-faith copyright violation nominations, in order to do an end run around the {afd} procedure. An article I started was on the receiving end of someone willing to take advantage of the three week long backlog in addressing copy-vios. So I checked this assertion. The copy-vio assertion is solid. I went back to the beginning of the article, to see whether rhe article could be saved by reeling back to an earlier version that was not a copy-vio. The very first contributor's version incorporated material from its external links.
  • This does not mean there should be no article about this band. If the original author of the material on the myspace web-pages that has been incorporated into this article releases it under an appropriate liscence, or puts their material in the public domain, the copy-vio concern goes away... -- Geo Swan 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent article, seems notable enough. Kevin 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks notable to me. A.J.A. 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well researched, needs some help with the style, but overall no way that this should be deleted. Soo 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Takis Fotopoulos

Like the things he links to at the bottom of this page, which reads like a resume with a legal threat at the end, with links to other nn articles related to him that were deleted. Let's get rid of this vanity page as well. Delete karmafist 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Inclusive Democracy is definitely notable, so I think this guy is, too. - ulayiti (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(legal threat from anon article creator deleted). karmafist 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We'll write about you whether you like it or not, thank you very much. This article contains verifiable, notable information. Ashibaka tock 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 12K Google [14] is pretty notable. I guess just make sure it stays npov and there's not any unverified stuff or potential slander in there. Blackcats 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page. - CorbinSimpson 10:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - as per those above. --Chazz88 12:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 'Vanity page' can be abused as a deletion category. Charles Matthews 13:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While his individual projects may be of debatable encyclopedic value, the fact that he's pulled them together, and with whom, tends toward notability. (As long as his associates can stop violating WP:OWN). --SarekOfVulcan 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

Since yesterday’s announcement some of the main points we made in it have already been confirmed! Thanks to the technical work of some administrators who showed that they function without any political agendas against us but instead attempted to find out the truth, Paul Cardan (the disgruntled ex-member of the journal with a vendetta against us who was the main cause of the first AfD against Democracy & Nature through his repeated vandalising attacks against it) and User:DisposableAccount (who proposed the deletion of the successor journal to D&N and with the support of two (2) administrators managed to have it deleted), Llbb and Bbll (who persuaded other administrators to keep the page deleted) are all the same editor! [15] Meanwhile, other administrators still doubt whether the present announcement is a genuine Editorial Board announcement. Here is the proof: [16]

The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 10:30 (UTC) January 2, 2006

User:Narap43

• Keep sounds notable. --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect --Ichiro 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Softness

Can this ever be any more than a dictdef? Grutness...wha? 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Most dictionary nouns are also worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. I find it ridiculous that people try to save vast amounts of ancient discussions in archives and the most worthless trivial subjects but delete the most basic subjects. Bensaccount 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. If there's anything to it, it can go on Soft matter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Soft matter is a completely different subject - It deals with matter that can not be categorized as liquid or solid. Bensaccount 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I know it is easy to delete things if you call them dicdefs but please think about what you are doing. Just being a dicdef, or just being short, does not warrant deletion. Bensaccount 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I sort through 100-150 stubs per day. Of them, I rarely nominate more than one per day here - and after a few hundred stubs you can usually spot the ones which are or are not savable. So yes, I did think about what i was doing to nominate this. I far more frequently fix up things other people had nominated here. This one, though, looks like just a dictdef is all that it could be - and disctdefs belong in Wiktionary, not here.Grutness...wha? 10:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is easy to delete entries that don't conform to Wiki policy, Bensaccount. Please see WP:NOT. PJM 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Being a substub article that can never be expanded, or being an outright dictionary article that cannot ever be other than a dictionary article, does. This article isn't a dictionary article, because it is an article about the concept of softness, not an article about the word softness. But if you want to argue that it is a stub that can be expanded, then demonstrate that, exactly as I did at kindness. There's no better argument that an article can be expanded from perpetual stub status than a stub article with substantial references and further reading. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hardness. A notable property of rocks and such. Blackcats 04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to hardness. – Seancdaug 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have articles for Light and Dark whats wrong with Hardness and Softness ? Jcuk 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • An article on electromagnetic radiation and an article on the absense of illumination (The article is actually darkness, as per our naming conventions.) are not two sides of the same coin. Uncle G 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I cant see that defining softness as being a lack of hardness is any different to defining darkness as being a lack of light Jcuk 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read our articles on light and darkness to see what they are actually about. Uncle G 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand or (if not expanded) redirect to hardness. Karol 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. plain old policy, no matter how much you beg. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hardness per above. Ben's claim that most dictionary nouns deserve articles may be true, but they should contain encyclopedic material, not dictionary material. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The demarcation of which you speak is entirely imaginary. Encyclopedic material is often the same as dictionary material. A compendium of information must include definitions. Not only must it include them it must strive to make all its entries definitive concise and eloquent - as much like definitions as possible. Bensaccount 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is probably a mechanism for changing Wikipedia policy. If you think Wikipedia must be a dictionary to fullfil its mission, changing that policy might be a good thing to try. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The distinction between a dictionary article and an encyclopaedia article is quite real, and is the use-mention distinction. That some editors get that distinction wrong, despite the good advice to avoid having "X refers to" and "X is a word that means" in encyclopaedia articles that is given in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, does not mean that there is not a distinction. See also encyclopaedic dictionary. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hardness per above. Perhaps with a little note for the irretrievably dumb that the opposite of hardness is softness? Dan 18:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Great so not only can we save an entire page worth of space on Wikipeida (which can instead be put to good use for something like Nidoking), we also get to insult anyone who follows a link to softness by making them look at the entirely opposite subject and making them fill in the rest. Bensaccount 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just as with ugliness and beauty, yes. Uncle G 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well... softness is a dictionary definition, that's all. Hardness is a scientific term of which softness is a lack of the same. Dan 17:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hardness per above. I'd say merge but there isn't enough content. --Bletch 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. This didn't need to come through AfD. Soo 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--Alf ^melmac 12:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect works for me. --Alf ^melmac 12:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Loughin's Restaurant

Non-Notable restaurant. No claim to notability, Google search revealed that article creator spelled the restaurant name wrong. Wrong spelling gets 18 hits, correct spelling gets 99 hits. VegaDark 00:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Couldn't this have been speedied? TheRingess 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I wish it could have been. However, article 7 only allows for people with no claim to notability to be speedied, not places. VegaDark 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• A7 has been expanded to cover groups and bands. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• That still does not cover locations, such as this.VegaDark 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't implying that A7 covered establishments. I was only pointing out that it had been expanded to cover more than people, i.e. biograhpical articles. PJM 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, CSD only covers non-notable people. Alr 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• As well as groups and bands. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a directory.--FloNight 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• XFD, you guys are debating the qualifications of CSD7...yeah, let's delete this. - CorbinSimpson 10:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see a debate. The expansion of A7 is very recent and there are editors who haven't discovered that yet. I just added information to previously made statements, despite the fact that A7 irrelevant here otherwise. PJM 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:32Z
• Delete Per nom. I must note that I'm partly prejudiced by the use of the word folks. Argh. Dan 18:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Looks like vanity. --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranvir Bassi

Unverified (and unverifiable) and poorly formatted. It looks for all the world like a hoax. I was half-inclined to put it up for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure it fits comfortably into those guidelines.... – Seancdaug 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Your search - "Ranvir Bassi" - did not match any documents. , also the formatting made my eyes bleed ;_____; - FrancisTyers 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per page, "No Doubt when certain people have found this article it will be deleted." Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per author "No Doubt when certain people have found this article it will be deleted." --FloNight 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. VegaDark 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, troll. -- (aeropagitica)  10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:35Z
• Speedy delete as attack page CSD A6. If true, the subject would not want this known! -- JimR 10:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per page, or Speedy if we can get it under A6 Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's horrible. The bad grammar! I can feel a migraine coming on. Dan 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Those who should know why, already know why. (Top-secret reasons such as unverifiability :) --Raistlin 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reason Raistlin listed.  :) Ekpardo 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenger skulls of triton

Non-notable, perhaps mythological, band whose name gets a whopping zero google hits, despite three albums (?) listed in 2002 (allmusic hasn't heard of them either). I am marking parallel article Revengers skull of triton as CSD (empty). Delete. bikeable (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "nuke" it - FrancisTyers 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, because merging requires keeping and the consensus is to merge this someplace. Merging isn't the job of AFD, though, so any interested party can feel free. —Cleared as filed. 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque metal

This article repeats both Power Metal and Symphonic Metal. It is well worded as such, but essentially is still a stub repeating a full length article. It also focuses on only certain bands of the form, coming across highly as somoene advertising their favourite bands. This article as such doesnt warrent an article, and a redirect should be left to the Power Metal article. Leyasu 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. When the article gets a distinction in which the difference is explained between baroque metal on one hand, and power metal and symphonic metal on the other, I'll change my vote. But for now, I don't think that it's possible since the styles seem pretty much the same thing.SoothingR 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• In the same way that classical music and baroque music are "pretty much the same thing"??? :S —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.166.164 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: No, Baroque metal doesn't repeat classical music.SoothingR 10:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Symphonic metal. As much as it is fashionable to cull back on metal articles currently in the Wikipedia, the article is still well-written (bar the final paragraph in my opinion) and should not be totally overlooked either way. Hauser 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How on Earth does this warrent being merged into Symphonic Metal when, A) Symphonic Metal is nothing alike this, and B)The article nominated for deletion repeats Power Metal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leyasu (talk • contribs).

• Merge. I'm with Hauser on this one. Rhapsody (baroque) is the same as Stratovarius (symphonic) to my ears. It's just proving a point. Perhaps, merge, then redirect, change the first paragraph of Symphonic Metal to acknoledge Baroque Metal? - CorbinSimpson 10:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Read both the Symphonic Metal and Power Metal articles. Also note that Stratovarius and Rhapsody are both commonly known as Symphonic Power Metal which is mentioned on the Symphonic Metal article. When suggesting to merge, it is normally a good idea to merge pages that have relevance to each other, and are not mostly void of each other. Leyasu 16:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As a grammar nazi, I have to note that Stratovarius is probably what Leyasu was meaning to link to... - CorbinSimpson 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) All fixed now!!! - CorbinSimpson 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Hauser, and somebody take the entire metal fan community out and shake them until they can come up with a set of agreed objective genres instead of the endless stream of "Reformed flower power thrash death symphonic badly played metal" nonsense genres with one band each. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I still expect a reason as to why merge into Symphonic Metal and not Power Metal, when the article being merged repeats power metal and is completely unrelated to Symphonic Metal's article. Leyasu 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a derivative of Symphonic Metal, IIRC. Merge WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Take from the Baroque Metal article:

Power metal totally differs from 1970s metal styles, since it adds important elements of depth, classical arrangements, complex scores and intrincated melodies. Whereas most genres of metal focus largely on personal experience, historical incidents, social commentary, or other aspects of "real life", baroque metal always treats fantasy, aristocratic, castles, battles and kings themes.

It actually calls itself Power Metal, which shows it is not a form of Symphonic Metal, it is a repeat of the Power Metal article. At best, part of it could be conisdered to reference Symphonic Power Metal. Leyasu 23:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf Ellis: Founder of the VS

Seems like unverifiable nonsense..and Google agrees, apparently.SoothingR 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. VegaDark 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense CSD G1. Sammy Darnell was not a Prime Minister of Australia, or indeed anywhere. -- JimR 09:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:37Z
• Delete or Speedy per nom, JimR Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Devout vegetarian", eh? Does that mean you worship carrots? Dan 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Darnell - Male Gigolo Extraordinaire

Hoax. Google gets 139 hits, none about this supposed person. Contributor's only other article has an AfD pending for the same reasons. VegaDark 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, fake, unverifiable, lied...SoothingR 01:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but it made me laugh o___O - FrancisTyers 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable or hoax.--FloNight 04:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:37Z
• Delete Per nom Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity (more like arrogance!) methinks. Dan 18:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN is the clear winner for me. Stifle 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwise

Was tagged for speedy as "non-notable company" (and actually deleted, then listed at WP:DRV), but it's not a candidate. No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet criteria for notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & tom (hey! it rhymes) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet criteria. Kcordina 13:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tom Harrison. Ifnord 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Company is hardly non-notable, their product is a strong competitor with Microsoft NetMeeting. -- MisterHand 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tom Harrison. Xoloz 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've seen this company's training and conferencing products being used in a major corporate environment. I think the previous voters should try another Google search because I found many valid references. -- Netoholic @ 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems notable: [17] [18][19] -- jaredwf 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep, jaredwf has established notability, no need to relist. Kappa 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Tom --Eeee 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advert. Atrian 06:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently notable—tone needs work, but it's definitely salvagable. --zenohockey 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 130 employees, it's not Microsoft but it's no tiddler, and the Chairman of its board is Jim Manzi, former Chairman, President and CEO of Lotus Development Corporation, who steered the corporation from the debacle after losing the spreadsheet market to Microsoft towards its groupware (Lotus Notes) strategy. I see no good reason to delete this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Jim Manzi connection does it for me. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - notability established by jaredwf Cactus.man ✍ 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. MAZO 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Being the one who listed it for WP:DRV while on deletion patrol - I will say that while technically short of the corp standards here it may be notable in and of itself as a project of the notable people connected to it. Another idea is just to merge the article with Jim Manzi. Anyway, I'll let the community decide. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magicomm

Non-notable business vanity. -- Longhair 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:40Z
• Delete per nom Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chaps -- Can I help with this? -- I am the author of this entry and it my first foray into wikipedia. I used this company (I am an employee) to illustrate an example anoto service provider should anyone need to go any further. I was struggling for information after this article was flagged as needing more content??!!?? so I copied some of our sales blurb. I would welcome some guidance. Thanks

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] GOBI ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTION

Advertisement. No sources cited, and a cursory Google search fails to establish any notability. – Seancdaug 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 06:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this Article. It was very helpful to me. GOBI is an entity that has made a significant difference in ripoff world of multimedia. Also they have made cutting edge changes to the editing world and the way we see television today.User:Tim Goebel 11:06,1 January 2006 (USA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.249.206 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. Tim Goebel, would you by any chance be related to Timgoebel, who wrote the original article? - CorbinSimpson 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:42Z
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oh how I shudder when I see capitals abused like that. Dan 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this Article. It was very helpful to me. GOBI is an entity that has made a significant difference in ripoff world of multimedia. Also they have made cutting edge changes to the editing world and the way we see television today.{{User:Tim |} 11:06,1 January 2006 (USA)
• GOBI Entertainment is an excellent company with cutting edge technology and high standards of customer service. They have made a difference in the industry. I have dealt with a lot of production houses, and I trust this one the most. - R. Carter.
• Delete yawn TheRingess 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable FredOrAlive 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:Timgoebel (original creator of the article in question) was been repeatably blanking any negative comments from this vote. FredOrAlive 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of science writers

Whatever this article tries to do, categories will do better. Subject is also ill defined - are pseudoscientific writers supposed to be included? How technical can an author be? How serious is serious? Finally, just way too general. At least, that's what I think. Fangz 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A list that includes both Isaac Azimov and Richard Dawkins as 'science writers'? Categorisation is a more efficient way to define people like this. This list will not assist researchers. -- (aeropagitica)  10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What am I missing? Asimov certainly wrote "serious nonfiction about science aimed at a general audience". And the Dawkins article says he's a "popular science writer". -- JLaTondre 03:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Use the categories, whoever wrote it, use the categories Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteThis is what catergories are for. Kcordina 13:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect (User:BenAveling created a redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales 2 days before I closed this afd, and I'm assuming that is the concensus here) --Ichiro 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leichhardt plaza

The article itself points out that it is a "very small" shopping center, which does not speak highly of its notability. – Seancdaug 01:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge -- anything useful into Leichhardt, New South Wales and redirect - Longhair 02:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the same user that made this article, already put the info in the suburb's article as well. However, I removed it, as I could not verify it. If it's verifiable, you may wish to put it back. --Rob 03:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Rob 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. Big shopping centres good. Medium shopping centres good. "Very small" shopping centres bad. Ambi 02:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: From Googling, I suspect the article is mistitled. It is probably the Norton Plaza Shopping Centre which is on Norton Street and in Leichhardt. But, there is no way to know this. Given the lack of context and content, it arguebly qualifies as {{db-empty}}. The fact "plaza" was not capitalized may mean the editor just meant "the plaza in Leichhardt" and not "The Leichhardt Plaza". Rather then guesse, a speedy delete would be more appropriate. It's not like we'll be loosing information here. If an editor doesn't tell what an article is about, we shouldn't guesse, and waste time debating the signficance of an unknown entity. --Rob 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rob. Sarah Ewart 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales. There are actually 3 shopping plazas in the suburb, and information on any of them could better be covered there. While not necessarily small, this one (Rob above is correct in deducing that this should actually be called the Norton Plaza Shopping Centre), is the smallest of the three. None of them are formally called "Leichhardt plaza"- the others are Leichhardt Markettown and The Forum- but since it is a noted shopping precinct the phrase could be left as a redirect to the suburb's article.--cjllw | TALK 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales per cjllw. Thanks for confirming what it was, as I really was guessing. --Rob 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's called "The Forum" but the "Italian Forum". That would be notable, it is an interesting place in its own right. But this article is not worth keeping. Non-speedy Delete, don't redirect or merge. Ben Aveling 06:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Redirect Ben Aveling 06:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Roisterer 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What is there in the article to merge? Ben Aveling 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree there's not much to actually merge, other than mentioning the centre's existence. I've now added some descriptions of the shopping centres to the suburb's article, so nothing else to do. As a generic term Leichhardt plaza could still be turned into a redirect, but deleting it probably wouldn't hurt either.--cjllw | TALK 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. I've taken the liberty to turn the page into a redirect. I think we're done here folks. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacking Guild

Admins will take into account if certain editors do not have many edits before voting on this AfD. So creating an account to vote or using multiple IPs will not help. For further info, please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:SOCK

This is a page about a nn group of spammers. It seems similar to GNAA but less notable DeleteCastAStone 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. I have more google hits than these guys. Why not delete the GNAA while you're at it? -- Vary | Talk 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How bout no, what does it matter to you? We are spread over various sites so I really doubt that you have more "hits", not that it matters in any case. Way to kill freedom of speech...—the preceding unsigned comment is by 172.145.15.152 (talk • contribs) CleverScreenName (talk • contribs) later substituted his/her own signature in place of the {{unsigned}} notice; it was CleverScreenName's third edit, the first two being to his/her user page.
• Keep because Vary and CastAStone need a life and need to learn to leave other people alone—the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs) ScarfaceEvaStar (talk • contribs) later substituted his/her own signature in place of the {{unsigned}} notice; it was ScarfaceEvaStar's first edit.
• Delete per nom. Cyberevil 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wow - 43 whole google hits! [20] Delete. Blackcats 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gren グレン 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because we have much of a right to tell about ourselves as this group of software crackers Phrozen Crew does..way to hand out "liberty and justice for all"—the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.146.65.79 (talk • contribs)

You have every right to self-promote, but it doesn't follow that you have a right to do it on Wikipedia. You submitted an article, community consensus is tending towards deletion. These things happen. Try again later -- when your Google hits aren't in the lower three digits, you're not bereft of mainstream media coverage, or you're otherwise objectively noteworthy. In the meantime, if you're passionate about free speech and all that, why not improve other Wikipedia articles? Adrian Lamo 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because this is supposed to be an impartial encyclapedia. They havent done any harm, so there is no reason to censor them. Freedom of speech dosent just imply freedom from government censorship, but also from censorship by a few offended individuals. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 205.188.117.70 (talk • contribs)

Harmless, non-noteworthy topics are still non-noteworthy. Even if "freedom of speech" guaranteed everyone a Wikipedia article, it's not so much that anyone here is "offended" by your work as it is that it's "not relevant" to the vast majority of users outside GameSpot.

Adrian Lamo 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep,Freedom of speech.This is not a dictatorship so let them stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.181.2.16 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, forumcruft. "Freedom of speech" does not mean complete anarchy. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually yes it can, read the Bill of Rights sometime, or in fact go to elementary school - either one will work
• question couldnt care less one way or another whether this stays or not, but whats the difference between this group and the Phrozen Crew they talk about? IE why have one and not the other Jcuk 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Elementary. Phrozen Crew is/were (don't know if they're gone or not) famous. This lot isn't. --Agamemnon2 12:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps Elementary if you know about such things. I dont. Never heard of either of 'em. Jcuk 16:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:44Z
• Delete it reads like the braggings of a group of school children. Of no use or notability doktorb | words 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And please, Meatpuppets, leave this alone. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I have a better idea, nn groups meet CSD A7 =) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under the expanded CSD A7.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In no way are we affilated with racist or any type of 'hate' groups, many people we know consist of different races, religions, and sexual preferences. We have our page up for a damn day and a big group of people jump to conclusions, we are not bad people at all...you are —the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs) -- Vary | Talk 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if "bad people" were the criteria for deletion, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia. I'm sure there's a list of [something] groups somewhere on Wikipedia that you can add your name to, eh? G'day.

Adrian Lamo 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, delete, delete, delete, delete. Tim Pierce 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. Dan 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Non notable hacker orginazation Deathawk 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We are not hackers—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.155.106.168 (talk • contribs) 20:23, January 2, 2006.
    • I really don't care weather or not your hackers the fact of the matter is your group is Non Notable if it weren't than people outside of your group would be defending you as it is your the only ones defending this page, and I think that speaks volumes about the notability of this group.-Deathawk 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable fancruft. Kevin 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure the architect of this AOL IP-originated article [not that there's anything wrong with that] feels strongly about the topic, but the details and twists of message forum politics are very rarely noteworthy. Also, if you've been in existence since "mid 2005" in the first days of 2006, you're better off not mentioning dates at all. Seriously guys. Even if I take you at face value and accept that you aren't 'hackers' or 'terrorists' you're still not noteworthy outside of GameSpot. That said, you produced an extended article on a non-noteworthy topic -- have you considered honing your writing on other articles? Also, cite your sources :) Adrian Lamo 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Liontamer 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable — EagleOne\^Talk 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --OntarioQuizzer 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• FYI, this wasn't AOL IP-originated.Hijacker 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. My mistake. Adrian Lamo 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable/vanity. Fagstein 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since you people seem so concerned about Google hits just put in some of the names we mention and they will add up possibly past the triple digits CSN
  • Btw I get 18,900 alone - [21] -CSN
    • 344 - a-man27 [22], 90 - ScarfaceEvaStar [23], 15,800 - C-GHOST [24], 1,830 - pegasus seiya [25], 222 - Lu_Bu01 [26], 237 - nobuggs [27] CSN
• Delete per nom. Stifle 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t ^talk 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monocore

Doesn't meet WP:Music Esprit15d 01:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI, but that doens't prevent expansion in the meantime. I'll add it to the transwiki log. -Splash^talk 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acidophobic

This is an adjective and could that should be transwiki'd to wiktionary if it were verifiable. I placed a request for verification on the talk page of this article in March 2005 and there has been no response. There do exist articles on the internet that contain information about this term, but they are uniformly mirrors or derivatives of Wikipedia. Therefore, I request that the article be deleted in order to drop false-positive (or self-fulfilling) contamination of the internet with the article title and term definition. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after revision)

• Move to Wiktionary - although it's not a common word, the word has been used in previously published papers: Google search -"wikipedia" - look at the PDF links in there, and other links like this. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary uncommon, but useful definition. Kcordina 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - if there are interesting properties of acidophobic organisms then this is a place to hear about them. If the article can't be expanded in any meaningful way, then move to Wiktionary is appropriate. Tim Pierce 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary per Smith. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cremator (wrestler)

Tagged a speedy with the reasoning

"Unsourced, unwikified, non-notable."

No opinion. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Google search for "The Cremator wrestling" gives over 1000 hits, but I'm pretty sure there are several pro wrestlers that go by this name in those results. Add "British Colombia" to the search and get over 400 hits. Hasn't made it to the big feds yet but seems notable enough to keep, I wouldn't mind it if we went the other way on this though. VegaDark 04:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I found and added a profile of this wrestler from SomethingCool.ca. Tim Pierce 15:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per rewrite Jcuk 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs to be cleaned up substantially. - Liontamer 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to whatever his actual name is. Youngamerican 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wisbech Grammar School

Non-notable school. —ERcheck @ 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - school with no assertion of notabiity. —ERcheck @ 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Keep and expand: Current expanded article now provides context and notability. (At time of nomination, only content was "Wisbech Grammar School is an independent school in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.") —ERcheck @ 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable indeed. Cyberevil 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. As one of the oldest schools in England (established 1379) there should be more to say about it. -- JJay 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep quite notable, its 700 years old. However does need some expansion to meet WP:SCH.Gateman1997 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep age is quite notable, even for British standards. And I'm sure someone at Schoolwatch would be quite happy to expand it up. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - historicaly school which must have ample info available to expand. --Rob 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This appears to be a notable school by even the most critical standards. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of whether or not schools are notable in general, being formed in 1379 makes this a very notable school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In ERcheck's defense, it should be pointed out that the article's content at the time of the AFD tagging was "Wisbech Grammar School is an independent school in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire." Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep We keep high schools (btw, is that the English 'High School' or the American 'High School' we keep?) Anyhow a Grammar School is pretty much the same thing (ok not EXACTLY the same, but close enough it should be a speedy keep) Jcuk 10:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nearly 700 years old, and is said by Jcuk I agree ComputerJoe 10:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, and has been expanded since afd notice to meet WP:SCH. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:47Z
• Keep, even I would be embarrassed to see this deleted. Gazpacho 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Sjakkalle --Chazz88 12:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, over 700 years old and has notable graduates mentioned. Unless the nominator provides extensive reasoning to back up his nomination I cannot possibly vote to delete this. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could someone remove the word "now" in the enrollment sentence and replace it with a year? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Just so we stick to the facts here, I'd like to point out that the school is not 700 years old, nearly 700 years old, or over 700 years old. It is approximately 626 years old. -- JJay 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. How can a 700 year old school not be notable? There were very few schools around back then and even fewer have survived until this day. That alone amkes it notable. Evil Eye 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: At time of nomination, the article had only one sentence ("Wisbech Grammar School is an independent school in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.") and had not been edited since its creation over 10 days previous. Expansion with more information now provides context and notability. —ERcheck @ 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's older than my school which has an article; not that i've ever heard of Wisbech. Dan 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Rob 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep non-solely-primary schools regardless of notability. Regardless, this school now has notable information. -Rebelguys2 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Calsicol 14:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the school is over 625 yrs old Yuckfoo 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - Eminently notable and encyclopaedic, needs expansion though. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime Family Clothing

Non-notable business vanity. -- Longhair 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Cyberevil 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, zero Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• speedied <font color="#2e8b57">Peregrine</font>[[User_talk:PeregrineAY|<font color=#006400>_^AY</font>]] 03:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ehud Segev

"largely unsubstantiated or unverified content" (User:Tiksustoo). bumped from speedy. No vote. r3m0t ^talk 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry this article was nominated incorrectly. Next time, I'll use {{afdx}} - honest! :) r3m0t ^talk 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Week delete. The google hits are borderline. But I can't seem to find much coverage in mainstream media, and the article is atrociously written. Blackcats 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep the guy has played 'off broadway' whatever that means, and has made it into the New York Times [28] Jcuk 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Chazz88 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• This was nominated before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_21#Ehud_Segev. I remember checking up on his name. Please give me the time to look up the discussion I had about him in the magic (illusion) article (or help me find it). I also contacted a magic magazine during that time, please let me dig up that email as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Segev's show has been written up in New York theater magazines and he's apparently performed at city functions. I have edited out the nonverifiable promotional buzz (which, unsurprisingly, was most of the article) and added a source for the rest. Tim Pierce 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with thanks to Tim for the work. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just saw his new play ANOMAL in the American Theater of Actors in Times Square in the heart of the theater district. If that's not enough to keep his bio on wiki then he has a schedule of TV appearances in the box office - Kristen Shaughnessy from NY1 interviewed Segev and it'll run during the first weekend of January, Montel Williams booked Segev for his national TV show on January 19th. Also, google ANOMAL, his new show to find articles at PLAYBILL, BROADWAYWORLD, New York Times, and many others. I heard him live in GOOD NEWS BROADCAST where the interviewer mentions he saw Segev performs around the world and loved his performance, he also mentioned Segev's new written musical Legend that Segev recently wrote... and I also found ALL references to his press in his MEDIA>PRESS page at mentalizer.com with original scans of the articles! Just click on VIEW CLIPPING at the bottom of each article The New York Press, New York Magazine, PAGE SIX in the POST, a full item with a picture in 'WHAT'S HOT THIS WEEK' in the post, Daily News, and so many more from around the world (Not only US based newspapers, many from Asia and Israel). Didn't you see it BEFORE you edited his bio?

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Zoe. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travis steffens

Tagged a speedy with the reasoning

vanity article

I think the article says it all

"Young Entrepreneur who made $100,000 in his first 2 years of business, all profit."

Delete as advertising and non-notable. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedied, nn-bio. Zero Google hits for "Crime Family Clothing". User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ajjan

Article is an extensive biographical sketch of a candidate who lost a bid for election to the US House of Representatives. Are all congressional candidates encyclopedic? - squibix 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

yes. maybe not in tiny Britannica but in wikipedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think that being a candidate automatically makes one notable. Few Google hits. Blackcats
• Delete as per above. Reads a bit like vanity/promo. Acyso 07:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the article could benefit from a bit of cleanup though. --Chazz88 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Additional comment: I think this article passes the College professor test --Chazz88 12:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete -- Longhair 13:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Tim Pierce 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No, candidates are non-notable. Unless the subject meets another criteria (which doesn't appear the case here). Ifnord 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. - Liontamer 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say it is encyclopedic... Now if he had lost the primary that would be different... Could use a cleanup though... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete doubt if the subject passes WP:BIO, but don't think that he is quite notable enough to warrant an article. Bjelleklang - talk 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If this is kept (which seems unlikely), it should be moved to George Ajjan. -Colin Kimbrell 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep move to George Ajjan . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Blackcats. JeremyA 02:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pear calendar, 1 Vernal

Nonsense? Hoax? Self-promotion? Vanity? I can't find anything meaningful for the term "Pear calendar". User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Probably vanity or some unknown revision of the French Republican Calendar. But it could be legitimate... JRP 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly could be, but with zero Google hits, it's not something we should have in the encyclopedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Speedy delete JRP 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete absent verification, and 1 Vernal too. Gazpacho 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no verification, no locateable verification --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment added 1 Vernal to AfD, put the tag on its page. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find anything relevant on Google. Acyso 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable - couldn't find anything either. Possibly original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:53Z
• Weak delete I think this article could benefit from being verified. However, I can understand and allow the above intentions/comments. --Chazz88 12:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be verified. Then it'd be nice to know where it's from and who devised it. Dan 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• verify plus reference. this is reminiscent of the zoroastrian calendar and persian calendar -- Marvin147 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. -- jaredwf 06:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virji Corporation

• Delete - Says 'will be updated', but currently contains self-promotion. Writer (Avirji) has history of self promotion. No Google results for company - I don't see how it could possibly pass WP:CORP. _└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Google search for "virji corporation" returns no hits. Acyso 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 10:54Z
• Neutral at the moment it is merely self-promotion. However, wikipedia articles is to improve rather than delete. Nevertheless, the article can be recreated later to a higher wikipedia standard. --Chazz88 12:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 16:58, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's non-notable and self-promotion, with very little prospect of it becoming otherwise. No offence intended Avirji. Dan 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. - Liontamer 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. spam. Incognito 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borislavia

Hoax? Zero Google hits, no source. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't have zero Google hits, but it's awfully close. This article doesn't show any sources, and Google isn't helping us establish any notability, so for now, I'd say we delete it. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Borislavia in this article has zero Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No hits ComputerJoe 10:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Under which CSD ? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 11:08Z
• Weak delete as non-notable or unverifiable. References look plausible, but can't find anything on the Internet. Might be archaic translation of name or just obscure. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 11:08Z
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 16:58, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete we need a historian to verify. It should probably be merged with the duchy of Saxony if it is correct anyway. Dan 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. -- jaredwf 06:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Technobabes & Technobabes (redirect)

Social and professional networking vanity of some sort. Non-notable community meetup. -- Longhair 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy kept. AFD is not required for merges and redirects. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way of the Peaceful Warrior

Book non-notable by itself. Makes more sense in context of author's page at Dan Millman Rorybowman 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Nominator suggests merge or redirect on talk page; AfD is not needed for this. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outbreak_(game)

The Outbreak website meets none of Wikipedia's website notability criteria - it has a very small user base, ranks below four million on Alexa, and has received no media attention.

Its Wikipedia page is a self-promotional link (User:Nlindstrom created the Wikipedia page, and is also the creator of the Outbreak site) that was made at the same time as a number of blog-comment spams advertising the game. Bub27 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Tim Pierce 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I must say that I adore "à la Doom" though. (Chuckle) Dan 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 23:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of locations in Teen Titans (animated series)

Several of these locations are actual places for which there is nothing to say about them here, and several of the names ("Underwater") are outright made up. As I mentioned in a previous AfD, this show isn't known for making a big deal about their locales. And, since the show has been cancelled, it's essentially garenteed that this page will either remain in its current contentless form or be padded with pointless fancruft. Delete as a crufty stub with no hope of expansion. --InShaneee 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Obina 12:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, otherwise it would be a precedent for countless similar articles for other TV series, cartoons, books films etc to have pointless articles about the locations mentioned within them. Evil Eye 14:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ' 15:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable listcruft. Tim Pierce 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:00, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Evileye Deathawk 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Liontamer 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppix

This article was written by Oppix and is quite clearly a company vanity and an advertisement. Alexa gives it no traffic rank. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Hi JHMM13 and Jwestbrook. We wrote this article but we DO NOT tell anyone to buy anything from us! We describe a vision of augmented experience from the comfort of your couch. We believe that people are interested in getting information and this article is informative. This article is part of our effort to bring the immersive technology and the virtual tours to consciousness. Hope you care and understand. Please do not delete this article or provide me with guidelines on how I can write this article that will be suitable in your opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.64.98.91 (talk • contribs).
  • No matter how well written an article is, if the subject is non-notable then people will propose it be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Ifnord 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete. 627 google hits, many seem unrelated. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for a total disregard of what an encyclopedia even is. --Agamemnon2 12:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Agamemnon. Wow.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppix should be deleted. Oppix is not liked much by me. Oppix is vanity. Oppix will not lead a good life. ' 15:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Tim Pierce 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:01, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and non-noteworthy. Ifnord 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Essany

Autobiography. Subject is only 23 or 24, username is "messany" - identical to subject of article. Anabanana459 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• subject of article has some notability, an E! talk show, but seems that is only possible reason to keep the article, delete per WP:BIO  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

per disscussion below week keep  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, he has an IMDb entry (added link), has his own show, and appeared on Late Night with Jay Leno. Gilliamjf 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it's bad form to write an article about yourself, but he's got his own TV show and an IMDB entry, which make him notable, clearly. Also, his age is irrelevant. I've seen notable 11-year-olds. -- Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. Evil Eye 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:at first glance I though I was going to vote for delete. I'm a little dissapointed. Though it is bad faith to have your own autobiography I don't really see anything wrong with this article. According to WP:BIO#Alternative tests there is however a question of what is notable. He does past the google test. however I am hesitant on the 100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? Another key element to look at is the WP:BIO#People still alive:

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements

These elements should be discused in the article. I believe it is possible for this to be included. I also believe that this is an example of failing to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk page for the article. (one of the first steps for resolving a bad article) --CylePat 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Essany is notable for having a successful cable talk show before he had graduated from college. It's not well discussed in the article but I'll look for references. Agreed that it's bad form to write or edit an article about yourself, but he is notable nonetheless. Tim Pierce 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If written in a neutral tone, I see nothing wrong with starting your own autobiographical article, given that it meets our established criteria for notability and verifiability. Even Jimmy Wales has tailored his own article on Wikipedia several times over. As for this article, it appears to be notable enough for inclusion based upon WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny looking Katie.jpg

I was simply trying to figure out how to use wikipedia and was trying to upload an image. I picked a random one of my friend and didn't realize I wouldn't be able to delete it. It's pointless to keep here now so I think it'd be better to be deleted.

• Then you don't neeed AfD for this. Put {{db-author}} on its description page, and an admin can speedily-delete it. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broham

I'm not entirely sure if this deserves a full {{nonsense}} speedy, but it seems a bit nonsensical, and definitely worthy of deletion. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're crazy, I've definitely heard of broham before in several situations. Please, just let it stay on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bustercard (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02 04:59:15 UTC.
• Delete - unverifiable/neologism. --Hurricane111 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article tells us outright that the word "broham" was "made up by one, unnamed person". This is original research, plain and simple. This is no doubt derived from an attack on someone with the surname Broham (for which we don't need a name disambiguation article since we don't have anyone with that surname in the encyclopaedia). Please note when researching that this is a common mis-spelling of Bromham. Delete. Uncle G 06:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what's there, possibly use the name as a redirect to Brougham (carriage) Grutness...wha? 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Per Uncle G Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The definition/manner of usage isn't even correct, AFAIK. Pointless article. - Liontamer 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Republic

Fails WP:WEB with an Alexa rank of above 900,000. Anabanana459 04:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 11:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom + advertising/soapbox. Ifnord 17:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mages Guild, The Arena Guild, The Fighters Guild, The Dark Brotherhood, The Thieves Guild

Guilds for online MMORPG, delete  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Actually, they are guilds in a single player PC/Xbox 360 game yet to be released. That barely helps the case for keeping them though. VegaDark 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment you missed two guilds in the same series, which I added above. -- Megamix^? 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unsalvageably incoherent. Gazpacho 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non Notable.Obina 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gotta whack 'em all! I choose YOU!  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Destruction. ' ^{I can't click that!} _contribs 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:01, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Other than the arena guild, they're all present in Daggerfall and Morrowind, as well as Oblivion. The articles as they stand, though, are an incoherent attempt at a game guide. Even if cleaned up, at best they would belong on Wikibooks, but there's no need to transwiki content as poor as this. Delete (and also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Brotherhood). —Cryptic (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - These subjects are notable enough for a wikipedia article. These are major factions which have played a large part in the Elder Scrolls universe. We have articles for some of the races of the series, like Dwemer, so if these articles were of reasonable quality, I'd definitely vote keep. The Elder Scroll series of games have a very rich history, there are literally pages and pages of texts within the games, most of it is lore and background detail. One could build up a very comprehensive article on each of the guids mentioned here. It is a shame that these articles really aren't very good, but I really don't think they should have been lumped together in an AFD like this. I mean, the article on The Dark Brotherhood is actually coherent, and so is The Thieves Guild, however, the other three by User:Daedric Prince are not. So Keep those 2, and delete the rest. - Hahnchen 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The content is very bad, but the topics are as notable as any other game elements. -- jaredwf 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I rewrote The Dark Brotherhood and The Mages Guild, partially rewrote The Fighters Guild and The Thieves Guild, but The Arena Guild cannot be rewrote since it has not been in previous games. -- jaredwf 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the consensus is to delete, here are some other factions with articles: House Telvanni, House Hlaalu, House Redoran, House Dagoth, and Morag Tong. -- jaredwf 09:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep only if they are in game elements. I can't really tell at this point. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamer guild vanity. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:12, Jan. 4, 2006
  • Comment: Just to let you know, they are not gamer guilds at all. They are in-game factions with in-game lore for a series of single-player games. They are not vanity for the same reasons that Jedi and Sith are not vanity despite appearing in games. Jedi and Sith are more notable so these guilds might be deleted for notability, but not for vanity. -- jaredwf 02:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable rubbish. Incognito 05:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied under CSD A7. Don't know who did it

[edit] Ian Kelly

Apparent vanity. No relevant Google hits, no linking pages. Dyfsunctional 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough with information given. VegaDark 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for non-notable bio of real person. —ERcheck @ 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as per WP:CSD A7. --Hurricane111 06:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tusin

This game, "tusin", appears to be neither notable nor verifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just caught this comment left by Curps on the talk page of the person who created this article. Probably nonsense, but I don't believe there is a means to speedy delete this unless it qualifies under WP:CSD G3. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... neologism. —ERcheck @ 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 11:13Z
• Delete per nom. Catamorphism 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Not nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalmia (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Stifle 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business slut

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]}}

Oh joy, yet another rant poorly disguised as the explanation of a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and all the supposed "facts" about what 'business sluts' are like are original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. OTOH, perhaps I should try a Google search on "business slut" just to, uh, make sure it really is non-notable, yeah, that's the ticket... -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but only on the grounds that the article contradicts itself, and thus can cause a rip in the universe. See 'A Business Slut is a female' vs. 'A male variety of the Business Slut is also widespread' in the same article. Please delete to protect the future of our human race. Mceder 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Business slut is a colloquial term as legitimate as tea bagging or cleveland steamer, both of which are approved pages on Wikipedia. So to some extent Wikipedia IS a slang dictionary. We feel this term should have the same documentation. We question the supposition that Google is the best means for determining the notability of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.adamg (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02 05:59:24 UTC.
• Suggestion duly noted Much thanks to Mceder, the potential dimesional rift in the entry has been partially corrected. We commend your efforts to maintain the structural integrity of our dimensional fabric.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.adamg (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — Kbh3^rdtalk 06:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep perhaps Antaeus Feldspar should refocus his attentions from denying the world's expansion of slang vocabulary to adding to his bio page.MR.AWESOME 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "MR.AWESOME" is a newly-created meatpuppet. -- Curps 06:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. -- Curps 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources and, searching, I can find no sources. (Antaeus Feldspar probably found the results of xyr search to be disappointing. ☺) Notability isn't an issue. The article is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Gazpacho 06:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, OR. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 11:15Z
• Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:02, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Ajwebb 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, term is not notable. Cedars 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, useless without pics ;) Fagstein 07:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though Mceder's reasoning is amusing. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as everyone not anonymous wrote. GRuban 20:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verify, and NPOV.-- Marvin147 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Marvin147 (talk • contribs) has 33 edits, of which 25 are to AfD or MfD discussions.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pietre-Stones_Review_of_Freemasonry

because it is an article that is self-referential to itself only, and is therefore advertising MSJapan 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising - the only reference is to the publication being described. No notable information on that publication. Kcordina 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. OCNative 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. Ichiro's relisting is not quite right, since we don't relist until consensus or we'd never get anywhere. -Splash^talk 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Dreambox

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 55 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 if no claim to notability is given Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect per WP:NMG: [[A band is notable if it] Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Note the word extremely. That would surely mean a Bono, a John Lydon or a Paul McCartney. --kingboyk 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn or merge since Bliss Blood survived an AFd. --kingboyk 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firre

Delete. Non-notable, appears made up - zero google hits. Tufflaw 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with the intent for development. Whoever gets "0" hits on Google did not try very hard. I got 612,000 but that should not determine viability alone. Kmac1036 08:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Needs major clean up and sources. My brief investigations sugests this term is not used by the army, but by one company (Force Protection Systems) for their system. If true, this may turn into an advert. I hope the author can clean up. If there are no sources that show this is a general term, then I'd go with delete. Oh, and perhaps it should be renamed to FIRRE.Obina 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I get several hits on Google. [29] and [30] (scroll to the mid-bottom of the 2nd link]. [31] is also a good resource and there are more... --Naha|^(talk) 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Obviously most of the Google hits for "firre" are not related (and Kmac1036, I only get 30,000; don't know how you get 612,000). Zero google hits for "Family of Integrated Rapid Reaction Equipment", but 133 Google hits for "Family of Integrated Rapid Response Equipment". Here is one reference: [32]. I have changed the name in the article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 21:25Z
• Weak keep per above Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. I don't think you'll get away with a speedy for that! -Splash^talk 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's How

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries. Google search is not feasible due to the fact that Here's How is a common term. Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete NN Bands can be deleted under CSD A7 if no notability is claimed Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect per my Delta Dreambox vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. I'm starting to think this is getting a bit silly. -Splash^talk 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cantonement Jazz Band

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 29 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. Movementarian 07:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Movementarian. Maybe I should change my vote on the related entries...- Mgm|^(talk) 13:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS on all pending further work. -Splash^talk 01:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel R. Anderson, Rachel Barr, Lori A. Custodero, Claire Lerner, Claudia A. Saad

I speedied these articles for being nn-bio (no claim of notability) but they were restored by Zanimum (original author), so bringing to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 06:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I see no way to debate all these people in one nomination - this is not a bunch of related hoax articles, or vanity articles on a group of schoolfriends, but bios of academics who may each well have legitimate claims to notability. However, I would expect an experienced wikipedian such as Zanimum to do better in establishing the academic notability of these people. I added an external link to the webpage of Anderson, and he seems to have quite a few publications (and has been advisor to some notable TV shows). Tupsharru 07:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all, for now. I prefer, for the time being, to assume the good faith of Zanimum (talk • contribs), the experienced Wikipedia editor who has created these stubs, and should be given a chance to improve them. He hasn't edited since the 30th and I think it would have been a good idea to give him a chance to work more on these articles before nominating them (and definitely before speedying them, as was originally done). I also strongly disagree with this group-nomination. The nominator has not attempted to show that the notability of each of these individuals is in any way dependent on that of the others. They should be judged as individuals. I notice, for instance, that some of these have hits on Amazon, others do not. Tupsharru 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree that these were not well served by being grouped, but understand why it was done. Who has assumed anything other than good faith, by the way? If someone removes a speedy tag, they aren't doing anything other than saying "I disagree." This is perfectly acceptable, as is bringing the article to AfD afterwards. As to articles needing to be "worked on," once they enter into main space they must stand on their own. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken. If the consensus is to keep, I'll come back to the articles in a month or so and nominate them individually if I feel it's necessary. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• My feeling is that these should merge with Sesame Beginnings, but if not keep because as much as I respect the nom, I don't understand how people like this get speedied. -- JJay 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Change vote to Keep as I fully agree with Tupsharru's comments above (added after my vote), and the original editor can merge later if needed. Or perhaps I aim for the low side when it comes to academics and board members. -- JJay 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Not notable, see WP:BIO. Some of these books might be close, but I aim on the high side when it comes to authors anyway.
  • Daniel R. Anderson Google, Amazon ,News,
  • Rachel Barr Google, News, Amazon
  • Lori A. Custodero Google, News, Amazon
  • Claire Lerner Google, News, Amazon
  • Claudia A. Saad Google, Amazon, News

I'll put top amazon sales figures in soon, brenneman^(t)(c) 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What difference do sales figures make to academic psychologists? What matters is whether they have made anything regarded as important by their peers, i.e. other people in their field. You can't tell that from book sales. Many things today are in any case published in academic journals, which few people buy, as they are available through electronic subscriptions at every university. Tupsharru 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was simply trying to find a criterion under WP:BIO that any of these people could pass. So, how do you propose that we determine if they are notable? - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest returning to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, trying to agree on what the notability criteria should be for academics. Meanwhile, let's have a moratorium on the nomination of all these "nn professors", who very frequently turn out to be kept in the end anyway. I have made my personal view clear in many of these debates already and I'm not sure if this is the right place to have a more genreal discussion of the issue. Tupsharru 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, trying to get a moratorium on nominations until some way can be worked out for things to be kept doesn't sound to good to me. WP:BIO represents the consensus view of lots and lots of wikipedians. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• OK, forget the moratorium. The point is in any case not to get a moratorium "until some way can be worked out for things to be kept" (my italics). I'm not sure why you assume that. The point is to get a guideline reflecting the actual consensus of deletion discussions, which has been to keep in a large number of cases where the nominator has had nothing more to say than "nn professor". As should be obvious by now, WP:BIO doesn't say anything practically useful on the notability of academics. WTF is an "average college professor"? Tupsharru 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My superficial reading of your contribution amounted to the words "moratorium, kept". I do apologise for any slight I rendered. Yes, the guidelines should reflect the results of AfDs, although there is some dynamic tension between the micro-level discussions here and the macro-level ones on guideline talk pages. If we could have some examples of other academics who fail the current BIO test but were kept, that would be good. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The point is not that academics are kept despite failing WP:BIO, but that WP:BIO is too vague in this case to be useful. We need some set of criteria comparable to WP:MUSIC and other similar guidelines. Tupsharru 12:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If they wrote any books that sold well, it aids their notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may aid notability, but not having published a bestseller does not detract from academic notability. Tupsharru 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive list of every PhD working at every University. Some academics are notable. These are not. Obina 12:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Obina, are you aware these people are not just random PhDs working at Universities, but also on the advisory board of a major international brand? -- user:zanimum

Comment Firstly, I can agree to 'weak keep' for Anderson - but the article should list just his notable achievements and not every boring academic publication. (I was mislead by the blanket AFD, my mistake). The others seem like great people, but so are 99% of the academics worldwide. Being on an advisory board of a brand such as Seasame Beginnings is not notable. Nor does "being involved with" things. Brands have lots of advisors, year after year. And academics are all on lots of panels and committees, and make lots of publications. I think the idea to discuss outside this AFD is wise. Obina 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Tim Pierce 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Form letter - please always explain your reasoning per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If no one else, you must keep Dr. Anderson, I've found that he's nearly a legend among the children's television industry, for both program creators and advertisers. He's involved in the creation of the top three rated programs for 2-5 year olds (Diego, Dora, Blue's), and been involved in all-time classics (Sesame, Kangaroo). The others are still notable, though not as accomplished, relatively. This is a spin-off of one of the world's top 10 preschool brands, just the fact they were chosen to be on the board should make them notable. -- user:zanimum
  • Please put some work into improving these articles now. Tell us not only that someone is a PhD and on the faculty of a certain university, but exactly what position they have and how long they have had it. Dig up more on their publications and try to find reviews or citations that tell something about their influence on other people in their field. Are they members of editorial committees of important journals? Fellows of prestigious scientific societies? I'm voting keep for now, largely because it is a group nomination which doesn't really give any opportunity for a detailed discussion of each one of these persons, but I can easily see some of these being nominated for deletion again if they are kept this time. Tupsharru 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh man... this is overkill, and doesn't actually tell us anything. I do appreciate the effort that has been put in, but an academic's job is to make publications, and this doesn't tell us anything about the notability of these publications. A better approach is to find what other people have written about the academic in question. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • How does this skimmed down section look? It's only partially done, but it gives the idea. Just the journal, and every year he published in, with whom. -- user:zanimum
        • No, don't waste your time doing that. A real bibliography has to include the article titles - that's the important part. However, I suggest that you limit yourself to his books and the most important articles. Look for citations and reviews to see which those are. And I don't think you should redlink all the book titles. Most books are not in themselves important enough to write individual articles about. If you are reading them, use them to improve Anderson's article. Tupsharru 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • RE: "one of the world's top 10 preschool brands, just the fact they were chosen to be on the board should make them notable." If this were a discussion of the board of directors of Nestle, one of the largest food companies in the world and all the articles said were, "Joe Schmoe sits on the board of directors of Nestle. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and previously served as CEO of the company," wouldn't that get speedied? I consider this the same. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A former CEO of Nestle would be speedied? -- user:zanimum
• Keep Daniel R. Anderson and Claire Lerner then Merge the rest with Sesame Beginnings. Anderson and Lerner seem more notable from my googling. -- jaredwf 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broader discussion

I've made a placeholder at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)#Academics. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desert Burn Hoodia

• The name is trademarked and trademarks are not easily granted. For a new industry [hoodia] this entry appears to be of importance. Someone should clean it up but the add should remain. There are no hyperlinks to any promotional site so the entry is clearly not commercial in nature

Looks like a non-notable diet pill. Passes the google test with flying colours (10,000 hits)[33] but I'm not sure if it's just ad spam. Anyhow, it's poorly formatted, so it's up for AFD. If I knew more about it, I might have not, but then again, the original author didn't give us any context. Weak delete. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising. Wikipedia already has a comprehnsive article on Hoodia. Movementarian 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Furthermore, the last two paragraphs of Hoodia look like ad copy from the same source (although not the same editor). Snurks ^{T C} 07:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Movementarian Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Notice the creator of the article has "Hoodia" in his user name and he vandalized Bruce Lee to promote the product. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartwright band

Non-notable band vanity. -- Longhair 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, I was just about to list this. Snurks ^{T C} 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable garage band -Drdisque 07:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't it possible to speedy this under the newer rules? - CorbinSimpson 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Adjum posted this unsigned comment on this page's talk page: "why does it have to be deleted, wikipedia is free for what ever, what rule does it violate. it may not be notable to you but again your page isnt "notable" to me."
  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not several things. One of those is "free for what ever"; Cartwright band does not pass WP:MUSIC, which is the accepted guideline for what bands are considered "encyclopedic". If you can provide information that shows Cartwright band is notable and worthy of inclusion, then by all means do so! Otherwise, wait until you've got an album or two on a major label. :) -- Snurks ^{T C} 09:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable band. -- (aeropagitica)  10:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN Bands can be Speedied under CSD A7 Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:03, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, you fucking racist. Seanation 2:16 PM, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if a band can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here doktorb | words 20:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Ajwebb 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:46Z
• Comment: don't delete cartwight....have pity. non-notable? non-notable? you're non-notable! - User:Zlclark

Preceding unsigned comment from User:Zlclark -- Longhair 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Yeah, I know I'm non-notable. I'm also not trying to promote my band through Wikipedia. - CorbinSimpson 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: From talk page: "Let's see. Well the mother of the lead singer was Ms. North Carolina in 1969/70. She is a voice lessons teacher, so there is your connection to something famous." -Drdisque 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment:: Corbin Simpson is homosexual! -Seanation 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The AfD notice was taken down by Zlclark. Not cool. I'm putting it back up immediately. Those notices are not to be changed until the discussion is closed. Consider this an informal warning to not do it again. - CorbinSimpson 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment:: From talk page: "Not cool? You're not cool!" -Seanation 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Vandalising user pages, on a wiki even, isn't cool either. -- Longhair 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Ohhh, did I hurt your feelings? -Seanation 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Cry me a river. -Seanation 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not at all. We don't mean to hurt yours either. -- Longhair 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

but by your deletionist comments you do so. You hurt people. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Warnings against vandalism hurt people feelings? You know what my thought is on that? Tough. Vandals don't have any feelings, or they wouldn't try to destroy things that people work to build up. Your choice of the word "deletionism" hurts my feelings. Care to retract that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Here's a free tip. You're probably hurting your band more by refusing to accept your band isn't notable enough for an article and bringing all this unwanted attention to your immaturity. Spend more time rehearsing perhaps. Who knows, all that practice might make us want to change our minds one day, and maybe, a fan might just pop an article in on your behalf, once you've earned it. -- Longhair 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: yo momma aint notable -penile disease

Comment: At risk of being redundant, my momma ain't got no Wikipedia article. - CorbinSimpson 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• A message from Cartwright themselves: No member of cartwright put it up. one of our fans did. its our fans that our arguing for the wikipedia page, which we didnt ask to be put up, but still appreciate. just wanted to clear that up.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snipsville, New York

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify. Speedy rationale is used below as the AfD nomination. howcheng {chat} 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can find no reference to a Snipsville cartoon on google. The article was created by a new user with a single edit to a single article (this article) - called snipsville. I suspect it's either so nn that it doesn't show up on google or bollocks. Megapixie 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I tagged it as speedy - but I support it's deletion through due process. Megapixie 08:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Only if the show can be proven. There is one for "Mayberry" from the classic TV Show "The Andy Griffith Show." (oops, keep forgetting) Kmac1036 08:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An imaginary location, from a non notable cartoon.Obina 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Megapixie. Movementarian 13:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find anything related to a Snipsville cartoon either. Only 3 non-notable hits to the supposed creator, Zack VerVynck. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 21:35Z
• Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greyseason Research

More deletion patrol - this time tagged with the speedy

non-notable, 8 google hits

No opinion WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Too secret. I was going to remove the speedy tag and nominate this myself, but you beat me to it. The following line is nice: "This firm has operated quitely and in the dark the past five years; purposely avoiding many search engines due to the sensitivity of some of its research." Since the firm has now apparently decided to operate "loudly and in the light", they should continue to do so for a little longer before they warrant a Wikipedia article. --Deathphoenix 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• From the original author. Cleaned it up with more details. I have to get permission from some people to link & make connections to some of the misc papers that have been published by some of the employees. Non-disclosure stuff... Let me know if there's anything else that would help. Update Might be able to get pictures of the Veritas box.69.22.45.103 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Stub Request May I request this topic become a stub (if I'm understanding this process right) until I have all of my verifiable data together. Understandably I can see the verification issues; however it is not a hoax, the company is just highly discrete. I would like to be able to properly pull together sources and cite papers. Waiting for the firm's new site to go up would help too. If this option is not possible I completely understand the need for deletion. 69.22.45.103 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified and possibly a hoax. Only registers 4 google hits all from a forum type sites [34]. No information available at thier webpage [35]. Movementarian 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as too secret (i.e. unverifiable). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 21:43Z
• Delete unverifiable. Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very low google hit and no Patent hits Rjayres 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t ^talk 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSA eavesdropping

Not really something that belongs in an encyclopedia. As the writer even admits, it's purly speculative. Judging from the lack of wikilinks, it may even be a copyvio. --Spring Rubber 08:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This material was added by anon at NSA warrantless surveillance controversy without references. Gazpacho 08:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• OK delete do a speedy - sorry about that. I copied it to activate a red link to the article created by User:Jbamb. Metarhyme 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no research value to this article, it is merely the author's speculation. -- (aeropagitica)  10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This is merely speculation, and therefore violates WP:NOR Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Werdna648 abakharev 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete since author requests deletion. Original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:44Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AmiciPhone

Non-notable project, every google hit seems to be a very widely distributed press release. Article written by developer self. Haakon 08:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable piece of software. Google only finds press-release based articles. Kcordina 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable promotion. Tim Pierce 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as non-notable. Alexa ranking for company website is 1,998,968. May become notable in the future; recreate then. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:43Z
• Delete advert. Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was The result of the AfD was SPEEDY DELETE because it had been deleted earlier in the week. it was deleted by CLW, not myself, I am merely closing the AfD. CastAStone 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wehatetech

fixing orphaned afd, no vote -- MisterHand 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kancho sense

I nominate Kancho sense because

• It is a term a person made up on their website.
• It only relates to one website.
• Its history page has many people trying to speedy delete it.
• Its talk page has one person say it does not belong and that is the only edit so far.
• I want people to vote on whether to keep it or not (better than speedy which lacks discussion or voting).

StarTrekkie 09:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, if it has only been made up on one website, then it's not notable. — JIP | Talk 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like an NN Neologism to me Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What's an "NN Neologism" and how's it differ from a regular neologism? StarTrekkie 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment: NN is a common abbreviation standing for "non-notable". As distinct from a notable neologism like, say, chugger. Stifle 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although I've heard of the page before. It made me promise myself I would never, ever, under any circumstances, set foot on Japan. --Agamemnon2 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --DCrazy talk/contrib 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with JIP. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:40Z
• Technically not a speedy, like I tagged it way back when... but I'm wondering how I missed the tag being removed. Delete it a lot, utter nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kancho, the webpage (outpostnine) was mentioned in newsweek, so it is fairly widely known, and kancho (and the related sence) are mentioned very often. redirecting would give the stray passerby an idea of what kancho is, and kancho sence should be obvious (to those readers of outpostnine, the main source of the article) from that information. oops, forgot to sign, and yeah, obvious probably isn't the right wordSmmurphy^(Talk) 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect is fine - the Kancho article was quite educational for me, and the Kancho Sense article makes a certain amount of sense now. However it is not obvious to me from the Kancho article that Kancho Sense is "the art of avoiding Kancho", nor would it mean anything else to me. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 07:33Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but move to California cheeseburger. I'll do this by moving California Sandwich since it is wikified better and slightly longer, and then redirecting the other one. -Splash^talk 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Hamburger and California Sandwich

POV original research and Simpsons-cruft offering a unique interpretation of one obscure joke. There are just 106 Google hits for "california hamburger" simpsons and 192 for "california sandwich" simpsons. Both articles are virtually identical. In the unlikely event that these articles are kept, a better title would be "California cheeseburger", which is what the actual Simpsons joke referred to. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I find this very offensive to the high quality deliciousity of the california hamburgers I get in the bar/restaraunt underneath the firehouse all the time :-) Search4Lancer 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per above. Well known Simpsons reference. -- JJay 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Evidence? ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Justify your vote, please. -- JJay 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not what I consider to be evidence. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 08:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • And I remain totally unconvinced by your vote. -- JJay 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Nor do I care. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Good, glad we agree. -- JJay 03:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:POINT, people. -Colin Kimbrell 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
                • I think you're supposed to take a left to WP:CIVIL. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
                • His first reply to your first comment seems to imply that he's voting Keep in part because you didn't provide a justification for your vote. As such, WP:POINT seems applicable. Not that a reminder to be civil is ever a bad thing... -Colin Kimbrell 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I would never vote Keep because someone is voting delete. The individual votes do not concern me. However, I will also not respond to someone who has voted without providing any comment or justification for their vote and certainly not as part of a one-word challenge, as demonstrated above. -- JJay 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:03, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wiki is not paper. Note: an extensive constellation of Simpson's articles is one of the examples in this discussion. Although the article should be under California cheeseburger, if that is the original reference... -- Geo Swan 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but then it should be under the original reference along with (Simpsons) as per my note above, in case somebody decides to come along and make an article on that. Search4Lancer 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't understand this comment. -- Geo Swan 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He's saying that it should be moved to California cheeseburger (Simpsons) instead of California cheeseburger, to lessen the chance of confusion with an actual real-world sandwich. I don't agree, but so be it. -Colin Kimbrell 20:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all three to The Secret War of Lisa Simpson. Very little web presence for something that's supposedly in broad usage. Seems too minor to even merge back to parent episode. -Colin Kimbrell 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obscurity is in the eye of the beholder. It is verifiable however, agreed? -- Geo Swan 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Potentially, though I didn't find any citable sources for it. As for the obscurity concept, you're right about subjectivity, but on some level, all decisions are subjective. The use of community consensus for matters like these helps to ensure that this necessary subjectivity is, at a minimum, internally consistent. -Colin Kimbrell 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, move to california cheeseburger. There should be a category for obscure simpsons quotes.--Marvin147 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to California cheeseburger and clearly illustrate its connection to the aforementioned Simpsons episode. A Google search came across this transcript which to quote:

Chief Wiggum: " Now, what I am about to show you next may shock and educate you. Hold onto your values as we step through the looking glass into a hippie pot party. [flicks a switch, lighting a mannequin with a joint crudely stuck to his mouth] While Johnny Welfare plays acid rock on a stolen guitar, his old lady has a better idea. [lights up another mannequin, of a woman opening wide to eat a baby sandwich. (That's a sandwich with a baby in it, not a really tiny sandwich.) The crowd gasps] That's right, she's got the munchies for a California Cheeseburger."

The author of the transcript comments:

"Not to trod on Haynes Lee's territory, but I think I spotted an urban legend when Chief Wiggum pointed out the "California Cheeseburger." According to legend, a couple leave their infant child in the care of a teen-aged babysitter and enjoy a night on the town. When they return, the obviously stoned babysitter reports that the baby is fine, and the turkey is in the oven. "What turkey?" the parents ask themselves - until the horrible truth about what's <really> cooking hits them..."

Tom Foolery 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The Snopes page referencing this legend can be found here.-Colin Kimbrell 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splash^talk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper chromatography of amino acids

Unsourced, not encyclopedic, unlikely to be expanded, not a likely search term, not required as a redirect. I reccomend delete. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or merge anything salvageable into paper chromatography. Edgar181 18:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. From what I can comprehend of the article (chromatography not being my strongest field...), this seems to be more of a "how-to" article than an encyclopedia entry. – Seancdaug 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing recommendation to transwiki to Wikibooks. – Seancdaug 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiBooks Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Howto's belong on wikibooks (and I say that as a chemistry student). =- Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Change recommedation to transwiki. Edgar181 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Commodore Comeback

Speculation about a possible comeback of the Commodore 64, interspersed with something about sucking orange pies. — Gwalla | Talk 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, about 75% nonsense and the rest unverifiable. Snurks ^{T C} 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• ::blinks:: Huh. I don't think it's really a speedy candidate, since it's not quite patent nonsense, but it's one of the weirder examples of non-patent nonsense I've ever seen. Definitely delete. – Seancdaug 09:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Amusing, nonetheless. Search4Lancer 10:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lionel Ritchie BJAODN, methinks. Grutness...wha? 11:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, re-create if Commodore-related pie-sucking accepted as Olympic sport. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, some people just don't understand the concept of liquidation. Gazpacho 11:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Translate into English Oh no, it IS in English?! My word, Delete as it appears to be nonsense of a nevertheless amusing degree. doktorb | words 11:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. May be a BJAODN candidate. Movementarian 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move to Criticisms of Microsoft and keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common criticisms of Microsoft

We don't have "Common Criticisms of General Motors", "Common Criticisms of Apple" or "Common Criticisms of Thimbles" so why should we have this page? This is a general encyclopedia, not a technology encyclopedia. This page is an absolute bias magnet. It does not weigh the criticisms with the common positive attributions, and does not even lead to a page listing Microsoft's positive attributes! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theone3 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

• Delete. The section on criticism in the Microsoft article seems more than sufficient for the purposes of a general interest encyclopedia. – Seancdaug 10:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, gossip and editorial magnet. Gazpacho 11:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV, we have a controversey section on the Microsoft page, why not use it Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and all of the above comments. Movementarian 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Accepted and well-founded criticism should go in the Microsoft article. Currently simply a rant at the company Kcordina 13:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Microsoft is criticized frequently enough. I believe the criticism of Microsoft is noteworthy enough for its own article. Q0 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The current microsoft article barely scratches the surface of the issue. The nom also fails to mention that this article was spun out from the main Microsoft article on June 9, 2004. Perhaps this is a coincidence, but the nomination is the fourth edit from this user and the first since June 10, 2004. -- JJay 15:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep why cant we also be a technology encyclopedia? -- Astrokey44|talk 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 17:08, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article is well done and extensive. It is too large to merge into Microsoft Corporation. As long as Wikipedia is noting already publicized criticisms, rather than discussing new criticisms or stating a criticism as a fact, it is NPOV. This is pretty common in Wikipedia. Many articles discuss criticisms. Bkwillwm 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The problem (from this writer's POV as I wrote MS up to FA status) is that that article serves as a dumping ground for criticisms of the company in a relatively NPOV matter. If that article is killed people will drive more and more criticism into the actual MS article sending it to FARC fairly quickly. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Criticism of Microsoft for consistency with all the other "Criticism of X" articles which we do have for many subjects (contrary to Theone3's apparent argument that if we don't have an article on criticism of thimbles we must not have any criticism articles.) Keep per JJay's pointing out that this article was spun out from the main article; there is an obvious problem with spinning out a particular sub-topic because it's so large and then deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename to Criticism of Microsoft per Antaeus Feldspar. Nothing wrong with a seperate in-depth article regarding such a significant company. - Liontamer 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after further consideration, at Criticism of Microsoft. Gazpacho 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I use it as a reference. Giftlite 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Microsoft. --cesarb 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All Monopoly articles are worthy (and important); and if they have a coercive aspect to there success, then why should that not be examined and explained. It is a subject that is best kept separate in order that it can balances the interests of those that consider themselves to be the injured parties. Trying to do it all in one article would created an impossibly messy triangle of interests.

Perhaps, before things are put up for deletion they should be seconded by someone else who can emotionally step back and consider it purely from a practical point of view. The reason given for deletion is a bit of a non sequitur.

Maybe also, it [the article] should be also categorised with coercive monopolies but I am not too clear on the policy regarding this.--Aspro 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If sources are found, this could be merged into Microsoft's article. Soo 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Derktar 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC).
• Strong keep per Bkwillwm. Rename is fine. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:37Z
• Keep and rename. -Sean Curtin 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It does appear to be biased and contradicting the NPOV. -User:Wikiolap 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am convinced, keep and rename. Merging with the parent article does not seem like a good idea, as that article is already at FA status. Movementarian 08:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written and while it's about a POV, it's not written with an agenda. RedMage 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apple Computer does contain criticisms, and if someone's willing to write them, I don't see why there shouldn't be factual articles criticising Microsoft, Apple, GM, or anyone else. Novakreo 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Criticism of Microsoft to conform to naming conventions. Perfectly good article, spun out from parent due to length. -Colin Kimbrell 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep first class starting point source for anyone studying pros and cons of restrictive buisness practices. 82.38.97.206 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)mikeL
• Move to Criticism of Microsoft. The article is reasonable since the parent article would be cluttered with criticisms without it. -- jaredwf 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Microsoft is known for being frequently cricised, both by those purchasing from it, and by the law, the article is notable enough. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Criticism of Microsoft as argued above --Ajdz 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Move to Criticism of Microsoft Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. Microsoft is criticized quite frequently, this criticism is notable, and this article is better of independent of Microsoft than merged, due to its size. I am not against a Move as per above. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Absolute Keep I will oppose all efforts to have this page deleted. Most of the criticisms on the page are accurate, and deleting this page amounts to censorship. Arbiteroftruth 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Criticism of Microsoft. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Criticism of Microsoft, as per above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep microsoft is probably the most criticized company, so that criticism needs to be covered. Bob A
• Keep Being neutral does not mean to hide the bad side of the things.
• Keep and rename to follow convention. It can be linked from the main article. Company is too large for it to all fit in one. Stifle 02:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to follow convention. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Criticism of Microsoft. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per above (What would be an uncommon criticism of Microsoft? That its products needlessly sacrifice usability and functionality for security's sake? It would be interesting to start that article and try to see if you could make it work, but that's not what Wikipedia's for). I heed the arguments about POV forks, but we do have things like Criticism of Wal-Mart (rapidly overtaking MS as the most criticized company in the US) because IMO they are the lesser of two evils (without separate criticism articles on controversial subjects, I believe, you end up with extremely long articles plagued by constant edit wars). Daniel Case 16:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum: And CTTOI, why don't we have a separate Criticism of Apple Computer article? The section in the current article seems to me to be so woefully incomplete (there is nothing, for instance, on the way the company set the profit margin on the Mac so high that it did more to create the DOS market niche at the lower ends than IBM or Microsoft could have on their own. Or the way the company balked at Gates's plan in 1987 to license the OS, even after he'd lined up some pretty big clients, again guaranteeing the Windows market would exist) compared to what you could say that if you have (as we should) a separate article devoted to criticisms of Microsoft, to have such a piddly small section devoted to criticisms of Apple smacks of POV on Wikipedia's part in and of itself regardless of how much those articles strive for NPOV (OK, before you ask I would write it myself but I'm not as expert on that as many more people are around here, and I have other fish to fry both on and offline at the moment). Daniel Case 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep/move as above. relevant enough as a topic for itself.--Austrian 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Rogue

This appears to be either a vanity page or fancruft, or both. Mike Leaver 09:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity fancruft for a game that doesn't even exist yet. Search4Lancer 10:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• DeletePer nom.Obina 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Reference to game could be added to Roguelike page. Kcordina 13:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable game that hasn't been produced yet. (I wouldn't call it fancruft. The article is about the game itself.). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:35Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timekeeper

Delete. "Timekeeper" is self-explanatory. A person/thing who keeps time. That's the gist of this page. Do we really need an article on it? Other options are merging it with a sports (or whatever) page or moving it to Wiktionary. -- Simpatico 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT Please note that Simpatico has been a member of Wikipedia for about one week and he has already posted approximatly five {{{AFD}}} tags ! SirIsaacBrock 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here a long time, but I only recently registered. Am I doing something wrong? Also, I'm a she. -- Simpatico 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

well, yes, a timekeeper is someone who keeps time, but different rules govern timekeepers in different occupations. This has faint potential to give some details of how a timekeeper in, say, basketball, differs from one in soccer; the history of the changeover from manual to automatic timekeeping in different industries and sports. Note also that there is a specific type of watch called a "timekeeper watch", which could easily become the subject of this article (see [36]). As such, I'd give this a weak keep. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't take the "he" thing personally; SirIsaac probably just went with "he" because in traditional usage, that's the default English pronoun for a person of unknown or indeterminate gender. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, I was just clarifying. :) -- Simpatico 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dic def as it stands. If anyone wants to write the article that Grutness mentions, they can recreate.Obina 11:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, in the unlikely event that it doesn't already exist. Otherwise delete as a dicdef Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef that already has an entry in wiktionary (wiktionary:timekeeper) Kcordina 13:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand a timekeeper is an instrument or person...just like many other articles in Wikipedia e.g. Referee or Umpire. There should be an {{{Expand}}} tag placed not a {{{Delete}}} tag. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 15:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep -- as per SirIsaac -- Geo Swan 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Potential to expand. That's all we require. Soo 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . Mark as a stub. Has plenty of potential for expansion. -- JLaTondre 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gideon Brown

Mostly nonsense. Subject is adequately covered in article Sea of No Cares Gimboid13 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Individual songs shouldn't get their own articles unless of great cultural importance. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no significane demonstrated.--nixie 11:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to parent article to discourage recreation. Movementarian 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALLS Stifle 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body-

Created by User:Kelvin Martinez - I've speedy deleted 35 or so of his articles today (none of which had any content and almost all of which ended in a dash). This one does include some content, but this song isn't included in the discography at The Jackson 5 so I'm not convinced. There's a link to an external site which claims to be somewhere you can see this video, but I can't see it there (maybe I'm being stoopid?), so again I'm not convinced. Delete CLW 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable, probably because it's untrue. Soo 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, Incognito 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:VSCA, and WP:BALLS at a stretch. Stifle 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Randall

This entry is very vague, only one sentence long, and is of an inadequate subject for its own entry. CelticJobber 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Jack Randall is the actor that played Midshipman Boyle in the Master and Commander film. I could not find any information to improve the article and according to IMDb, it was his only role [37]. I am willing to change my vote if someone can provide more information. Movementarian 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not enough information on him.--Snakes 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Complicated vote. I'm inclined to keep the actor stub that's currently here, since Master and Commander was a pretty major film. That said, there are multiple other Jack Randalls who belong in the encyclopedia, including a member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame. As such, we should convert Jack Randall to a disambig page and move this one to Jack Randall (actor) (unless people think that'd open up confusion with Addison Randall, a cowboy actor from the '50s who was often credited as "Jack Randall"). -Colin Kimbrell 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: According to [38], Randall is a child actor, born in 1989. If correct, that might explain why he's only got the one film credit; he's still in high school. -Colin Kimbrell 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrimpjaw

A livejournal blog about celebs, scoring 3 google hits. 4 months old, unrated on alexa. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Right, delete per nom. Melchoir 11:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NN. VegaDark 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Daveb 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:32Z
• Delete per Quarl. Stifle 02:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theswamp

Not notable website - Alexa page rank about 806,000 , no information value, not NPOV ==> Delete kernoz 11:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like just another forum to me. Until anyone can convince me otherwise.... delete. Fourohfour 12:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:32Z
• Delete as non-notable.-Colin Kimbrell 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 02:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. wangi 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriels Fallen

Tagged as {{db-band}} but claims to have 3 albums. Forwarded to AFD and let others decide. Abstain. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:51, Jan. 2, 2006

Comment: Below, User:maxcap has pointed out (and I did not previously notice) that two of the 3 albums listed are actually compilations that happen to contain the same song by this band, thus my position on this matter has changed from neutral to delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:16, Jan. 3, 2006

• Very Weak Keep They'll need to add the label to which they're signed [or claim to be], and Wiki does not need full sized pics nor logos, but apart from that it appears to be enough to stay. Saying that, Wiki cannot say yes to one "local scene" group who can't be bothered with MySpace, so care and attention is still needed. doktorb | words 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Added our label to the page, as far as "local scene" it is important to our history to include where we came from, a great number of bands have come from our area including "The Beach Boys", and "Pennywise". The logo has been removed, but as far as the picture goes, I feel it is important to our site, plus I've seen it on a number of other band pages, ie Atreyu. Also we don't claim to have 3 albums, we state very clearly that we have one studio album, one compilation, and are featured on one dvd. Please do not delete our page, I've fixed what needed to be fixed, if there is anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. Thank you, Chris - Gabriels Fallen 12:42, 2 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.80.136 (talk • contribs) 3 January 2006.

• Delete Unless inclusion on comps and a song on a DVD count as albums. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC maxcap 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From the guidelines:

"Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." BNRX FM did a 45 minute interview with us

"Has been prominently featured in any major music media." The DVD we're featured on pushes aprox. 2 thousand copies a week (aprox. 100 thou. a year) from Best Buy, plus we do the theme song on the next volume, have a music video and feature 4 songs on it.

"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country" We're in talks to go out on this years Vans Warped Tour.

In fact just two days ago we preformed with The Violent Femmes and Reel Big Fish.

Chris - Gabriels Fallen.Fiend1138 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BNRX is an internet radio station, I'm not sure if that counts. If it does, keep.

The DVD you are featured on is a DVD of street fights..as in http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7575732&type=product&id=1483749. ::(That's Vol.3 I couldn't find Volume 4, has it been released yet?) That's not major music media.

When the Warped Tour line-up is finalized and you're on it OK. But "In talks" is not "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour ::over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country". That's cool that you played with the Violent Femmes and Reel Big Fish, but there are alot of bands that have opened for alot of notable bands. I don't see how that's relevant. maxcap 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Felony Fights vol. 4 is being released in about a week, if BNRX doesn't count, then very shortly we are going to be featured on on of the XM radio stations.

Personally I just don't want to see my page go down, We've had it up for a little while, and we all really enjoy being part of the wiki community, and frankly we don't want to lose it. Honestly I don't think our page is hurting anyone, it's a valuable resourse for people to get more information about us if they choose to do so. I loved the idea of wiki when I first started to use it a long time ago, I wanted to share the information about my band for anyone who is interested. And isn't that the mission of wiki, to have an open encyclopedia where anyone can add information they believe to be relivent others? Wiki is very precious to us, so please let our page stay. - Chris Gabriels Fallen Fiend1138 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing personal Chris. I feel the same way about Wikipedia as you. But it's got to have guidelines. maxcap 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then technically, in about week when Felony Fights 4 comes out we meet the guide line for "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable", and the XM Radio kicks in for "Has been placed in rotation nationally" can't we just let it stay?Fiend1138 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep Only keep if authors wish to rewrite the article to maintain a neutral pov, else Delete. Right now, it seems to be too much of a fan point of view. TheRingess 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up for a more neutral view point, if not neutral enough, please let me know. Thanks - Chris Gabriels Fallen Fiend1138 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The five day lag time ended on the 7th of January. Conditional Keep was the outcome. Can an Admin please remove the deletion tag.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satan Sam

Not a notable company by the guidelines at WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable "one-man run freeware development team". No alexa traffic data for website [39]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:30Z

• I'm sorry but I copied over terminology from another wikipedia page based on a similar studio to my own, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Angel_Industries . I used their terminology as they have a page and my previous one was deleted. Please tell me what I can do to get the same privileges as them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mull (talk • contribs).
  • Fallen Angel Industries does not look very notable either, so if you want to nominate it for deletion, go ahead. However, it does look more notable, more established, and less promotional than Satan Sam. (Wikipedians frown heavily on using Wikipedia for advertising; see WP:NOT.) Here is some more explanation why I think the Satan Sam article should be deleted. The SatanSam.co.uk website starts with "1. Blog 2. Real Site" -- that doesn't look professional. Your forums have on average 1 or 2 posts, the highest being 9 in the "off topic" forum, of the "Released games" forums only 1 forum even has any posts -- so this gives a strong impression of non-notability. Websites need Alexa rank 10,000 to be considered notable, and your website is not even ranked, meaning there are millions of websites more notable than yours. Also this article talks about upcoming games. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; information must be verifiable. Also you should not write about yourself or your projects because it is prone to vanity and non-NPOV. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 03:42Z
• Delete per Quarl - well put Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Batmanand 08:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary defense

This is a speculative original essay with no sources for its main content. Delete. Melchoir 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOR. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 15:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. ' ^{I can't click that! (Edits!)} 08:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't have a planetary defense so we shouldn't have an article about it. --Pboyd04 19:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looks good now. --Pboyd04 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Since there is a real conference for Planetary Defense as this article says, it is not all original research. The parts about aliens is probably original research, but planetary defense against asteroids is something people truly do things about. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:56Z
  • Strong Keep. I've completely rewritten the article at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 02:26Z
• Keep: original reasons for AfD no longer accurate, as article has been revised by multiple parties. -- Adrian Lamo 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Quarl. Thanks! Melchoir 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goddess Moon, Father Sky, Hollow Soul

A joke. Promotion about a made-up film in which "directions were given telekinetically" since the director was elsewhere. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Haakon 13:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 00:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:55Z

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew R. Liddle

How notable is this astrophysicist that he requires a page on WP? This looks like a rehash of his homepage, which doesn't sell his notable status either. -- (aeropagitica)  13:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep He is a published author and google turns out many hits. However, much of the article is a verbatim copy of his homepage and should be rewritten. Haakon 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I find three books by him available in between four and ten Swedish libraries. One of these, An introduction to modern cosmology, has been published in two editions.[40] A search on Google Scholar shows that his most cited paper has 545 cites, and he has another three with more than 400 cites.[41] Why would he be less notable than any random NHL player? Tupsharru 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tupsharru Jcuk 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:54Z
• Keep per Tupsharru. WP:BIO met if published book with an audience of 5000. Two editions means he's more than likely exceeded that. JLaTondre 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tupsharru. -- jaredwf 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Wands

How notable is this cosmologist that he requires a page on WP? This looks like a rehash of his homepage, which doesn't sell his notable status either. -- (aeropagitica)  13:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Certainly seems important enough.[42] Tupsharru 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Notable enough for me..... Keep Jcuk 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, and wikify. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:53Z
• Keep per Tupsharru. -- jaredwf 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard J. Carr

How notable is this academic that he requires his own WP article? Justification required. -- (aeropagitica)  13:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Certainly seems important enough.[43] Tupsharru 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• and yet again....you guessed it Keep good work Tupsharru Jcuk 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup and expansion, though. -Colin Kimbrell 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tupsharru. -- jaredwf 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep LoopZilla 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Ukraine

The articles is an OR. Frankly to define a geographical category by the results of one particular election is an absurd. The article seems to be offensive to many Ukrainians as it somehow imply that this is a separate country (bordering with Russia, Moldova, etc.}

• Delete abakharev 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, while the article may not be all that well developed nor well written, the idea of west and East Ukraine was very important during the last presidential election there. The result of the election almost lead to a referendum for the area to form it;s own state [44] A Google search provides over 30,000 hists for `East Ukraine` [45]. Evil Eye 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This note is both a patent non-sense and a provokation. How many hits for North Germany or East New York? Let's create the articles for East <everything on this planet>?! BTW, is an Evil Eye nick your open troll statement? I suggest to ban this user, particularly for his nickname. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please see East New York, Brooklyn. I don't know about Northern Germany, but for an article that many find provocative see Northern Basque Country. Before you ban everyone here, please get your facts in order. -- JJay 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand per Evil Eye. -- JJay 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or move to Yanukovychchyna) A geographic region "defined" by where Yanukovych scored 40% plus in one election? Is there a reference describing the borders of the region where a referendum was "almost" held? Events of the election are covered in "Ukrainian presidential election, 2004" (which article doesn't even attest to "east Ukraine"). —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 17:34 Z
  • I never heard "Yanukovychchyna". This separatist project has been known as "PiSUAR".--AndriyK 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it still may become it's own state now Yushchenko has made Russia cut off the gas because it doesn't want to freeze to death and i'll ask the ukrainians i know if they find it offensive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by El fil (talk • contribs).
  • Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Talk:East_Ukraine. In short: an encyclopedic topic for which article can exist but the current (05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)) content is useless. Unless at least a stub is written by the end-time of this vote, the article should be deleted. Whoever will get to the topic will have to do it from scratch either with or without this "article" in place. --Irpen 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace by a redirect to East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine I just created. Maybe a different name is needed for my article. --Irpen 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Yakudza 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--AndriyK 16:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. AlexPU 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (or rather Redirect) per Irpen. An article on East Ukraine is reasonable. The content has to be changed or expanded. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The article is certainly valid and covers legitimate devision of the country into two parts which have little in common historically, linguistically, economically, and culturally. --Ghirla | talk 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Molobo 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Irpen but I would prefer a broader title like Regional differences in Ukraine -- jaredwf 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - in the 90ies I read a book and since then I know there is distinction between east and west Ukraine. This distinction was not created by the election, as implied by Michael Z above. No, this is longer lived. And of course you can create an article South Germany!!! or North Germany. Ukrained, go for it! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  The regional differences are already being discussed in a broader article, besides can you provide the border of that region? otherwise it has even less notability than Jesusland, except no laughs there–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  Hm, Tobias, you must be referring to either Left-bank/Right-bank Ukraine, or Dnieper Ukraine/Galicia, neither of which corresponds to the "East Ukraine" in this article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 09:48 Z

• Redirect per Irpen –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article cites an article in the Guardian which, if you read it, treats East Ukraine as a region with a specific identity. That seems plenty verifiable to me. Nandesuka 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The term gained some notability after lame attempts to secede by some extreme politicians.  Grue  09:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete whatsoever, and *Move any useful data to other articles, on Regions. This one looks like an attempt to build a ideological base for a short lived political aventure. But may be kept if clearly states that is an article on political fiction User:Compay 13:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Make this crap go away. There is reason to discuss the regional differences [which were more ethnic-Russian vs. ethnic-Ukrainian than west vs. east] in the election, warranting discussion in Politics of Ukraine, but the article is wrong in its statement that the region was "sparsely populated" (it was emptied of its population by Stalin and large numbers of ethnic Russians purposefully transported in specifically to reduce nationalist sentiment there where it was strongest at the time)... additionally, the region is nowhere definitively outlined, so the entire thing is irrelevant crap. This is nothing paralleling Red state vs. blue state divide and cannot become noteworthy on that level for another 40 years. The premise of the article is that [fraudulent] election-related media hype is a sound basis for inventing article topics. Tomer^talk 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  It was mostly sparsely populated back when it comprised Sloboda Ukraine and the Dyke Pole (later Novorossiya), although Crimea was an Islamic Khanate. But nevertheless, these didn't constitute a single identifiable territory, nor were they completely within the boundaries of modern Ukraine. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 14:44 Z

Be that as it may, the point you're making is subterfuge at best. What caused the sparse Ukrainian population was a combination of the Holodomor and Stalinist purges, not a persistent state of low population density dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Tomer^talk 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You're inferring something from my comments which I don't understand. My only point is simply to try to characterize the territory which this article refers to. The best I can do is to say that it was land that was not traditionally populated by Ukrainians, or simply underpopulated, until it was colonized by the Russian Empire (also, that such lands were not a unified territory, and weren't restricted to modern Ukrainian boundaries—i.e. not "East Ukraine"). I did not mean to imply that it was sparsely populated at any time since then. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 15:54 Z

Delete or redirect to SEUAR (South-Eastern Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, for some reason that almost reads like sewer); or redirect to PiSUAR (Pivdeno-Shidna Ukrajins'ka Avtonomna Respublika) --Berkut 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is inherently unencyclopedic based on the rationale implicitly made for its existence. Eusebeus 04:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

this article has potential but needs 2 be expanded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El fil (talk • contribs).

Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why ban a user just because they disagree with you? Maybe the only did register to make this comment, but either way, I think they make a good point. It appears you are the troll judging by your comments on the talk page (taking any comment against you as being a provocation). You have also explicitly said you have changed the article so it is suitable to be speedy deleted, realising the article in it's old form was not suitable for that. To me that doesn't seem honest, nor in the spirit of wikipedia. Evil Eye 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:El fil is a definite troll already warned by admin. As for you, I regard every user pushing an evident non-sense over a politically-sensitive issue a provocateur. That is definitely not in the spirit of wikipedia. As you can see, this is not about agreement/disagreement, not even about promoting separatism in Ukraine. It's about your editing approach. If you can't see that eastern Ukraine article is a non-sense, are you ready for being a Wikipedian? Did I answer your question? Ukrained 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I made the following comment on Ukrained's user page in regards to this articles deletion vote:

What is your problem with people who support this article? Maybe you see no relevance with it, other people do also agree with you, but it is also clear others do not.

Please stop calling anyone who supports this article a troll and please stop calling for people to be banned just because they disagree with you (and because you don't like their user names). You claim supporting the above article is provocation, but no one is being more provocaive in regards to this article than you.

I'm hear to ask you to stop trying to cause an argument in respct to the deletion notice placed on this article and show some respect for the deletion process of wikipedia. Let it take it's course with regards to this article. It my well be deleted, it might not be, but that decision is not one for either of us to make on our own, but instead for the wikipedian community to make togehter. Evil Eye 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukrained" Evil Eye 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish a fight, shouldn't I cite my answer too?:

A provocation is always designed as "another POV" :). I hope this is clear for everybody despite the denials of provocateurs. BTW, may be you have a POV on renaming the planet or a mankind in English? If you would, should we treat such an opinion of yours with respect? Ukrained 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Ukrained 13:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban ukrained he can't even spell kiev correctly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El fil (talk • contribs).

El fil,

1. please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~);
2. please avoid inflammatory outburtst which is a universal rule.

What's your problem with discussing the issue in a single article, like I proposed? Actually, you can't introduce the reader to the concept of Eastern Ukraine without constantly referring to what in its history and demographics makes it different from Western Ukraine. One article, where the issue is discussed seems like the most convinient solution. What do you say? --Irpen 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SportsNet Radio

non notable high-school radio show. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:52Z
• Delete. Yeah, congrats on whatever success you've had, but this is NN & vanity. I wouldn't list my own radio show in Wiki, that's for sure. - Liontamer 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Liontamer. Stifle 02:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep'. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFCG Co., Ltd.

advertisement WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 13:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn as Tom has adopted page and is fixing it. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like it might have had news coverage, but it needs to be rewritten. I'd like to give it some time and see if anyone makes something of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keepplease rewrite this article for the English that a meaning is common to. The reason is because mule, I are weak in English, and it uses translation software, and this article translates an article for Japanese into English why. No use right or wrong to have a foreign person with much one invested in SFCG know the reality of SFCG

I put a link to a Japanese version here. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFCG

• KEEP. It just needs a serious rewrite, not deletion. --nihon 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G)

This page is about a theoretical starship in a fictional universe. It is clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This ship has more notability than say the F, the H or the I as it was considered for use in the TNG TV series. The existence of the J in Enterprise clearly does show that this ship existed at some point in the star trek universe too. The article has also existeted for over 15 months, so why delete it now and not earlier? Evil Eye 14:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fanon. This argument is an old one; the consensus is only canonical Enterprise vessels get their own articles. The -J gets one because it was featured in an episode. The fact it was considered for the TNG series doesn't justify an article; make it a trivia item either under the main Starship Enterprise article or TNG. 23skidoo 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. Please note that no source is cited for the vessel name being considered for TNG. Unless someone can provide proof, for all we know someone just made this up. 23skidoo 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Subject is notable although fictional. --Chazz88 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThough this article does not have a lot of info about the ship, someone can update it.Astroview120mm 04:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep as per Evil Eye Jcuk 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On August 19 Enterprise-H and Enterprise-I were put up for deletion for similar reasons stated here. See Articles for deletion 2005 August 19. Philip Stevens 16:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Nothing is known about her or her crew." (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More appropriate for Memory Alpha than WP. -- (aeropagitica)  17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per president of deleting H and I. --Pboyd04 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Enterprise G should not be treated in the same way as the Enterprise I or H as the G apparently does have an importance as being originally seriously considered as the Enterprise to be used in TNG, where as the H and I have not been considered for use as far as any publicly available reference sources says. This alone makes the G much more notable than H or I and hence no comparison o deletion of the H and I should be made when considering the G. Evil Eye 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There has been an outstanding request to prove that assertion on Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G) for almost a fortnight, now. As yet, no sources have been cited that demonstrate that there ever was such consideration, as claimed. Uncle G 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- JJay 20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• As it stands, the article contains two paragraphs: one that is exactly the same (except for the name change) as the content of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-H) (AfD discussion) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-I), and one for which no sources have been cited after almost a fortnight of asking and which is thus suspect. For the same reason as in the prior AFD discussion, therefore, delete. Uncle G 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. NeoJustin 23:19, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the ship does not even appear to exist in fiction, why should it be in an encyclopedia? --Ajdz 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see the need for a Star Trek ship that's nothing but speculation and fill-in-the blank dates based on when other actual ships were around. Awfully pointless as a seperate article. - Liontamer 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Daveb 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is crystal ball stuff and there's no indication as to when or if we ever get around to this chip in canon (or even noncanonical works). Jtmichcock 03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, cutting-room floor trivia, like the fact that Hope class starship was based on a concept for the original Enterprise. Gazpacho 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nomination. FredOrAlive 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gazpacho -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say merge, but the only mergable content appears to be unverifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and update per above. Maybe someone can update the article. Astroview120mm 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Incognito 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless canon sources are cited. Speculation and unverified statements are not needed. -- jaredwf 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per 23skidoo --AllyUnion (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Levin

Rob (lilo on IRC) says that he isn't really notable enough for here (he's a modest guy). I don't agree, but out of respect I am submitting this to AfD. Unusually for the submitter of an AfD, I'm voting keep, but I'll let the community decide on his notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Borderline at best, and I think it'd be a sign of respect to comply with his wishes, seeing as he's happily hosted Wikimedia's IRC channels for years. There is nothing to be gained from keeping this. Ambi 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Respect what Ambi says, though we didn't respect Daniel Brandt's wishes... - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's frequently a source of juvenile and immature attacks by groups such as lilofree and GNAA, it contains very little useful information, and Mr. Levin has expressed a wish to see it deleted. I'm voting for just that because I see no positive benefit to it remaining in Wikipedia. Most of the useful information about lilo is contained in the freenode article anyway :) - Windpaw 14:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per Rob Levin. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:02, January 2, 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Ray 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - <3 lilo - Femmina 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - </3 lilo; </3 bloggers -- Hosterweis 07:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Freenode itself is not a major network on par with EFNet or DALNet, and THOSE admins dont have Wiki articles about them. Cptchipjew 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - lol no, lilo good, omg you no <3 lilo - Femmina 08:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Prepare to lose your membership Cptchipjew 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Prepare to sleep on the sofa tonight - Femmina 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - Lol, as GNAA President, I order both of you to kiss and make up. --Timecop 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - Prepare to lose your membership and sleep on the sofa. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not needed --Depakote 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nowhere near notable. Proto t c 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Unlike other admins of IRC networks, he's head of the PDPC and is a major open-source contributor. I think he's notable. Jmax- 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Cutler

Non-notable bio; possible vanity. OntarioQuizzer 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, not notable. I'd dispute the claim about his campaign to become mayor of Pelham garnering "unprecedented local and national media coverage". I recall one article about the elections in Welland Tribune (Pelham has no daily newspaper of its own) that mentioned him as a "candidate darling"... National coverage for municipal elections in a 15,000 town? I think not. As for "challenging the apathy of local voters", IIRC his total vote count was in triple digits. His website, cutlerformayor.ca, is now offline but still preserved at Wayback machine. Navigation was via missing Java applets, so here are some subpages: [46] [47] [48] [49]. No relevant incoming wikilinks, and article, judging by the extravagant claims to "making a significant impact on ... international communities", most likely created by the subject. --Qviri 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography per Qviri. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:42Z
• Delete, I've seen some pretty POV things in my time, but this vanity page takes the biscuit. Dan 16:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, at least. Stifle 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The winner of the election for mayor of a 15,000 person town is probably not notable, let alone the guy in fifth place, with 616 votes.[50] 616 isn't even enough to win a seat on the undergraduate senate at my college of 6,600 people. OCNative 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per request of creator as a misspelling.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azman Khan

Delete. I created this page by mistake. The title is a misspelling. It should be "Azam Khan". Zaxem 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep after withdrawal of nomination.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Pearce

This article is about a soccer player who has never scored a goal because he has never played a match. Google search turns up one page (Lincoln City F.C. unofficial page) on the search list. But when you browse through it,there is no mention of him. I'm sure it is qualified to be deleted as nn-bio. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn in light of comment below by Jcuk.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: He turns up in the cached version of the page. I'm not sure where he plays this season.
• This article is about a proffesional football player, who has played for his country. Google search turns up several hits Strong Keep Jcuk 17:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk. -- jaredwf 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk. Stifle 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Saint Patrick's Day Four

Vanity page. Non-notable group. Google shows <50 unique hits. Madman 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree, it was a FOTD stunt and already forgotten. -- Jbamb 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Wikipedia is not paper. --Chazz88 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatically Strong Keep The Saint Patrick's Day Four has gotten a lot of publicity. Madman allegation that the "St. Patrick's Day Four" only shows less than 50 unique hits is dubious.

Please see the talk page for a list of newspapers that mention the protesters. 12 newspapers and 37 articles, including the NYT three times and the Washington Post.

If it is good enough to mention in the New York Times three times, it is good enough for wikipedia.

If Madman would have typed variations of The Saint Patrick's Day Four, the following results occur:

UPDATE:

• "St. Patrick's Four" on google retrieves 21,900 hits.Travb 04:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• 768 articles found on Lexis Nexis when a user types: "St. Patrick's Four" Screenshot here.

Maybe Madman didn't know much about the protest in the first place to know the varitations of spelling?

If users delete this entry, they will also delete Catonsville Nine and other notable protests. Travb 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, I was not aware of this group and didn't go thru all the variant spellings. My mistake. Even if I had been aware, I am still reluctant to have articles on every set of arrested protesters. From what I see, there were no overriding &/or notable issues (e.g. constitutional issues), just some vandalism and a stand against the war. As bige1977 notes below, this happens many times a year. Would you "Keepers" feel the same if this were an anti-abortion group? I too think this war was a mistake, but that doesn't make the protest notable even with mention in the NYT. Madman 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The two reasons you gave to delete this page was:

First: Vanity page. As per: Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." Please explain the conflict of interest that I have, and what relationship I have with the Saint Patrick's Four.

Second reason:Non-notable group, Please read over the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability the guidelines for being non-notable are: original research, unverifiable, a vanity page, or articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people. Since the first three are obviously not applicable, that leaves the last reason: articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people This is notable. "St. Patrick's Four" on google retrieves 21,900 hits and 768 articles found on Lexis Nexis when a user types: "St. Patrick's Four"

• "This will be the first federal conspiracy trial arising out of civil resistance to the invasion of Iraq".[51]
• "It will also be the first federal conspiracy trial of anti-war protesters since Vietnam."[52]Travb 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Without addressing any of your specific points, I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia:Notability is a proposal and not at all policy. In fact, judging from its talk page, it's pretty unlikely ever to be adopted. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Many political protesters that engaged in vandalizm got arrested, tried, and convicted. It happens many times per year. What makes this group noteable? User:bige1977

• 3 articles in the NYT, and one in the Washington Post.Travb 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Travb and Madman Jcuk 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep What makes this group notable is the persecution they suffered for a trivial act. 82.38.97.206 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)mikeL
• Keep as per Travb. -- jaredwf 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saraia

NN fanfic. Neither Lego Quest Saraia or Saraia Leon Morttenson have any google hits. JLaTondre 15:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with relish. Dan 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable fanfiction (fancruft). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 01:41Z
• Delete per nomination. ×Meegs 16:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Quarl. Stifle 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS — there's too much bickering to make much sense of it, but it sounds like work for talk pages and, if necessary, a redirect or a revisit to AfD. -Splash^talk 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intrinsic redshift

This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Article rewritten to conform to a description of intrinsic redshifts:

The rationale for deleting this article is still here. However, I have decided to abandon this page as it is clear that the discussion has become too cumbersome to continue. Instead I will try being bold and editting the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is less than 24 hours old. I've already requested a number of other editors look at it, and discussion is in progress. --Iantresman 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(Please see the article talkpage for unrelated objections to this AfD erroneously included here.) --ScienceApologist

• Claiming that the article is original research is false; Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)

However, this article is about categorizing a number of different ideas which have their own pages and explanations as novel representations of redshift mechanisms. That is what is original research. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Wikipedia says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.

The subject is already treated on the redshift page. It was agreed in discussion there that a list such as this was not only unnecessary, it represented an inappropriate POV endorsement. As it is, your decision to write this article is the very definition of a POV-fork. You opted out of the redshift discussion and created a new article to deflect criticism. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.

Anything worth salvaging in this article could easily be merged to Non-standard cosmology. However, I was talking about sources. --ScienceApologist

• Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.

The creation of this page as a POV-fork is technically a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by my criticisms, which are also based on your comment on the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift#Article_for_deletion Talk page where you wrote "This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s"
• I have answered all your previous points elsewhere.
• --Iantresman 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Either rename and link from redshift, or merge. Motivation:

- I agree with ScienceApologist that it's apparently a POV fork. However, the cause of a POV fork is often insufficient accounting for that POV in the main article, and a quick look shows that the redshift article is lacking on a number of points, especially as the article he/she apparently refers to is titled "redshift" and not "cosmological redshift". I repeat here my earlier comments on the Talk page: this article certainly fills a gap (I learned something today thanks to it!) but to make it general and NPOV, it should be called "List of redshift mechanisms", and be linked from the redshift article, containing all notable past and current cosmological as well as non-cosmological redshift hypotheses. Such a page will be very useful as general reference, and free from any POV. Harald88 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed redshift mechanisms" could be adequately addressed on the non-standard cosmology page where a lot of these things come from. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of that page, I didn't know it existed! A link from redshift is lacking, I'll add it now. But cosmology differs from mechanisms; I don't see how the limited subject of cosmology can include all redshift mechanisms. Harald88 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Continued on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The redshift article already (appropriately) deals with scattering redshift mechanisms, with most of the details (appropriately) left to the scattering article. An (appropriate) brief mention and link is made to the tired light article (although this seems to flicker a bit). The only theory that is not covered, but might be with a link, is Arp's 1997 hypothesis. --Art Carlson 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to confirm that nothing in the discussion up to now has changed my mind. The topic of this article is ill-defined and the content is best covered in other articles or not at all. This applies, in particular, to all the items in Ian's list. --Art Carlson 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Wikipedia), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):

Terms (please see the talkpage for the list -- attempting to reduce the clutter on the main page so people can discuss the matter --ScienceApologist 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

--Iantresman 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above list represents a ridiculous amount of original research amalgamation. Your list contains redundancies and points of view that are only relevant because you "say so". This kind of POV-pushing needs to be elimintaed from Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)