Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 13 March 15 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] March 14

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay-Z "Biting" Accusations

Obviously original research. No sources in site (other than sources for lyrics), and the author(s) would be hard-pressed to actually find some. FuriousFreddy 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC) We need to keep it because it simply is all to true...if people want examples they need to be available and that would be the most LOGICAL Decision

  • Keep---Neccessary to limit the size of Jay-Z's page entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.217.218 (talk • contribs). 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting article but original research unless sourced from reliable third parties. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, links lead only to song lyrics suggesting serious OR. If this is a big deal there must be sources? Find some and this could be a keeper, or at least a merge. Deizio 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, and, most likely unverifiable. --Terence Ong 02:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terence Ong. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --BWD (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main article on Jay-Z already notes these accusations. This much detail on the accusations really isn't necessary. Aplomado - UTC 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as much about Jay-Z as possible, or more NPOV delete this because it's not sourced and is an unnecessary fork MLA 09:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible copyright violation.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for many reasons above. Anyone for {db-attack}? Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 11:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original researchFunky Monkey 16:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This article is NOT OR. Someone in the Dipset camp brought this up not too long ago as part of their defamation campaign against Jay-Z (also known as "beef.") IIRC, they even stole the argument from someone else. I think it's a valid issue, as Jay-Z is a big name and hip-hop prides itself in originality, I just don't know if it warrants its own article or if it should be merged with the Jay-Z one. If anything, though, the article needs cleanup. Usonophile 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is OR because its coparisons of songs, and its labeling them as being plagirisms, is not sourced. You'd need a source for each song mentioned--one that's not the lyrics--where some person of critical authority said "Jay-Z bit this. It is not a tribute or an allusion; he stole someone's lyrics." --FuriousFreddy 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What's "critical authority?" From what I understand, the allegations were made in a track called "Biter/Writer" on a mixtape about a year ago (here's a link that discusses the track and here's a website that will play it). And then the Dipset released an updated version. Those are the sources I got. I think most of the lyrics in the article are presented in the original track. Usonophile 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The "Biter/Writer" song is unattributed. As such, it's no better than the unreferenced article. You need verifiable sources for encyclopedia articles. --FuriousFreddy 12:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Update: I added a line in the article to reflect what I just said. Usonophile 04:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely original research and unsourced content AdamJacobMuller 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete though a fun read. ProhibitOnions 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if the accusation that he steals lyrics can be sourced. It appears like someone added to the intro that another rapper has accused him of it. If that can be sourced this seems like a keep. I agree that sourcing the lyrics doesn't count (unless another rapper accuses him of biting in their lyrics). This is almost certianly not a copyvio or an attack page. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • One mention of Jay-Z biting lyrics doesn't justify the original research and author opinion that makes up most of the page. You'd need a verifiable source which references each of the alleged cases of biting. Even this, this whole article is slightly ludicrous (no pun intended) as it is; what rapper doesn't reference other rappers' lines? At best, a sourced sentence or two can be included in the main Jay-Z article. No need for a seperate page; this is an encyclopedia, and not a place for unpublished analyses. --FuriousFreddy 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think the author is necessarily giving his opinion, just stating that the "Biter/Writer" track was released and made some waves in the hip-hop community. Besides, to reference a famous line by another rapper (making the tribute obvious) is one thing, but Jay-Z "borrowed" numerous more obscure lines to fit his rhymes without giving any credit. I think it's at least worthy of debate. Usonophile 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia articles are not forums for debate or speculation. A mention of Cam'ron making a Jay-Z diss song can be done in one sentence in the main Jay-Z article. --FuriousFreddy 12:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, enjoyed it very much, but unless sourced, its OR -- Samir (the scope) 00:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I wouldn't have cared otherwise, but the anon with the first keep vote deleted the AfD without comment.

⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but make different article - How about we rename the artcle to "Swagger Jacker" (which would only concern the biting accusations from the Cam vs. Jay-Z beef. Everything else would be mention in the biting section of the main Jay-Z article.--chub 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gul Mohammed

This article needs to go,it hasnt had much expansion for awhile,it is just a litte stub,which it may remain.

Finishing this AfD nomination for User:Rodrigue. bikeable (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Seems perfectly notable and verifiable to me. Guiness Book page even has a photo of him: [1]. bikeable (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; although I do wish it were expanded. --Cymsdale 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly merge to a list of Guiness World Records. Alba 00:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Since when is there a minimum article length? Osomec 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per BikeableMontco 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Obvious Speedy Keep. He's a verified Guiness World Record holder. I've fiddled the text to be less of a copyvio and added the link. Try alt + x a few more times to find pages really worth deleting. Deizio 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, noteworthy if not a keep then merge to Guiness.--Dakota ~ ° 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, as per discussion. BrownHairedGirl
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Pretty Bang Bang

Delete. not noteworthy. Luvcraft 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:SOFT so hard it could scratch diamond. Alba 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • where are the software article guidelines? That link just goes to an article about the software that Wikipedia runs on. Luvcraft 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and really a speedy for goode sire, I dost believeth thou hast asserteth no notabilitay. Begone. Deizio 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. BrownHairedGirl 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 18,800 Google hits [2] gets it over the line for me with verifiable sources including this Channel 4 review. [3]. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm getting "337 unique, 14,800 total", the 14,800 is nice but 337 unique isn't all that impressive... The Channel 4 link is better but it's not much of a review, more a blurb and instructions for a webgame. The great unwashed give it 4.8 out of 10. Deizio 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Mills

Someone tried to AFD this as someone notnotable. Not mine just listing it properly, so No Vote kotepho 07:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • A non-notable -- there's no reason for this entry to exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.247.167 (talk • contribs).
  • I don't follow football much, but this player doesn't look particularly notable. There are a lot of college players out there. Zetawoof 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, and that's a delete. Zetawoof 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think college sportspeople are notable unless they're clearly standouts MLA 09:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's probably notable to the more hardcore football fans, so why not keep it up for them to enjoy!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimMorrisonFever (talk • contribs).
Note: User:JimMorrisonFever has a total of four edits, two of which are voting on AFDs. Kuzaar 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If the team is notable enough for inclusion, its players should be allowed articles. Otherwise you end up with a.) countless red links, b.) a complete lack of individual player information that may be of use to a person reading the article about the team, or c.) the disruptive overloading of the team page with aforementioned individual player information...due to the fact that individual player articles aren't allowed. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MLA. Kuzaar 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He does hold the AFL league record for the longest field goal, and to fans of Arena Football he probably is notable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 16:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bio of a notable professional athlete. No Guru 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, professional athlete. Andy Saunders 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've no idea about football, but if a team is notable, all its players should probably be able to have articles. ProhibitOnions 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely meets Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geeks Paradox

Contested prod. User:(aeropagitica) said "non-notable website, as per WP:WEB and no Alexa rank." NickelShoe 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and is clear vanity. --Cymsdale 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per CymsdaleMontco 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB Alexa and Google. Reads like a vanity.--Dakota ~ ° 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this first-degree WebCruft. Deizio 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs on myspace, not wikipedia. Luvcraft 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vslashg (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete PN. Obvious vanity. KirbyMeister 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per my earlier comments re: {{prod}}.  (aeropagitica)  01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity web. --Terence Ong 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 07:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Computerjoe. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomFunky Monkey 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom AdamJacobMuller 18:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with all above -- Samir (the scope) 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Australian Defence Force. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Forces

This is a sub-stub about a mod that will never reach article status, it's better just to have their website link in the Battlefield 2 article than an entire article.--Zxcvbnm 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge & delete, not worthy of a page and this topic should at the very least be a disambig, if not a straight redirect to the actual Australian armed forces. Deizio 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Australian Defence Force. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El burrito loco

Non-notable, with only 134 Googles. It also sounds like an advertisment, so delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Today's special: NPOV DinerCruft! Every day a new flavour... Deizio 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Luvcraft 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Seems to simply be a two sentence ad for a hole-in-the-wall. Kuru talk 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Montco 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also spells possessive "its" with an apostrophe twice; this must be stricken from the record. Melchoir 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN restaurant. Cnwb 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as just another non-notable restaurant. The article seems to be more of an attack page against the restaurant ("no-waters-for-free"), individuals ("Ray Tello and his whimpy brother") and/or the nearby high school ("home of the stupid dragons"), anyway. As an aside, the food is probably good, but it's blatantly trying to capitalize on El Pollo Loco's name and fame. --Kinu t/c 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nn crazy advertisement. --Hetar 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ¡Ay ay ay! ¡El deleto esto restauranto loco! JIP | Talk 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Funky Monkey 17:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a small chain where I live called "Burrito Loco" that might be notable, but this isn't that. Grandmasterka 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not to mention El Pollo Loco. Ain't that either. ProhibitOnions 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original author needs to learn a few lessons about apostrophes as well. I could barely read it before determining that it wasn't notable. --Elkman - (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do I have a feeling that the "celebrities" mentioned might be involved in the creation? Besides, there's a 1:5 chance of that being the name of a mexican restaurant in any town, right behind "Amigos". TKE 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert -- Samir (the scope) 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic Cosmology

Obvious original research, the only Google hits are when people happen to use the words generic and cosmology in sequence. Joke 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. –Joke 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Might be notable as a world record attempt to use the word "cosmology" as many times as possible in one article. Deizio 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bullshit, not even worthy for Uncyclopedia. Makes Time Cube sound 100% accurate. KirbyMeister 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, bs article. Move all this crap to your own blog, we are an encyclopedia you know. --Terence Ong 02:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as blatant original research. Aplomado - UTC 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. original nonsense. (Or is that patent research?) Bucketsofg 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR Funky Monkey 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Get a free website for this kinda thing, or a life. ProhibitOnions 19:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, plus it made my head spin. TKE 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. agree. -- Samir (the scope) 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. It's a cosmology, only it's more generic than other cosmologies... Peter Grey 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology based on observations only as opposed to cosmoogy with a point of view. What would it say? This is no encyclopedia, it is a compilation of perspectives by powers to be

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good News Bible Chapel

Spam, advert, probable copyvio for nn church Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 01:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Thanks to our friends at GDFL and GNU it's not a copyvio but it can also be found here, at "BrethrenPedia". If you want a hoot, this one's for you... In any case, this is AdSpam. Deizio 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the Wikipedia jigsaw-globe logo is copyrighted. BrethrenPedia don't seem to care... Deizio 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn church. --Terence Ong 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Del as nn. mikka (t) 03:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings all. I submitted the page in question. Obviously I'm a newbie - not a hard core Wiki person. I guess I am clueless about the rules here. They seem to be pretty clear to all of you. Not quite so clear to me. Yes, the article is self-serving. And informative. Is that the problem? Help me outhere. Feel free to edit. Or tell me what the specific problem is. I don't understand your shorthand notes. S DuPlessie E: steve@gnbc.org

  • Delete nn ('not notable'). (Nothing personal, Steve. Wikipedia has developed a set of guidelines about what is worthy of a wikipedia article and what is not. The most important one is 'notability'--otherwise someone will catalogue every blade of grass on their front lawn. In the judgement of the people above, you church is not notable enough to have an article. They also reject it because its purpose seems to advertise rather than to inform.) Bucketsofg 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I will post an explanation on the creator's talk page that is slightly more detailed than the one lef tby User:Bucketsofg above. Draeco 04:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert for generic church. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement not encyclopedic. May be a composite part of another wiki article but not it's own entry at this time. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 11:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad Funky Monkey 17:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Religious advertising. ProhibitOnions 19:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. But edit it to get rid of the proselytizing. If this church has been around since 1935, I think it has enough stability as an institution to warrant inclusion.Carlo 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong DeleteNon- Notable, Proselityzing Religion, which is Bltant NPOV.

I apologize if I have inadvertently offended anyone with this submission. I have edited the page that I orginally submitted to remove the self-serving and "advertising" text. I have added some links to existing Wiki pages. I understand if this page does not merit inclusion due to "not notable." If that is the case, so be it. Sduplessie 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn church; not every parish, synagogue, church, temple, mosque, etc. merits a page – regardless of what form of religion being served up. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabatha Jordan

Hardly notable. She does not have any accomplishments that bring her above the big-bust, breast-flashing mediocrity that pervades the internet. No awards or citations in her "profession" to make her notable. Has only done 30 movies in less than 8 years, and has very little in the way of magazine appearances. Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep I am afraid Ms. Jordan is obviously notable, esp. on account of the assymmetrical breasts. j/k. the.crazy.russian vent here 02:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Not someone i care to learn much about, but she has been in multiple "independent" films and is clearly a notable person in accordance with WP:BIO. Just because you don't like her or the porn industry doesn't mean that others won't want to learn something about Ms. Jordan. AmiDaniel 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Doesn't break any policies. MadCow257 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Wikipedia is full of big boobs, not to say about real sicko stuff. One more will not make difference. mikka (t) 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Full of big boobs? I must be editing the wrong articles! Bucketsofg 05:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I could have shown you places, but I don't know your age. :-) mikka (t) 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per all. --Terence Ong 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Calsicol 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn porncruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. I have absolutely no moral objection, she just doesn't appear to be notable as a few minor porn roles in a relatively unsuccessful career doesn't strike me as notability MLA 09:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing to do with morals - simply not-notable, and not encyclopedic. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 30 porn movies in 8 years is nothing; most titty stars appear in hundreds upon hundreds of these things. Not notable. Proto||type 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; article indicates short porn career (where do the 30 films come from; article lists only 8, some recycled) followed by long stint selling dirty pictures of herself via own website, hardly a notable effort unless every "model" with a webcam is notable. Monicasdude 15:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. An excellent addition to our coverage of the genre. Article states she has won an award and thus no good reason to deprive Ms. Jordan of her well deserved place here. -- JJay 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to set her apart from the millions of other pornographic actors/actresses. Andy Saunders 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Proto... she simply is not notable in her chosen profession.--Isotope23 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Asymmetrical breasts? That might be notable... somehow... I guess. ProhibitOnions 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Only if she plans on suing her plastic surgeon...--Isotope23 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable within the genre. I believe this article has previously survived AFD once before. In lieu of any sort of overall policy regarding porn-related articles, this one passes the notability bar. 23skidoo 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and sounds like a story created by ten-year-olds. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. There are plenty of whores with webcams calling themselves models, but this isn't one to record for the ages. She's got her own website, so I don't see why Wikipedia needs to have a page on her. Brian G. Crawford 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tits. Herostratus 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. -- infinity0 15:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete & redirected to Starfury.  (aeropagitica)  21:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star-Fury

Delete NN game website, violates WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting this. the.crazy.russian vent here 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN gamecruft. Oscar Arias 04:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom MLA 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nomination - this is a promo/advert *delete. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why delete if other articles like this are allowed ( StarKingdoms ) ?

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Results:

  • Delete - 13
  • Keep - 15
  • Weak Keep - 02
  • Merge - 05

[edit] Brokeback Mountain parodies

Doesn't this fall under Wikipedia is not a web directory? Or, more specifically, Wikipedia is not an indexing service for dailysixer, gorillamask, youtube, and ifilm? Melchoir 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Fixed the lists of links; neutral on whether this needs an article. Melchoir 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete dailysixer linked to 10 times, UE MadCow257 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. WarpstarRider 03:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not happy with the state of this article either, however it does stop the flood of edits to the Brokeback Mountain main article regarding parodies of the film, since there have been so many. It needs signficant Clean-up but if proper criteria for inclusion was set it would serve a better purpose. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... what do you think ought to be kept? You could even clean up the article right now, if you're willing. Melchoir 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it, violates WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just to stop the flood of thousands of Brokeback whatever articles. -- Oscar Arias 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete to stop the flood of Brokeback whatever articles. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eivindspeak! 06:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TerenceOng.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 08:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless. WP:NOT downplays "mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article." The key word is "mere". There is already content beyond the collection of links. There could be more discussion about the phenomena, and over time that will come. -- Samuel Wantman 09:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, gee, let's write articles about discussion that 'could' take place. 'Article' fails WP:NOT. Proto||type 14:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Articles about discussion that 'could' take place are called "stubs". -- Samuel Wantman 10:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep because of news results -- Astrokey44|talk 15:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it was a media trend at the time. Qyd 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SamuelWantman. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Astrokey44 Funky Monkey 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is really informative for the people who need this info. While I'm no expert, it seems that this whole parody thing is becoming more and more important. My hat is off to the editors who have addressed the Brokeback parody genre with the full encyclopedic treatment of which it fully deserves. -- JJay 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, violates WP:NOT. Andy Saunders 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT.--Isotope23 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Chanlord and Oarias. Stu ’Bout ye! 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article could be better, but there are lots of parodies of this already. ProhibitOnions 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect: I think a reference to this subject should be mentioned on the Trivia section of the Brokeback Mountain page. Tutmosis 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and appears to be another joke similar to what was Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain (now a redirect). Remove it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Cultural impact... was not a joke, it was a (failed) refactoring of the already too big Brokeback Mountain main article. It didn't survive because its aim was too ambitious for this moment, not because its contents were not valid. Diego 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Brokeback Mountain (the entire list doesn't need to be merged in; a brief reference to parodies would be fine.) Catamorphism 00:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:NOT. Every fad on the internet does not deserve a detailed article. --DJH47 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some have speculated that Brokeback Mountain lost the Best Picture Oscar because of the parodies of the movie. So, I think that makes this a notable topic. You can't get much more notable than being one of the biggest "Best Picture" upsets in Academy Awards history; and this topic of parodies has, the opinions of some, been linked to the upset. I say keep, but cleanup or possibily merge. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a very new article (the oldest content is from 9 days ago) and its nomination seems premature and raises the question of whether there should be a minimum age requirement before an article can be nominated for deletion. It does have an extensive collection of links but they do seem "content-relevant" to the unique subject matter as opposed to just for "mere" collection's sake, the later of which seems to be the main concern of the WP:NOT, and they're no more extensive than many of the references/footnotes in thoroughly credited articles. It might not be a bad idea to review/revise the WP:NOT to take this type of article into better consideration. Also, the Brokeback parodies are not just an Internet fad. The film was extensively parodied across other mediums including television and print and is arguably the most parodied movie of the year. They deserve their reference amongst the film's cultural impacts and given the considerable length of the excellent main article, a separate page for their inclusion is not unreasonable. Overall, I recommend a "Keep" and to give this article a reasonable amount of time to develop. Santress 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There must never be any policy that makes any article immune from AfD, under any circumstances. Moreover, articles are not deleted because they are underdeveloped. Articles are deleted when they are irredeemable and any development would be a waste of effort, so a policy against deleting new articles would be especially unwise. Melchoir 08:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I can see your point but the quality and content of an article is often related to its development and nine days seems premature to nominate an article for deletion unless it contains a very obvious violation of Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Santress 09:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • But I am saying that present "quality and content" are ultimately irrelevant. We are here to judge whether an article on a given topic should exist at all. Melchoir 09:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It seems they do factor in here since the collection of links (content and even arguably quality) has been cited for many of the delete reasons. Take care & happy voting, Santress 10:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This page came into being because there was on balance too much information about parodies in the Brokeback Mountain article, and it was decided to move the information to a new page. Many people have contributed to the article, and by Melchoir's assesment, this is a "waste of effort" and "irredeemable". But why? Who is being hurt? What is the damage? I was unaware of these parodies before I came accross them here. The contributors don't mind contributing, and it is a current cultural phenomena. I think the burden of argument here should be on the delete side to make a case for what makes this irredeemable. The phrase "Brokeback Mountain parodies" gets about 17,000 hits on google. Without the quotes it is about a quarter million. This is a notable subject. -- Samuel Wantman 10:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Is it so notable that every single video hosted by dailysixer.com needs a link? If you were to delete the spam from this article, you'd get maybe four items, which belong at Brokeback Mountain under Trivia. What is being hurt is the mission of Wikipedia, which is to write encyclopedic articles, not to generate lists of external links, no matter how embellished. WP:NOT is policy for a reason. Melchoir 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The article started out looking like this. I too think that it doesn't need most of the links. That is an argument for editing the page and not deleting it. That someone chooses to add too much information does not hurt the mission of Wikipedia. What hurts is deleting articles that people have put effort into without helping to tailor the articles into something that would be worthwhile keeping. What hurts is having discussions about deletion instead of putting efforts into constructive improvements. A comment about the over-abundance of links on the talk page would have been much more constructive. I have not had much time at Wikipedia in the last few days, and much of it has been distracted by this AFD. -- Samuel Wantman 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I fix up far more bad articles than I nominate for deletion. In this case, I didn't think it would be worth my effort; you are welcome to disagree, but actions speak louder than words. Discussions about deletion do not hurt the encyclopedia; they help by clarifying the application of policy for new and old contributors alike. The use of Wikipedia to advertise web content must not be tolerated; for that message, AfD speaks louder than a talk page. I am sorry if individual people find this AfD distracting, but I think it is necessary to the furure of this article, even if it is kept without consensus, which seems to be the case. I'll do the honors of removing the spam, since no one else seems willing. Melchoir 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is clearly an Internet phenomenon and just like The Smurfs and communism or Chuck Norris Facts its silly but still something that has a place here. It only need time to evolve since it is still a current event. It has even garnered media attention Google news on "Brokeback Mountain" parodiesUKPhoenix79 11:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Chanlord, Santress, Oasis and UKPhoenix79. Interestingstuffadder 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting related collection; and while each of these parodies may not deserve an article in its own right, in aggregate they do. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If they're still talking about these recuts a year from now, give it an article. As is, every piece of flatulence the internet produces is not worthy of an article. Denni ☯ 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not a random internet fad, this is tied to a mainstream, Academy-awarded movie and has been reported in non-Internet mainstream media. Diego 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Brokeback Mountain under new "Parodies" header. If it becomes a significant and long-lasting meme, like All Your Base, etc., then re-create as separate article if necessary. --Icarus 04:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean Dunemaire 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Icarus -Pal5017 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge to main film article. -- infinity0 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discretionary fiscal policy

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (wikt:Transwiki:discretionary fiscal policy) James084 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as transwikied. --Terence Ong 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per transwikification MLA 09:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought these could be speedied. Proto||type 14:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy as transwikied. Andy Saunders 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would a redirect to Fiscal Policy not be appropriate? Another page - Automatic Fiscal Stabiliser - redirecting to Fiscal Policy would be appropriate too I think. They are the two main components of Fiscal Policy, and are likely to be something people search for. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as transwikified, useful search term. ProhibitOnions 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distributive tropism

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (wikt:Transwiki:distributive tropism) James084 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not as dicdef, but as non-notable, possibly nonexistent term (no Google hits besides Wikipedia & mirrors). --Allen 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per transwikification MLA 09:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy as transwikied. Andy Saunders 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Management by perkele

  • del nonnotable foreign-language neologism. mikka (t) 02:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 04:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the guideline, if it has a decent amount of google hits, there is realistic evidence of usage. Further, there are far more google hits for the original-language version of the term. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I've changed my vote to keep. --Terence Ong 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oscar Arias 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom MLA 09:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough to cross borders and countries and gain 420 direct hits. May be a new term and therefore a neologism but no less important than Management by objectives and other similar entries image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 11:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep notable in the countries in question - 420 google hits for the english version of the phrase alone. Also, quite interesting and informative. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, perkele! This expression is very notable in both Finland and Sweden. There's more to Wikipedia than the USA, you know. JIP | Talk 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a good point - to delete this would be an affront to Scandinavian wikipedians. It would be offensive, and would discourage people from contributing articles about Scandinavian cultures. Why not just delete the Finland page while we're at it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And another good point is that it is English Wikipedia. The expression has no prominence in English usage. We cannot cover all possible idioms in all lagnuages of the world. mikka (t) 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
O RLY? Night Gyr 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep clear evidence it is notable. Bondegezou 15:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, would appear to be notable. Would like to have the original Swedish form of the expression, though. Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable Funky Monkey 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be a term of some usage... at least nobody is trying to assert it is becoming an English language loanword... Out of curiousity, in Sweden, is it actually expressed as "Management by perkele" or is there a phrase is Swedish that is more commonly used?--Isotope23 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As the phrase originated as a Swedish insult of Finnish leadership, I would think the Swedish actually call it "Management by perkele". However they probably mispronounce it as "Management by pärkkele". JIP | Talk 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • ...which is better than "Bergele" though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve, because this is not an English phrase, even if a widely used Scandinavian buzzword. ProhibitOnions 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, at least BJAODNable if not kept. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) perkele.
  • Strong Keep Notable term. Used in US in certain software engineering circles as illustration of what not to do to succeed. dryguy 00:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, vittuun perkele. // Gargaj 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This vote appears to contradict itself... JIP | Talk 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close to Home (band)

Does not meet WP:Music criteria. TKE 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Bucketsofg 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. There are no assertions of notability against WP:NMG in this article. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not for articles on bands that only play in their parent's garage. --Oscar Arias 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coding by Comrade Reguspatoff

  • del. While reguspatoff is a venerable joke, but (a) its application to coding is even not a neologism (b) the article is factually incorrect. "Reguspatoff" is American joke, not Soviet. mikka (t) 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. --Terence Ong 04:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but funny, moved copy to BJAODN. Oscar Arias 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. The humourous aspect must be too subtle for me MLA 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete silly, unencyclopedic - and not really that funny folks. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense and not funny Funky Monkey 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, funny because it's not true. ProhibitOnions 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn. Ezeu 09:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan Construction Company

I tried to clean this up. Creator seems content to continue adding corporate addresses and phone numbers, essentially commercial spam. I tried to help them but want to keep the spam up so Delete Montco 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • OK per the early returns, I withdraw my request to delete.Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. I sympathize with the nominator, but if this company did indeed build some important buildings, it is probable wp-worthy. Delete the spam, warn the spammers, but keep the article. Bucketsofg 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they are notable and I would under other circumstances have no problem. If they are going to keep going in and adding spam to the article and erase the work I tried to do in terms of agetting rid of the all caps entries and the addresses what can you do? I'll leave it to someone else to cleanup if the decision is to keep.
  • Keep because the subject is valid. Quality control should not be done by just one person - we're into collective responsibility here! Therefore I have added it to my watchlist and if it is kept I will try to help keep it clean of corporate addresses and phone numbers. Ziggurat 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. Oscar Arias 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Allen 06:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominator has withdrawn, no other delete votes. Can we get a speedy keep and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Dope Records

nn record company that was only created this month Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, definite need to chill until notability is reached, g/l with that... Deizio 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable. Bucketsofg 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn wannabeCruft -- Oscar Arias 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as no current notability MLA 09:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn Ray 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. ProhibitOnions 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Must have been created by some underground hardcore punksters. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinclair News Music Package

Article about a music package for TV news programs. Non-notable; entirely too arcane for an encyclopedia. tregoweth 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • For that matter, everything in Category:Television news music packages looks dubious. tregoweth 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Oscar Arias 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could someone explain what a TV music package is? The article doesn't say. Then maybe we could merge the whole crufty category in one article. Sandstein 07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's the background music for a news program: the opening and closing theme, the backing track under a graphic or a commercial bumper, etc. Bearcat 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost certainly nn, but I would think that it can't really be treated differently than all the other similar packages listed at Category:Television news music packages. The whole thing is utter cruft, to my mind, but clearly someone is interested in this stuff. I'm willing to say delete if the whole category gets cancelled with it — I'm not going to support singling this one out as a uniquely nn example within the larger category. Bearcat 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep millions of people hear the contents of these music packages and may be curious as to their origin. killing off the entire category would be be a profound disservice to wikipedia, and singling out this one entry would be bizarre, as Sinclairis a notable name in broadcasting. The fact that some people may not already be familiar with the nature and creation of these music packages does not make them nn - they are widespread, and, again, they are heard by millions daily. effort should be undertaken to integrate these music-package articles more thoroughly into the articles about their corporate creators, so that they are not orphans. that is the only problem here - lack of integration. merging, however, is not neccessary or desirable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: though we have the several articles on individual packages, as far as I can tell we have no general article on television news music package, or news music for that matter. A basic article would supply helpful context. Smerdis of Tlön 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I left a note at the talkpage of the guy who made all the package articles; if he doesn't do it, I might try something. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; no reason to single this article out for deletion, and Sinclair is a clearly notable broadcaster. "Too arcane" is not a criterion for deletion. That said, the article seems grossly incomplete without significant content information. Monicasdude 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Wikipedia is not paper, so no curious background information is "too arcane". Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable to me Funky Monkey 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - arcane is good. That's why we use the encyclopedia, to look up stuff we don't know. ProhibitOnions 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expedito Briceño

Non-notable. -- RHaworth 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under A7. -- JLaTondre 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The author may have put a {{dontdelete}} tag for more time, but it is highly unlikely that any new info will surface that will make it notable or keepable. Draeco 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The {{dontdelete}} tag was created by the author for this article! -- RHaworth 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. ÜberVanity, A7 and then some. Deizio 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. No claim to notability; being a salesman in an unidentified clothing store is not a sufficient claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Sorry my friend, nothing leads me to believe you're notable enough. Besides, you don't google too well. Grandmasterka 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. --Terence Ong 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REALbasic

Delete. Any article which pertains to provide a fair overview of a subject needs to include both pro and con attributes of the subject matter. This article has been repeatedly edited so as to remove information pertaining to the cons of this product so as to portray only supposedly good things about this product. This product was was originally designed for the Macintosh platform only, and for many years it ran on the Macintosh platform only, and then with the introduction of RB2005 this product was extensively modified. The cons the modifications need to be reflected within this article as they are both part of this product's history and portray an accurate portrait of the reliability of the product. The original Macintosh interface and numerous features have been removed since the introduction of RB2005, which has upset numerous users of this product, who are not being allowed a voice in pointing out their displeasure with the product as easily verfied by examining copy of the last major release of this product (5.5.5) prior to the revamping of this product within RB2005. In addition there are issues with an extensive increase in the amout of bugs experienced with this product since RB2005 was intoduced, as verfied by this product's own feedback pages upon the publicsher's own web site. There have also been concerns about changes made to terms under which the demo of product can be used, differences between pro and standard version, and modifications made to the pricing of this product (i.e., a move away from simply purchasing a update to having to buy a update and subscription instead. Wiki is not suppose to be a free advertising site for Real Software. Unless sections are added to cover Missing Features, Non Functional Features, and Other Modifications, and the like this article should be removed as it it nothing more than propaganda to sell a commercial product. TruthInAdvertising 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Wow. Deizio 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I see that a very long-winded section (that I assume you wrote) has been removed from the article. You can edit the article yourself using a concise, encyclopedic tone to write about all the changes you've gone on about. Bringing it here (or writing about what's wrong with the article in the article) is certainly not a constructive solution. Grandmasterka 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per bad-faith nom. This AFD is NOT the place to air your grievances about a content dispute. Try RfC, RfM or RfAr, but whatever you do, don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. ---J.Smith 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Grandmr and JSmith. Bucketsofg 04:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep if you feel the article is missing something, you can add it (as long as you don't vandalize existing content or break NPOV. Oscar Arias 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. Aplomado - UTC 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. per above.--SirNuke 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. --Allen 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. --Terence Ong 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Vertical leap.  (aeropagitica)  22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measuring Vertical Leap

WP:NOT an instruction manual.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Terence Ong 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. not-how-to Bucketsofg 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Too bad, I was planning to add an article about my favorite grilled-cheese sandwich recipe. Aplomado - UTC 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or, if Vertical leap should stay (and I really don't know), this could redirect to there. --Allen 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a how-to guide. (Is this even something for which one really needs a how-to guide?) --Kinu t/c 06:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 12:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vertical leap and improve that second-rate article. ProhibitOnions
  • Comment Hey i'm the writer of this post. I'm very new to this, as you can obviously see. Please help me out, I don't mind it linking back or getting deleted. I think Vertical Leap should stay though. As you can see i didn't even know how to reply here properly :S Can someone fix my stupidity when they see this, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helmethead3 (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Vertical Project

nn "program" for some nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encycopedic, not notable, not for wp. Bucketsofg 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. WarpstarRider 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious fake early April fools joke along with that Vertical jump one I'm guessing same author? -Oscar Arias 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad, nn. --Terence Ong 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad Funky Monkey 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baja Arizona

Delete nonnotable political screed. While "Baja Arizona" may have some currency as a term for the southern region of the state, this unfortunately is an article about an insignificant political group of some sort wanting to form another state. Relevant google links appear few.[4] If someone can rewrite this into something substantial and verifiable about the region, please do so, but I think we're just better off deleting this mess and starting over. Postdlf 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The movement seems at least passably notable, and I think the article is salvageable. Perhaps more information from this site can be gleaned for beefing up the article. Delete per nom. Aplomado - UTC 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable. --Terence Ong 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The site suggested by Aplomado is a humorous site and isn't verifiable according to our standards. Wile E. Coyote would apparently be the state animal for example. I would vote to keep if it were a verifiable region of Arizona and the article was about it. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops, you're right, forgive me for my gaffe. Aplomado - UTC 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. ProhibitOnions 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency Exit (ska)

  • Delete Single self published album, no evidence of touring or major media coverage. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Richfife 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. The MySpace link leads me to believe it's WP:VSCA as well. --Kinu t/c 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-band, vanispamcrutisment. --Terence Ong 06:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "In February of 2006 they released their first CD, titled Nobody Cares." Yep, I'd say that's apt. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Give em a break ska is fun. Plus if we deleted it it would be playing right into thier hands. -Jamzz 06:16, 17 March 2006 (GMT -5:00)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep/merge I don't think there's a consensus to delete this. Personally I think it might be better suited for a userspace given its intention, but that merging/possibly moving seems to be what consensus is, not deletion. --W.marsh 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sexual slurs/old

""keep it"" strongly vote to keep

  • del or move to user space. It nochalantly sits in the main article space, linked to and categorized along with decent, peer-reviewed and truly encyclopedic obscenities, not to mention the second-generation List of sexual slurs. mikka (t) 06:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless I'm missing something... how come people are editing it so much, even after it was moved to a subpage? --Allen 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral per debate below. --Allen 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing special, just remove it. --Terence Ong 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sexual slang. -Oscar Arias 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There are 643 slurs here. Compare that to the 39 slurs on "List of sexual slurs" page (34 of which were created by me) and the zero listed entries on "Sexual slang". Further, they won't allow the two to be merged because these ones don't have sources.[5] Many of the entries they refuse to allow are obviously real (e.g., dike).[6] The reason they moved these to the "old" subpage was to exclude unsourced entries. But deleting these slurs will create an increadible amount of vandalism as well as alienate many legitimate users editing anonymously on the page. Perhaps we could add a tag to the "old" subpage specifying that it is a page specifically for unsourced entries? Making it almost impossible to find the terms by moving them to a user page would be wrong. I have three slang dictionaries at my house, so trust me when I say that the vast majority of the words here are true. If an editor thinks an entry sounds suspicious, they can add a {{fact}} tag to it and give the author some time to find a source. The vast majority of these entries were written before the recent push for citations, so the authors didn't know that they were doing something wrong by adding the unsourced material.--Primetime 09:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The nom is completely off base here. It doesn't sit anywhere, it is the old article that we made into a subpage in order to reformulate the main article. See talk page discussion in which this nom did not participate. It is the basis for the article we have and hence the edits are essential. Finally, it is useful for keeping vandals away from the main article. -- JJay 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Put it into your user page, then. mikka (t) 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw the nom and then we can discuss it. A message on the article talk page, stating your concerns, would have been a far better approach than AfD, which is a waste of everyone's time. -- JJay 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge verifiable content, until then move it somewhere else. There are no subpages in the main article space, and it shouldn't be linked to or categorised. JPD (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge verifiable content into Sexual Slang. PJM 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All the verifiable content has already been merged. What remains is both unreferenced and not suited to an encyclopaedia (WP:NOT a dictionary]]). Delete. Proto||type 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Words like whore, tramp, and tomboy (all of which are in the list) are certainly verifiable. I have a bunch of slang dictionaries right with me, and I can see that most of the entries in this article can be verified. The only thing lacking is time. Words like whore, in my opinion, shouldn't even need a citation--as they're obviously correct--but strange-sounding words could be tagged with a [citation needed] tag if they're suspect. We shouldn't delete--or refuse to merge--entries that haven't been cited yet, as finding citations for over 600 terms overnight is unrealistic.--Primetime 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete subpage of main article... especially since useful content has already been merged per Proto.--Isotope23 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to wikipedia space -- Astrokey44|talk 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Sexual Slang Funky Monkey 17:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of sexual slurs and Sexual Slang AdamJacobMuller 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a subpage, verify and transfer to main page. ProhibitOnions 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into above article(s) what can be verified (sourced). We don't use subpages in the main namespace, and the reason it isn't the main article is because it's unsourced. -- Mithent 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above articles. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per AdamJacobMuller Carlossuarez46 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. ---Dana 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You will all need to know that User:Primetime has decided at Talk:List of sexual slurs that this article mandates the complete and total merging of the /old article into the main article, whether or not they are verifiable and claims that they "will not be able to be removed". I trust those voting to merge are fully aware of how their words are being interpreted. -Splashtalk 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge what can be verified, term by term. Once this workshop page is no longer needed, then it can be deleted.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No. There is a difference between verifiable and verified content. Some--not all--voters who voted to merge wrote that they think "verifiable" content should be merged. Thus, content that is verifiable--but not yet sourced--should be copied onto the "List of sexual slurs" page.--Primetime 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, actually, Wikipedia:Verifiability is much stronger than that. Your notion here would allow absolutely anything to be added to any article whether or not it can be verified. The burden, as WP:V makes very clear, lies on the person adding the information. It goes on to say "Any edit lacking a source may be removed", and thus unverified items are subject to removal from an article until they are referenced. Splashtalk 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy nonsense. mikka (t) 10:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blurp

Doesn't appear to be a real word. Bordering on CSD G1 (nonsense). I've already removed one piece of nonsense from the page. TheParanoidOne 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:WINAD. WarpstarRider 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Terence Ong 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, pure idiocy. However: "Legend has it that students hollered out,"BLURP!",causing an anonymous staff member to respond,resulting in much laughter." lmao Aplomado - UTC 06:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Supposed dictdef with no reference or citation to back it up; possible {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  07:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for many reasons already stated, as well as WP:NEO, probably. --Kinu t/c 07:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speddy delete as WP:BALLS. --Ezeu 08:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monty White

Does not meet WP:BIO nor assert any notablity. It has been tagged for a few weeks as lacking any reason for wiki inclusion. He has four works: one is a four page article self-published, one you cannot even find a search for the ISBN, and the other two are published by unknown publishers who do not currently press/sell/ make the books available. Arbusto 04:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --Yuk Yuk Yec 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
New user Arbusto 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, all four of White's books were found in either allbookstores.com or half.com. --Yuk Yuk Yec 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for joining wikipedia six days ago and expressing your thoughts, but judging from those links he's not notable. Other than a few books available used and from independent sellers it is clear his books aren't anything "notable." Nor has his notablitity been established. Also he only has four "books" if you included his 4 page self published article on dating, which he has no credentials in. Arbusto 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I always thought there were guidelines about being civil and not biting newbies...... hey ho. Jcuk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The user's advanced knowledge of wikipedia demonstrates she/he is not a "newbie." Arbusto 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BLP. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.34.152 (talk • contribs).
  • Weak Keep seems like prominent UK Young Earth spokesman. Eivind 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep appears notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, lots of sources and borderline assertion of notability. Article is POV right now, but that can be easily fixed. Grandmasterka 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BLP is policy relevant to keeping WP out of legal trouble; it's not first and foremost an inclusion/deletion policy to make AfD decisions. The relevant policy is WP:BIO, and this published author who's been profiled by the BBC meets those criteria. The current article is pretty one-sided, but what's there to say - this is a physical chemist who worked on elemental-dating methods and then changed his mind, wrote some books about it, and achieved fame thereby. (Full disclosure: I think creationism's ridiculous.) -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable creationist. Btw, Ikkyu2, I'm pretty sure that White never worked with dating methods before he became a creationist. JoshuaZ 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looks notable to me at least. --Terence Ong 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- notable although perhaps better off not being.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Monkeyman. Kuzaar 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No vote, in light of Ikkyu's comment. Kuzaar 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems notable. (Insert joke about "dating methods" here) JIP | Talk 14:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to meet minimal notability criteria, particularly due to BBC coverage. Monicasdude 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep notable Funky Monkey 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep only because of the press coverage; his vanity-press output desn't cut it. ProhibitOnions 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability established. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JetSetCD

  • Delete Vanity page. Larry V (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Sandstein 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is a recreate of a previously deleted page.--Dakota ~ ° 06:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreated and nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, what is this, Match.com? Aplomado - UTC 06:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: G4 as recreation of twice-deleted content; is an A7 due to lack of notability assertion regardless. --Kinu t/c 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{nn-bio}}; no claims to notability in article, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. Not as reposted content (WP:CSD G4 specifically does not apply for previously speedied content) but as an article on a person with no assertion of notability (WP:CSD A7). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1947 Organizational Chart

Just one image, and a bit of POV musing. This image belongs on an Air Force page, not on an article of its own. PROD removed without comment. Sandstein 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no content. --Terence Ong 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely no context, as much as I am impressed by their "humble beggings." Aplomado - UTC 06:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's of interest to the SAC article, the image can go there. I'll pop a note on the SAC talk page in case someone wants to work it in. Kcordina 09:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good, because the graphic is useful, but the "article" is not, thus Delete. ProhibitOnions 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article and merge image to SAC if appropriate. Capitalistroadster 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not that management of the US Air Force isn't important, but an organizational chart won the Cold War? That should get a place on BJAODN. Peter Grey 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. incog 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Cool3 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juggling Jollies

About 28 unique Google hits for this juggling act out of Bellingham, Washington. I'm afraid that's not notable enough. Oh, and the author is one of the Jollies, apparently. Delete, per WP:Vanity. GTBacchus(talk) 07:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable group, also reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 07:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete JuggleCruft - Oscar Arias 07:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisment and nn. --Terence Ong 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable juggling group, WP:Vanity refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I looked at speedying but overseas performances are an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Matczynski

Originally nominated for CSD, but then contested, so we'll put this up for a vote. An article on a non-notable IT guy, who claims to have started an internet phenomenom. But I doubt he'd have to write his own hype if that were the case. Harro5 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Herrick 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kcordina 09:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bio Funky Monkey 17:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, NN. A legend in his own mind. Fan1967 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiggish

Contested {{prod}}. Silly neologism. Example: "Tiggish; adjective. To have tig-like qualities." Non-encyclopedic. Vslashg (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, clearly doesn't belong here - Eagletalk 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neologism. Wiktionary can have it if they want it. Kcordina 09:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense, quite possibly {{db-attack}} on person called Tig. Weregerbil 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism. --lightdarkness (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, idiotic neologism. JIP | Talk 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- neologism, and a pointless one at that Reyk 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete slowly. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Kept due to community concensus and withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Coggins

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." - Eagletalk 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn - Eagletalk 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems notable for the awards he received, but the article needs to be de-hagiographized. Sandstein 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. An extremely frivolous and boorish nomination. The nominatior didn't even bother to check the notability of the person. Time to read wikipedia artice about google before proceeding to editing wikipedia. mikka (t) 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From the originator of the article on Jack Coggins Jack Coggins was a very well known artist and writer - checking Google will show the number of references to his works. Someone who has produced so many books, paintings & illustrations surely deserves a place in an encyclopedia. The information given is all factual and supported by documentation. A quick scan of Coggins's work on the referenced web site may indicate the breadth and effect of his works. Dcoggins.
  • Comment Sounds notable for awards and galleries where he is represented. However, author is user:Dcoggins and article is too subjective in present form. Is there any non-relative who could de-memoralise the article?--Porturology 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep He obviously has a list of achievements, and shows up more on the web then just here. This page is definatly worth keeping.
  • Weak keep, his awards looks notable. --Terence Ong 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - you can't toss an article about an obviously notable person (16,000 google hits, awards in his field) just because it was created for unencyclopedic reasons. Some people just have friends or relatives who are notable...the fact that they also know how to use wikipedia doesn't make said friends or relatives non-notable all of a sudden. NPOV it, of course, though. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, nomination does not cite valid claim for deletion; subject of article is conspicuously notable as published author/artist. Monicasdude 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable Funky Monkey 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per mikka and others. Vslashg (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though in need of a cleanup.--Isotope23 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Though it would be nice if the External Links contained legitimate references instead of his family's memorial website for him. That sort of thing is what tends to trigger AfD notices like this. Fan1967 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. He has an entry on Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online so is notable enough. I have added a cleanup tag to this - key issues to be addressed are NPOV (article refers to Jack throughout) and verifiable third party sources as per WP:V. Capitalistroadster 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From Dcoggins Obviously I am a novice at Wiki - I have tried to "de-personalise" the article. Jack Coggins was an associate of Fletcher Pratt, Chesley Bonestell, L. Sprague de Camp and other sci-fi notables of the 50s, many of whom have entries here, so there is a precedent.
  • Keep Article seems to focus on subject's career, not his death... so the "memorial" reasoning isn't justified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From Dcoggins I have now added some independent external website references and a bibliography of some of his work. Dcoggins 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You've obviously put in a lot of work and significantly improved the article. Good work. A warning: don't be surprised if other people do some copy editing. That's Wikipedia. Fan1967 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for the comments. I have added more references and internal links, plus some print sources (if this is appropriate?). I am learning fast and refining the article as I go along. Yes, I expect that there will be editing by others. Dcoggins 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EnterpriseWizard

EnterpriseWizard gets around 500 ghits, and the top hit is another EnterpriseWizard entirely. I tried to find out if it is listed, and the size, to see if it meets WP:CORP, but the website was down, at which point I gave up. Spam links now removed, this did include the no. 1 vanispamcruftisement indicator, starting with the company name correctly intercapped as a weblink. I call spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, WP:VSCA. PJM 12:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, VSCA. — Saxifrage ✎ 14:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lean mean fighting machine

It reads like an advertisement. Blueiris 11:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete advert. What an appalling advert for an advertising company, I doubt their aspirations to greatness will succeed if that pathetic attempt is indicative. MLA 11:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously an advert. Cordless larry 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert! Thought it may have been some type of web/graphic/media/high school design project, but it is not. Any way it is not encyclopaedic.--Blue520 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. PJM 12:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatent advert.  (aeropagitica)  13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant ad Funky Monkey 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Great online advertising is a rare thing." Yeah, but people using Wikipedia for advertising seems to be all too common these days. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteth. For my face doth screweth up with the bitterest of rage upon encountering AddeCrufte such as yon page. Deizio 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- Spam. Stupid spam. Reyk 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National anarchism

Non notable political ideology - only 559 unique google hits. This article has survived one previous AfD discussions and failed one: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National anarchism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination).

  • Keep because you consider a political ideology non-notable, it is invalid? It is still an ideology, perhaps the article could just be moved. Pindle 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, possible hoax political philosophy. - FrancisTyers 11:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Would consider Move to Anarchism and nationalism for a detailed article on the connections between the two. - FrancisTyers 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or transform to Anarcho-Nationalism or Anarchism, racism and nationalism and broaden it out to include the whole gamut of anarchist nationalists. The proposal to delete it is POV.Harrypotter 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Not particularly, how do you imagine that my proposal is POV. Do we have a page on libertarian fascism? Hell, maybe I should get a page :) I would not necessarily be opposed to a general page on Anarchism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 13:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. Have you checked out Georges Valois? Just because you do not know much about something does not mean that it is non notable, or even a hoax. Also see A number of the demonstrators wore clothing bearing slogans such as "We Grew Here, You Flew Here", "Wog Free Zone", "Aussie Pride", "Fuck Allah - save 'Nulla", and "Ethnic Cleansing Unit". Chants of "Lebs out", "Lebs go home" and other expressions were continuously shouted out by many of the demonstrators, including some families with young children. A banner saying "LOCALS ONLY" with a symbol for anarchism in place of the "A" was displayed (Daily Telegraph, December 12). from 2005 Sydney race riots. Do you want libertarian fascism as an alternative to National Anarchism, or what? I have noticed that a number of people ndo not want any mention of this very real movement on wikipedia on what I feel may well be ostrich style POV reasons.Harrypotter 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The (A) symbol is used in many ways, association with the (A) symbol does not necessarily mean anarchist. I don't think libertarian fascism is an ideology, do you disagree? I read the page on George Valois, it doesn't say anything about national anarchism or libertarian fascism. I agree that in some cases people nominate articles for deletion as a result of Ostrich like behaviour and assure you that this is not one of them. As I said above, I would not necessarily have a problem with keeping the content provided it was moved to a general page about Anarchism and nationalism, or even if you like it could be moved to Anarchism, racism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Move - to a more general page on eg. Anarchism and Nationalism .Unfortunately these people do exist - well, just about, maybe a couple of them, or at least they did. Personally I think wikipedia has room to comment on even the stupidest and most offensive ideas, as long as it's made clear just how tiny and marginal this bunch are, and that whatever they call themselves they're fascists not anarchists.Bengalski 13:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) On closer inspection, we've got various scrappy pages or stubs on 'anarcho-nationalism', 'nationalist anarchism' etc., and I'm not sure there is any real difference between all these. So I think the best approach, per ideas above, would be to merge the lot into one decent page on the whole crew.Bengalski 15:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kuzaar 14:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep existing political philosophy - unpopular, and not approved by you or I, but in existence nonetheless. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings for or against it to be honest, can you direct me to a book written by a National anarchist? I realise that books aren't the only indicator of notability but I think I could safely provide citations for most of the other political philosophies that Wikipedia covers. - FrancisTyers 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Never read one; I'll have to look into it. I see your point, but this is apparently a rather new ideology, in terms of coalescence. I'll have a look around a little later. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The national-anarchist movement was started by the security services as a honey trap. The trap has been exposed. National-anarchism is dead. The ideas were stolen from the national-bolsheviks (a much larger political force, especially in Russia) and the better insights are being marketed effecively by others who are not tainted by connections with MI5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.64.225.145 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2006.
Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be exposed again here.Bengalski 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kepp. Highly objectionable "trojan horse" ideology with little or no real claim to anarchism. Noteworthy nonetheless. - N1h1l 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge if something to contain this non-anarchist national front naziness can be found. Take the alleged "faction" with it into a paragraph or small box in contemprary fascism or wherever it can be dfound a hole. Failing that, Delete it not for its irrational loathsomeness but for its pretensions. Midgley 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anarchism has a long tradition of opposition to both nationalism and racism. This so-called ideology was created by marginal neo-fascists in an effort to attract more followers. Wikipedia shouldn't include every crackpot movement that attempts to revert the ideas of a long-standing political tendency with over a century of existence. Having an entry on "national anarchism" is like keeping one on "Satanic Catholicism." Just because a handful of people believe something that is opposite of an existing ideology with millions of proponents doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Chuck0 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There should definitely be an article on satanic catholicism.Bengalski 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or merge move to anarchism and nationalism. 560 Google hits is not notable for its own article. -- infinity0 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Anarchism and Nationalism per Bengalski. The Ungovernable Force 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete - non existing ideology. // Liftarn 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The page Nationalist anarchism might also be of interest to those voting here. Fightindaman 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Nationalism and anarchism might be the best solution. Sarge Baldy 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or make it a redirect to Nationalism and anarchism which should have the same content. PMLF 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep OK so it's not a huge political movement but there are groups in the world who choose to identify themselves as national anarchists. Don't redirect to Nationalism and anarchism as, whilst this would be a worthy topic, National anarchism is a specifically modern term that deserves its own entry whilst a new article would have a wider, more historical, scope. Keresaspa 14:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --metzerly 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: I think there should be a page called Anarchism and nationalism like Anarchism and capitalism and Anarchism and Marxism in the side panel. The convention seems to be have the words placed in alphabetical order, or am I wrong here? When that page has been fully developed, we shoudl be able to better see whether national anarchism deserves its own page.Harrypotter 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While I do support the political position of No platform for fascists whatsoever, it's only Anarchist Occultists who want to cloak, censor and delete this p[articu;larly telling manifestation of their so-called politics. Paki.tv 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • huh? - N1h1l 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I can't believe that once again somebody has put this article up for deletion, only six month after the last AfD. The results of the last vote were to keep the article - what's changed since then. Moves to delete this article are blatantly POV - I should remind those who keep brining this article up for deletion that just because you disagree with this ideology or disagree with the fact that they call themselves anarchists is not a valid reason for deletion. I'm reposting from the last AfD why I think this article is important and should be kept: "The argument for deletion is blantly POV and sectarian in nature and smacks of censorship. (Which this move entirely hypocritical coming from so-called anarchists, but I've seen worse similar hypocrisy coming out of that movement before.) It is simply an attempt by Toothebarricades to delete an article based entirely on the fact that he does not like national anarchists calling themselves anarchists. Whether or not "national anarchists" is a valid as an exponent of anarchism (and I happen to agree that it isn't good anarchism) is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be an article on this topic here on Wikipedia. The argument that the argument is too non-notable to warrant a Wikipedia article is entirely false - the long list of links on this page, the large number of websites (both pro- and anti-NA) resulting from a Google search for "national anarchist" or "national anarchism", the obvious influence it has in the neofolk music milieu, plus the very active National Anarchist Yahoo Group are all evidence that this is a topic of interest and criticism for many people and therefore well-deserving of a Wikipedia page to introduce interested people to the topic. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist tendencies that are far more obscure. " Peter G Werner 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comment, I'm disappointed that you suggest that my motivations for posting an AfD for this article are different from what I have described. Is there one of those google hits that you would classify as a scholarly source? As for a very active Yahoo Group, does this mean that we should support keeping articles for all kinds of forums, after all, there are many forums which are pretty active (and probably more active than that one) without articles. Forumcruft is not something that really floats my boat so to speak. I can appreciate that I'm not going to change your mind on this, but it would be nice if keep voters actually attempted to show how this "group" (for want of a better word) is notable instead of crying loud about some kind of perceived censorship. See above for my response to "blatantly POV and sectarian". - FrancisTyers 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
An abstract of a journal article on national-anarchism and related tendencies: [7]
I have to ask, though, just what is your motivation for deleting this article, if not POV? Especially in light of the fact that an AfD for this article was up only 6 months ago and it was decided that the article should be kept. Did you even bother to review the previous arguments about the articles relevance? It seems to me that the reason this article keeps coming up for AfD over and over again is because its on the hit list of various left anarchists who really don't like the idea of a far-right and racialist ideology calling itself a kind of anarchism. I'll point out again that whether its good anarchism or not (and I happen to agree with critics who say it isn't) is totally irrelevant to its relevance as a Wikipedia article.
I have serious doubts about your criterion for dropping this article, in any event. The active Yahoo Group, plus the website Rosenoir.org, plus 596 Google hits, are quite sufficient to me to state that this is an ideological tendency with actual adherents and has an active place in the marketplace of ideas, and not just some kind of hoax that somebody made up off the top of their head. This is not to mention the controversies around national anarchism and similar ideas - do a Google search for "Anarchist Heretics Fair" and you'll see that there was a rather large controversy in the anarchist and anti-fascist press about this ideological tendency. I'll also point you to FluxEuropa for an example of the influence that "national anarchist" or "third position" ideas have in the milieu of neofolk, martial music, and other "dark music".
If your criterion is that National Anarchism too small of a tendency to be taken seriously (which I think is a pretty dodgy reason for dropping an article), here's some other groups which you might want to float AfD's for: International Bolshevik Tendency, Socialist Action (Canada), Trotskyist-Posadist IVth International, Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago, Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis, Last Thursdayism. If National Anarchism is too obscure of a subject, why should these other obscure groups get to have Wikipedia pages? For my part, I'd be against dropping any of these pages - one of the best things about Wikipedia is the fact that you can find good information on subjects that are way too obscure for Encyclopedia Britannica. Peter G Werner 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in brief, I don't have long, yes I would vote delete to most of those (probably not CPTT), but I wouldn't AfD them as because you have mentioned them i would be violating WP:POINT. Regarding Peter Werner, you should get a page as with >200,000 hits you're pretty notable :) Note on the journal article, well, you've convinced me, they are notable enough not to delete outright. Good searching. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact the Yahoo group is not particularly active -- a handful of individuals post there repeatedly, sometimes using different nyms (nyms are a big thing with these guys -- something to be taken into account when counting the 'keep' votes, as well as their ability to summon up large numbers of meatpuppets). Their Yahoo group is in serious decline -- the original group was attracting over a thousand contributions per month a few years ago. Now their group is struggling to reach 400. The original group was banned for TOS violations and the current one is mostly chitchat.
This is a pretty serious accusation: "a handful of individuals post there repeatedly, sometimes using different nyms (nyms are a big thing with these guys -- something to be taken into account when counting the 'keep' votes, as well as their ability to summon up large numbers of meatpuppets)." Can you demonstrate that any of the above Keep voters are actually sockpuppets? Put up or shut up! So far, this discussion has failed to generate anything approaching a consensus to drop - your accusation that most of the Keep votes are mere sockpuppets is a pretty dodgy attempt to tilt things in your direction. Peter G Werner 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely Troy Southgate's organising a meeting between Alexander Dugin and representativs of the BNP makes him and N-A notable. Also there is Leonard Savin's infiltration of Peoples Global Action which came to light last year. There has also been the involvement of anarchists in promoting Neuropa, in the context of Euromayday project. The overtly and conscious fascist elements of national anarchism run alongside - and hopes to influence - an unreflected institutional racism found in a movement which fetishises the state and finds it hard to look at its own failure to live up to its so-called principles.Harrypotter 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Who is "Leonard Savin"? Google doesn't seem to know [8]. - N1h1l 14:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Try Leonid Savin


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BEJ

Looks like an advertisement, and there is something about it on its talk page, too. Blue۞Iris 12:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT - original invention. PJM 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. Kuzaar 13:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, Advertising/Self-promotion for a university project "Senior Design 2 Project". If deleted, the redirect to Beja language should be restored also.--Blue520 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad Funky Monkey 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above; also, it looks more like a website for their project, and WP:NOT a webhost. --Kinu t/c 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT to show off and self-congratulate on your class project. Deizio 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Girls and Boys

Delete. Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ashenai 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, article claims the band has been 'approached' by labels, but not signed. The number of bands that are 'approached' by labels is always far higher than the number signed, so that doesn't make them notable. Average Earthman 13:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per av. Earthman

Band had previously been signed to an Irish independent label, which since became defunct due to means beyond the band's control or influence.

Whilst the term "approached" doesn't comment or reflect on the band actually being signed, the negotiation procedures are underway and the page will be updated with the result of said negotiations.

Band has been commented on in favourable terms in music publication "Hot Press" within Ireland. (unsigned comment by 213.94.192.200) --Ashenai 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC). Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments on discussion pages.

  • Delete {{db-band}} candidate. The band are working on demos at the moment; no album or single releases or chart positions; no notable members - WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)  13:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the comments aruging for deletion, the source will be revisited and the article re-submitted at a later date, accomodating a more refined definition of relevance as per the terms of inclusion. (unsigned comment by 213.94.192.200) --Ashenai 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as nn-band. --Terence Ong 14:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, though an entertaining name. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --MaNeMeBasat 14:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. nn --mmeinhart 17:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete for both articles.  (aeropagitica)  22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George M. Turner Jr., Allied Artists of Johnstown Pennsylvania

  • Delete Vanity article that reads like spam. Local artist who clearly fails the guideline for notability. Google search for "George M.Turner Jr." and "artist" shows 15 hits mostly to authors web site. Article was deprodded by author. I have also listed Allied Artists of Johnstown Pennsylvania of which he is president. It has 138 members.--Porturology 12:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adspam vanity Bucketsofg 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Though the entry of George M. Turner Jr. may be obscure the references are varifiable and notable, searches through google provide information about this artist from credible sources such as the Southern Alleghenies Museum of Art, the Allied Artists of Jonstown Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, AMD&ART, the Johnstown Tribune Democrat, Associated Artists of Pennsylvania, and other sources. The entry may appear as a Vanity Article but I set up this reference so as to provide a starting point that will enable other users to expand upon, which will occur because of the relevance they hold as a resource for many others related to the formentioned topics. (unsigned comment by Georgemturnerjr)  (aeropagitica) 
  • Delete as vanity. Kuzaar 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity spam. --Terence Ong 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable artist, vanity article, WP:VANITY refers.  (aeropagitica)  16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as WP:VSCA (as blatantly indicated above) and the former as not meeting WP:BIO as well. --Kinu t/c 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, "Do Not Delete" plea says it all - "obscure...vanity". Deizio 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Deletei am a member of the allied artists and would like to keep this information posted (jasoncramer)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic Applications Server

Delete. Non-notable beta software slated for release in Q3 2006. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article author is repeatedly spamming Blog with this as well. · rodii · 12:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and as software vanity. Kuzaar 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xlogic

Page was de-prod-ed, so it gets to come here. The proposed deletion was "No indication that WP:BAND is met. See also WP:BAI" Blue520 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per original proposed deletion.--Blue520 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blue520. Kuzaar 13:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my original PROD. Sandstein 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Cult following & only one album released = non-notable band. WP:Music refers and probable {{db-band}} candidate too.  (aeropagitica)  13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-band. --Terence Ong 15:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, looks quite good.

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

The result of the debate was Delete If the website subsequently becomes notable then the article can be rewritten to reflect this.  (aeropagitica)  22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred the Monkey.com

Non-notable website, 280 google hits for "fredthemonkey.com", no Alexa rating. Kuzaar 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
  • Delete WP:WEB violation; non-notable website.  (aeropagitica)  13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep it of course!! this site is awesome!
Comment: can't even find this addition to the vote to do an unsigned template. Take that as you will. Kuzaar 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Keep it! you can't just get rid of something because you think it's "not-notable." as an encyclopedia you are supposed to be nutral and to label something like that is obviously giving it a bias. this article should be kept, and who do you think you are to decide whether or not something is notable anyway? —This unsigned comment was added by Beatrixcastle (talk • contribs) .

User ComKeen has been registered for less than four days and has approximately fifteen edits. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep NON Relevant???? Fred the Monkey is about as relevant as an animation website could possibly be. The characters are completely relevant - some might even say significant. MrD 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User MrD is not registered. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain, but MrD is registered. Ardric47 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
KEEP MAN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SEE THIS GREAT WEBSITE GO AWAY MAN U GUYS ARE IDIOTS

TOADFAN5 aka FRED THE MONKEY FANATIC 5 —This unsigned comment was added by Toadfan5 (talk • contribs) .

    • User's only edit besides his own user and talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great humour, and deserves the recognition. —This unsigned comment was added by 59.167.156.33 (talk • contribs) .
    • (User's only two edits) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though this site is not famous at the moment, it is becoming exponentially more popular, and is clearly quality work. If it is deleted now, it will probably simply be added again in the future. —This unsigned comment was added by Pirateslifeforeme (talk • contribs) .

Keep! Please don't delete! It's my favorite site in the world and I don't know what I'd do without it! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.171.32.231 (talk • contribs) .

    • User has two edits, this one and one to Fred the Monkey.com. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Some voters (like this one) seem to think we're voting about removing the entire site rather than the wiki entry. Mackan 12:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Site is over 4 years old with sevearl thousand loyal fans, should be kept as semi notable D_X
User D_X has less than 30 edits, all pertaining to this subject. Not to point the finger, but this is suspicious to me. Kuzaar 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sigh. Fails notability. For reference, I prodded Clydex the Platypus, which is based around the site. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Site itself is growing in popularity, and the flash itself is defintely notable.--Wizardman 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
User has less than 40 contributions and is less than 10 days old. Kuzaar 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepKeep, pretty popular, especially among afficionados of flash. —This unsigned comment was added by CrazyEyes (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I just went thru and identified some unsigned posts and commented on users without significant contribution histories. It doesn't mean I don't think new users can contribute, but it points out who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy and might only have an account for the purpose of "voting" here. (Decisions are made by consensus, not vote.) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Three years old, does carry an audience on the net, and I haven't heard any grounds for deletion that appear reasonable other than the per nom which I assume has to do with the policy. The newest post on Newgrounds is a social commentary that I find pretty good, similar to the battle between "Cyanide and Happiness" with "Top Web Comics". Give the artist time and I'm sure he'll battle this deletion to the bitter end. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.195.78.102 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP - Exactly like that guy says ^^ it's a monkey for christ's sakes! - monkeys rule :( —This unsigned comment was added by 83.216.136.62 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete and Comment. To justify my deletion vote I just want to say that even if it will become notable it doesn't mean it is now. Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog had his entry removed despite being several times more famous than "Fred the monkey". My comment is, the creator of Fred the monkey has started a campaign to make sure his entry doesn't get deleted, through a flash movie submitted to newgrounds.com and probably elsewehere as well where he tells people to go to Wikipedia and "tell them to shut their stupid faces" (and a clickable link that leads to the Fred the Monkey entry). This surely explains the many recent unsigned "Keep" votes. I am appaled by the creator of "fred the monkey"'s lack of understanding for what wikipedia stands for (it's an encyclopedia and not a showcase for up and coming artists) and I think this move makes it much harder to hold a fair vote, which I think in the end will only weigh FOR the deletion of this article. Here's the animation on Newgrounds: Fred the notable monkeyMackan 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet another Comment: There is not only a single (1) google hit on "fredthemonkey.com", search for any page name and you'll only get one result. From there you click "Find web pages that contain the term "fredthemonkey.com"". This gives 243 hits (note, by looking on the first page of results I get the impression that many of them are created by the maker himself). This does however, in my opionion, doesn't change anything. I'd vote "delete" if it had 10 000 hits. In fact, my own flash game "Shotgun Orc" comes up with 30,000-65,000 hits on google (currently 65,000), but I wouldn't dream of suggesting an entry to be made for it and if somebody did make one I would definately nominate it for deletion myself. Mackan 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable - 280 Google hits. -- infinity0 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn --mmeinhart 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you're gonna delete this from The Wiki, then Delete Homestar Runner, too. This site has been around for about as long as them, and they've made tons of laughs amd is enjoyable by many people. And, why does Clydex get his own Wiki Page, but this one is on the edge of deletion? He isn't ver a main character! Anyways, keep the page up. The Pro X
  • The Alexa ranking for homestarrunner.com is 2947, while fredthemonkey.com has no ranking. A Google search for "Homestar runner" finds over a million hits, while a search for "Fred the monkey" finds less than a thousand (including unrelated usage). Please take a look at WP:WEB if you haven't done so yet. (User:Pro X 20 has six edits.) — TheKMantalk 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete-non-notable cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete not notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Bucketsofg 21:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. This not a vote on the webpage. It is a vote on the Wikipedia article about the webpage. (OOPs forgot to sign.)Mikereichold 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This website is not notable. — TheKMantalk 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, A1. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Four Saviours, 'Aspinshaw'., The Kingdom of the Four Saviours

Nonsense or hoax, there are zero hits on "Marartar Lyon" on Google. Sandstein 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP is not a soapbox; promotion of personal belief, non-encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and delete 'Aspinshaw'. and The Kingdom of the Four Saviours too, same brand of nonsense. Sandstein 13:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aeropagitica, and also as a philosophically bankrupt feelgood philosophy. Kuzaar 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as soapboxing. --Terence Ong 15:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete as it is clearly someones own beliefs and surely everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs-Erotica —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.155.237 (talk • contribs).
  • DONT DELETE Please dont delete this, we should we demote or delete someone else's beliefs? Why should this get deleted and not christainty or any other religion?-CrazedFan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pab123 (talk • contribs).
Comment: Pab123 has less than 50 edits, almost all of which deal with these articles and their votes for deletion. Also, to respond to the issue raised by this voter, I'd like to point out that Google is an accurate gauge of how much people are talking about the subject in question. Failing that, Adherents.com fails to list this "religion". Wikipedia is not made to be used to get word out about or advertise about your religion. It can go in here when it is sufficiently notable on its own to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kuzaar 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete maybe this has no hits on google but why should we rule our lifes by google. I feel that someone's beliefs are surely mor eimportant than some mechinal search engine?-Waterfall —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.155.237 (talk • contribs).
Comment: Note that user 213.249.155.237 has attempted to vote twice on this vote for deletion, "signing" them differently. Kuzaar 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) < ever heard of a network?
  • Nonsense and/or promotion of somebody's personal beliefs. Delete all. 'Aspinshaw'. and The Kingdom of the Four Saviours may well be candidates for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Unverified. Zero Google hits? That's hard to achieve. Also, from the article: Marartar Lyon died in 2002 and the quest stopped.. So bye. Delete the other articles too. Herostratus 15:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete The Four Saviours and The Kingdom of the Four Saviours as unencyclopedic nonsense (applying WP:SNOW). Delete 'Aspinshaw'. for now, due to lack of evidence that this particular belief system is held by any substantial number of people (or in fact anyone at all). Kelly Martin (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Turner (geophysicist)

nn, vanity, spam, deproded by author without comment--Porturology 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be also speedied. – Blue ҉ Iris 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Kuzaar 14:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 14:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Doesn't assert (See WP:PROF). --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Reveries

Delete I am uncertain if this band meets the criteria for notability. Was deproded without comment--Porturology 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Slowmover 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, unless the two record labels are more major than I give them credit for. Colonel Tom 00:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I accidentally deleted the first deletion log. Apologies. The band has records on the labels Death Bomb Arc, NFJM and Local Kid Gang. It has also gone on national tours. Though not inside the mainstream you can not deny their underground status.--i333666999i@yahoo.com16:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 03:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellesley College Senate Bus

The college shuttle bus that runs between Wellesley, MIT and Harvard is not sifficiently notable to merit a wikipedia article. Interestingstuffadder 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I retract these comments and have changed my vote. Interestingstuffadder 04:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless moved back to "Fuck Truck" : renominated because of the move from "fuck truck" to "Wellesley College Senate Bus". I voted againt deletion in the last debate because the term "fuck truck", used at colleges across America, is a genuine piece of American collegiate folklore; I thought this article had potential to grow beyond its discussion of the Wellesley bus and, in so doing, become notable on this cultural basis. However, with this move, the article focuses on this one shuttle bus between a amall liberal arts college outside of Boston and larger nearby colleges...Can you imagine if wikipedia had an article for every specific college shuttle and its campus lore? Simply put, this article in its new, more specic form, simply does not deal with a notable topic. Keep: I am changing my vote for the sake of consistency. I really felt like I was doing the right thing, but I can see how my actions might be perceived as bad faith or at the very least obnoxious. I apologize. Interestingstuffadder 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't move back to "Fuck Truck", since consensus supported "Fuck Truck" not being the primary name. Catamorphism 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If it was a consensus, it was just barely one (9-5, with between 2 and 4 (depending on your standard) of the votes supporting the move providing little or no explanation or rationale for their positions)Interestingstuffadder 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. I do know that this bus has the name (I went to Harvard & heard the phrase) but if this is worth including, it could be included on a page about Wellesley, Harvard, or MIT culture; doesn't deserve its own page. Also delete fuck truck: same article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangojuice (talk • contribs).
  • Speedy Keep. The name change is irrelevant and this nom is in bad faith. The article move followed a discussion and vote on the article talk page. Everything was above board. This nom argued extremely hard in the last AfD, which closed less than a month ago, to save the article based on its encyclopedic content [9], calling it in one of his 12 posts "a quite well written and well researched article". Speaking about the article , he wrote: "the term 'fuck truck' and the sexual connotations of this service needs to be a part of that final form". Well Fuck Truck still redirects to the article and the term is prominently mentioned in the first paragraph. However, it now seems that all this nom was interested in was having some kind of joke based on the lewd nickname for the bus. I say that while wikipedia is not for schoolyard jokes, it is for encyclopedic material and this bus was encyclopedic last month as the nom so passionately argued. That he is now changing his tune out of spite is no reason to slam the door on the bus or participate in a violation of WP:Point-- JJay 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with most of what you're saying here, except that I thought this article was non-notable in the first place, and I still think it is -- even though I've contributed a fair proportion of its content. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Interestingstuffadder may be more interested in seeing whether he can get an article titled "Fuck Truck" into an encyclopedia than in improving the encyclopedia by adding content that's intrinsically interesting. As you say, this seems to be WP:POINT. Catamorphism 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::Comment: Ahh...one more personal attack (to be expected, I guess) that ignores the fact that I have repeatedly identified a specific and reasonable notability-based rationale for the distinction I have drawn between "fuck truck" and "wellesley college senate bus"...Interestingstuffadder 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You seem to be confusing personal attacks with conclusions drawn from available data (the content of your edits on Wikipedia). What are we supposed to think when you argue in favor of the article's encyclopedic relevance when it has one name, and backpedal when only the name (not the content) is changed to something else? Catamorphism 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::::comment: it is clear that you have not actually read my comments. I have repeatedly said that "fuck truck" should be retained because I believed it would grow to include information about other shuttles. I myself intended to get to work on this project when I became less busy. I have repeatedly said that it is this widespread usage, which, as I said, I hoped would be incorporated into this article, that created notability. A Wellesley-specific name seems to preclude the addition of information relevant to other schools. Thus, based on rationale for notability, the move to "Wellesley College Senate Bus" made this article non-notable. I have repeatedly stated this good faith rationale for nominating for deletion upon the name change and you have been part of the discussions in which I have said this. So, given that you have had this rationale for my behavior in front of you the whole time and have still made these accusations against me, I feel that I am justified in accusing you of making personal attacks. Interestingstuffadder 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, schoolcruft. Friday (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article seems fine, and it does look like a bad faith nom ("my way or nothing"). As it stands the article has a section on the use of the term at other colleges with a total of one example from a student web publication (as against Rolling Stone and Boston Herald for Wellesley). When there is more evidence of notability at other colleges (especially notabilty that extends beyond the students into the community) then consider moving the page back. Thatcher131 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article might need some tweaking, but an article about a transportation service is certainly relevant (see Humphrey Go-Bart, Unitrans, or even London Buses route 1), particularly as this seems to have had media coverage. RXUYDC 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

*Allow me to defend myself: Please do not accuse me of bad faith. This is an unsubstiantiated personal attack. If you read my arguments throughout this process, you will see that I have consistently argued for inclusion on the basis that "fuck truck" is a general, non Wellesley-Harvard-MIT specific term (along, I admit, with other complementary rationales). I sincerely believe that an article about a general concept in collegiate humor (fuck truck) is notable while an article about a specific shuttle bus connecting three campuses is not. I have come to hold this view more strongly over the last couple of months, which explains my greater focus on this perspective and increased unwillingness (in my mind) to compromise. Please see my numerous good faith edits (including reverting vandalism) and stop hurling unfounded accusations at me. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for using the term "bad faith" given that you are sincere in your belief that this service is non-notable. From my point of view, "Fuck Truck" as a college neologism is not interesting unless it is attached to specifically notable examples. At the present time a generic article would be 98% about Wellesley and 2% about Byrn Mawr. Wellesley's transport service attracted considerable undesirable notariety that spilled over into the public eye; Byrn Mawr's use is (so far) only documented in a student web newsletter. If there are more examples, add them to the article, in detail if you like, and when the "other use" section outgrows the rest of the article it can be moved back. Thatcher131 00:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Unnecessary double jeopardy. Haikupoet 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Public transport company with some media coverage. Reasonably good article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. People, this is a college shuttle bus. Let's get our sense of proportion together here. And no, passing mention in a couple of magazine or newspaper articles does not make something notable. And no, "fuck truck" is not a worthwhile bit of American culture, its just a nickname for a -- how to put this -- college shuttle bus. Ye gods. Herostratus 15:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but we also have articles for Greymon, MetalGreymon, and WarGreymon, and they've never been mentioned in Rolling Stone. Thatcher131 17:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a student at MIT with a couple friends at Wellesley, I can testify that the beloved fuck truck is a notable piece of the shared history of our two schools. Regardless, I think this article establishes a context for the discussion of social life at MIT and Wellesley. The focus of this article is partly about the aforementioned shuttle bus and partly about the (perceived) sexuality of students at the two schools. This assertion is backed by cited publications from various student groups, as well as the national magazine Rolling Stone. While it is true that I have edited this article, all I have done is provide a picture and clean up the article after it was nominated for deletion the first time. Isopropyl 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom (that's right), regardless of name. Melchoir 21:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and please rename to the most common title Yuckfoo 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Idea: It occurs to me, especially after reading Interestingstuffadder's artful arguing of both sides of the question (both sides of which I find myself agreeing with!), that the right place to list the generic term "fuck truck" might just be on Wiktionary. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Only minorly notable, but certainly no worse than Pokecruft. --Alan Au 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article should really be moved back under Fuck Truck with a redirect at Wellesley College Senate Bus (the reverse of the present situation, voted 9 for, 5 against, hardly a consensus mandate!). "Fuck Truck" is a notable folkloric name of this shuttle bus and a notable one in the context of Boston's culture. -- Mareklug talk 09:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Interesting...finally someone bothers to acknowledge my argument that the move was inappropriate. You are correct, a 9-5 vote, largely by experienced editors, with well argued opnions on both sides did not amount to a mandate for the move. Interestingstuffadder 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above deletes and my reasons last time. As buses go, it's no Furthur. One of the most notable buses, the No. 2857 bus (see Rosa Parks) doesn't even have its own article. Will the "Fuck Truck" be in a museum someday, like those two? I doubt it. Esquizombi 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .eu spain

Looks like a list of cities that have (or have not) obtained .eu domain names. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so delete. Sandstein 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. We don't need a list of registered domains, and most certainly we don't need a list of pending domain registrations. Mindmatrix 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the public perception on the policy of .EU related to well known names, such as geographical names; in this case citie names. The particular case of the Spanish cities is a mean to illustrate the general case. Hence, the articlse should be kept as it is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Indeed, this subject is of high public interest.

One could start with a general dicoussion of policy; but this will be too arid. It is more down to earth to start with a particular illustrative case. One can always merge/migrate the article later; now it will be premature.

--Carrasco 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, any info on this topic should be put at .eu -- Astrokey44|talk 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and get me some of the drugs Carrasco is on. It's the ListCruftiest nonsense I ever did see. Spirit of Wikipedia indeed. Deizio 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft; this list will be ever changing. Not encyclopedic. --BWD (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Awful listcruft. But a few examples could be useful under .eu. Peter Grey 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. incog 15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Cool3 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mile Davidović

Entire article is an almost direct steal from the subject's own web site. Apart from being a potential copyvio, this also appears to be largely self-promotion - most of the article was written by User:Mile davidovic OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, WP:NOT an art gallery. Sandstein 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I removed a lot of the peacock stuff a few hours ago, but going back, I'm not actually convinced any notability is asserted. On the plus side, as the article was created by the guy himself, I'm guessing that for once, the image is legitimately GFDL. Huzzah! Proto||type 16:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nn Bucketsofg 19:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently a moderately prominent/ubiquitous figure in the naive art field, with 30K+ Google hits (and a surprising percentage of those hits are non-trivial.) So he's bland and his appeal is lowest-common-denominator, so are way too many of the pop music subjects. Monicasdude 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Google hits [10], other hits are trivial (sellin' low cost pictures, forums(Linux, ...)), but you have to speak serbian language to understand whats up, not notable, self-promotion --MaNeMeBasat 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 55Stones

The article for this not very remarkable variant of Mancala was written by the inventor of the topic during a discussion for deletion on the German to fake a remarkability. Now that the topic got deleted on the German WP, so should do this on the English I think. The only thing the author did on the German WP to prove the relevance was to show this article on this Wiki and some other articles he submitted to pages on the internet. Tobias Schmidbauer 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete variant of game with no demonstrated notability. WP:NFT, WP:NOR both apply here.--Isotope23 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for "was invented in the night before All Saints Day 2002 by Ralf Gering, Germany". Bye, Ralf! Sandstein 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. incog 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and Wikipedia is not a place for things made up at school in one day. --Terence Ong 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete not notable. (And, no, I'm not about to let the German wikipedia AfD discussion decide this for me.) Bucketsofg 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Agreed. The German discussion is irrelevant. The lack of any proof of notability is what matters. Fan1967 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, you should take a look at Tobias (old) user discussion first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Schmidbauer&diff=42869907&oldid=37527254

The article on 55Stones was today removed from the Geman Wikipedia (ONE admin decides) although the vast majority voted for keeping the article.

  • Comment that still doesn't address the basic issues, namely that 55Stones has no independent verification outside of Wikipedia and the Mancala wiki and thus seems to violate WP:NFT, WP:NOR, and WP:V. How people voted on German or Italian Wikipedia is irrelevant. Mancala wiki is the right place for this, not Wikipedia.--Isotope23 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the game exists at BoardGameGeek (USA)... and if the majority of German users voted to keep it, this proves that in Germany the game is seen as relevant (except perhaps by a few who never heard of Mancala before, but have the rather dictatorial power to delete articles) which should be important for the English Wiki as well... also I believe that lots of information is only verified in other special wikis or even only in books, magazines and so on (but not the web). btw, I am one of the contributors of the "Encyclopedia of Community" (Berkshire Publishing Group) and they asked me to write an article on my own research work. So what's the problem?
  • Actually, that just proves that 8 wikipedia users in Germany, who happen to watch the AfD pages, see the game as relevant as opposed to 3 who saw it as not relevant. It can't really be applied to indicate any sort of more general popularity... though with that consensus of opinions, a deletion seems highly irregular. The problem here is that Wikis are not a good form of verification because anyone can add info and, depending on the policies of the specific wiki, sourcing of that info may not be required. BoardGameGeek is the same situation; anyone can register and add a new game. From the profice at BoardGameGeek it doesn't appear to have generated any interest whatsoever (1 comment). Books & Magazines are a good verification source however. Can you cite any sources for 55Stones that come from books/magazines? Also, writing an article based on your own research work is a problem. It violates WP:NOR, which is a Wikipedia policy.--Isotope23 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You say "highly irregular"? Well, it's not irregular, it's typical in the German wiki, because it's not consensus based. Hundreds of users were banned, because they are "democrats" (called in German "Demokratietrolle"), that is, they wanted democratic decision-making. Decision-making is only by admins and they don't permit any questioning which could endanger their power. Furthermore, your comment "happen to watch the AfD pages" can be equally made about this very discussion. It's a very destructive argument. 11 votes (and a few neutral ones) are a lot. Can you show me many articles which got more votes??? Whether it's a wiki or not, obviously several different people in many different countries have added 55Stones to their wiki, claiming that this game IS important. Adding to a special wiki about Mancala games, could even mean that the game is considered of bein important by those who have a profound knowledge of Mancala games, not just for the casual gamer. It's true that the BGG article hasn't generated much interest, but that's because it's a new article. BUT it's NOT true that anybody can add a game. Anybody can suggest a game, but the decision is made by several admins and it's made teamwise. I suppose, most unpublished games are rejected by BGG, there are just a few. It's a privelege.
I'm speaking in context of English wiki... If that is how German language AfD is run then it is rather unfortunate... but it's not really relevant here (and on a side note I could show you dozens of en.wiki AfD's that exceed 11 opinions rendered). Indeed, that argument could be made about this discussion, which is why it is so important to provide some WP:V sources on which to base a decision about 55Stones. In my opinion, Wikis don't cut it. I've added information on cross-class skill strategies to the Guild Wars wiki because it is important and interesting to me and possibly anyone who plays GW, but that doesn't mean that information is suitable for Wikipedia. Information added here needs to meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. If you can provide independent, 3rd party sources pertaining to this variation of Mancala I will reconsider. Right now though I'm just not seeing anything that makes me reconsider my opinion.--Isotope23 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of what happened elsewhere, is not supported by independent verification. Thatcher131 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Archived Discussion

Here the archived discussion: (scroll down if you don't speak German)


Archiv (Löschdiskussion) 55Stones (Gelöscht)

Behandelt eine von Benutzer:Mr. Mancala erfundene, aber sonst unbekannte, Mancala-Variante. Wikipedia ist kein Webspace-Provider. --Schmidbauer 16:51, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

User talk:Tobias Schmidbauer From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

-> That was not a real vandalization; I just added some funny page to the external links in the article Dolphin. --Tobias Schmidbauer 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) ->Most would consider that to be vandalism, FYI.Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Halte das Einbauen in den Artikel Mancala - als Variante des Spiels - für sinnvoller. --SV Leschmann 17:00, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

-Wirklich, ist die Variante so bekannt? Immerhin hat Benutzer:Mr. Mancala ja noch sein Mancala-Wiki. --Schmidbauer 17:03, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Und wenn der Mann noch fünf andere wikis hat, wo ist das Problem? -- andro96 19:12, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
∗∗∗ Mr. Mancala 18:29, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Mancala ist ein Gattungsbegriff, deswegen werden einzelne Spiele (egal von wem) dort nicht eingebaut. Die Wiki-Manqala ist eine eigenständige katalanische Website und hat nichts mit dem Erfinder des Spiels zu tun. Unabhängig von der deutschen Wikipedia gibt es in der italienischen W. einen Eintrag über 55Stones. Der Löschantrag von Tobias Schmidbauer ist nichts anderes als eine Retourkutsche, da ich seine Sperrung beantragt habe. Schmidbauer vandaliert im Lemma Guantanamo-Bucht seit Januar 2006. Übrigens erschien eben beim Aufrufen dieser Seite ein Wichsbild (wurde inzwischen offenbar wieder entfernt), deswegen habe ich den Löschantrag entfernt. Mr. Mancala 18:29, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Man sollte vielleicht noch hinzufügen, dass ich insgesamt 20 Artikel der Kategorie "Mancala" in den letzten Monaten verfasst habe (neben zahlreichen wissenschaftlichen Aufsätzen über diese Spielefamilie in Fachzeitschriften). Von den drei anderen Artikeln, die schon existierten, habe ich zwei komplett überarbeitet, da sie sich in einem miserablen Zustand befanden. Ich habe immer konstruktiv mitgearbeitet und versucht, Artikel objektiv und "neutral" zu gestalten, selbst wenn ich eine emotionale Nähe zum Thema besitze. Moderne Mancala-Spiele sind nicht unbedingt sehr bekannt (außer in bestimmten Kreisen), das gilt jedoch auch für andere Spiele, die in der deutschen Wikipedia beschrieben werden. Wichtig sind jedoch auch noch andere Kriterien, dazu gehören bei modernen Mancala-Spielen innovative Spielmechanismen, die sie von traditionellen Mancala-Spielen deutlich abgrenzen. Dies führt dazu, dass die Definition von Mancala-Spielen heute ständig im Fluss ist. Außerdem wird nur ein Bruchteil von Mancalaspielen, die ich erfunden habe, in der deutschen Wikipedia beschrieben. Betrachtet man den Gesamtzusammenhang innerhalb der deutschen Wikipedia (moderne Mancala-Spiele) stellen sie auch wieder nur einen kleinen Teil dar. Allerdings bin ich der Meinung, dass nun auch mehr traditionelle Spiele hinzugefügt werden sollten. Im übrigen habe ich diese beanstandeten Artikel durchaus mit einem gewissen Unbehagen verfasst. Es wäre mir sehr viel lieber gewesen, wenn jemand anderes dies geschrieben hätte. Ich weiß, dass Spieleautoren ihre Spiele oft überbewerten, denke jedoch, dass eine Übersicht über moderne Mancala-Spiele gänzlich ohne meine Varianten genauso ein unangemessenes Extrem darstellen würde, als hätte ich es gewagt, sämtliche Spiele, die ich je erfunden habe, hier einzubauen. -- Mr. Mancala 19:38, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Das Masturbationsbild befindet sich noch in der History:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/6._M%C3%A4rz_2006&diff=14347118&oldid=14347091 Eingefügt von einem Anonymus: IP 84.130.224.172 --Mr. Mancala

Schon wieder falsch: Besagtes Bild wurde um 18.12 Uhr von 172.176.173.160 eingefügt. Und weiter? --Schmidbauer 21:47, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
Möglicherweise sind die beiden IPs identisch. Das Bild wurde eingefügt und wenige Sekunden später noch ein wenig Text. Mr. Mancala 21:56, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

Löschantrag fragwürdig, Unbekannt ist kein Löschgrund. Ausserdem ist jedes Spiel Wikipediafähig. Auf alle Fälle Behalten. -- andro96 19:12, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

  • Wikipedia bildet... oder Löschantrag äußerst fragwürdig behalten --Atamari 19:18, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
  • Löschantragsmotivation ist fragwürdig, die Relevanz dieser Spielvariante allerdings auch (Spiele sind nicht grundsätzlich relevant). --AT 19:43, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

Ausreichende Verbreitung zweifelhaft, bitte löschen (ggf. auch weitere). --Monade 20:41, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)

  • Behalten: Ich habe bisher noch keinen Löschgrund nach den Löschregeln hier entdeckt. Der angegebene Löschgrund "Wikipedia ist kein Webspace-Provider" ist haltlos, da es sich hierbei nicht um eine Selbstdarstellung handelt. Auch deutet die vorgebrachte Formulierung des Antragstellers eher auf eine persönliche Aversion gegenüber Mr. Mancala hin und erinnert mich im Ansatz an das Verhalten eines Trolls; besonders, wenn ich sehe, dass er Beiträge von ihm hier löscht: [11] --SGOvD-Webmaster (Diskussion) 23:21, 6. Mär 2006 (CET)
  • Es ist schon seltsam, dass anscheinend alle Google-Treffer für "55Stones" auf das mancala-Wiki sowie WP & Mirror verweisen - löschen -- srb ♋ 10:37, 7. Mär 2006 (CET)
Der Mancalaartikel selbst ist bereits umfangreich und teilweise unübersichtlich. Deshalb sind Ausgliederungen wie hier sehr sinnvoll. Demnach kommt nur behalten in Frage. --nfu-peng Diskuss 13:04, 7. Mär 2006 (CET)

Nur weil mich hier Mr. Mancala VERLEUMDET, ist der LA noch lange nicht fragwürdig. Wahr ist: Mr. Mancala ist ein Geschichtsrevisionist, der nicht zugeben kann, dass seine Theorie, die Schließung des Camp X-Ray sei eine „absurde Geschicht[e]“ unhaltbar ist. Verschwörungstheorien von einfachen Wikpedianern haben in Artikeln nichts verloren. Löschen --Schmidbauer 16:30, 8. Mär 2006 (CET)

Löschantrag unzulässig
  • 1. Troll
  • 2. Mobbing
  • 3. Verstos gegen die Wikiquette
  • 4. Neutralität fehlt um die Relevenz beurteilen zukönnen. 89.55.8.34 nachgetragen durch NiTen

behalten - weil dieser Löschantrag nichts anderes als ein persönlicher Rachefeldzug ist. Solche Kindeleien sollte man nicht unterstützen. --Trugbild 08:25, 9. Mär 2006 (CET)

-Besser zwei vernünftige LAs aus Rache stellen als Benutzer unter anonymer IP verleumden (von 89.55.8.34, wahrscheinlich Mr. Mancala) --Schmidbauer 11:03, 9. Mär 2006 (CET)

LAs aus Rache zu stellen ist primitiv. Sowas lässt sich mit nichts rechtfertigen. --Trugbild 11:52, 10. Mär 2006 (CET)
Behalten - da wohl eher Herrn Schmidbauers Argumente erfunden und falsch sind, und ich auch Herrn Trugbild beistimme. --Ολλίμίνατορέ Ω 21:31, 12. Mär 2006 (CET)
Behalten - das Spiel wird auf mindestens vier weiteren Wikis beschrieben (Ital., Engl., dt. Brettspielwiki, katalan. ManqalaWiki) und jetzt auch auf BoardGameGeek. Internationaler Konsens ist also, das Spiel ist relevant. Begründung: ungewöhnliche, innovative Regeln. Mr. Mancala 10:03, 13. Mär 2006 (CET)
Beide Artikel in der engl. und ital. Wikipedia wurden am 8. März, also einen Tag nach der Stellung des Löschantrags, angelegt. Der ital. von Mr. Mancala, der engl. vielleicht auch von unserm Freimaurer. Der Eintrag im Manqalawiki ist ja bekannterweise von Mr. Mancala; der auf Boardgamegeek wurde von einem Benutzer FiveStars angelegt, und der heißt, sein Profil verrät es uns, mit richtigem Namen Ralf Gering (= Mr. Mancala). Zusammenfassend: Fünf Erwähnungen im Internet, davon mind. vier von Mr. Mancala. --Schmidbauer 10:33, 13. Mär 2006 (CET)
Laut History wurde der italienische Artikel am 24. August 2005 vom User Moongateclimber angelegt. Ich kann überhaupt kein Italienisch. Wer ein Spiel für BGG vorschlägt, ist völlig unwichtig. Ob ein Vorschlag angenommen wird, prüfen und entscheiden die BGG Admins (ein Team), ich bin kein Admin. Nicht-kommerzielle Spiele werden meist abgelehnt. Dass 55Stones akzeptiert wurde, ist daher eine Auszeichnung. Noch ein Nachtrag zur WikiManqala: Die Seite wurde von Víktor Bautista i Roca ins Leben gerufen, dem stärksten nicht-indigenen Oware-Meister Europas, der Begründer der katalanischen Aualé-Liga, dem Organisator zahlloser internationaler Oware-Turniere, international renommiert für seine Studien über Mancala in der Dominikanischen Republik. Ich glaube kaum, dass er es schätzen würde, mit jemand anderem verwechselt zu werden. Víktor und ich sind Mitglied eines Mancala-Forums bei Yahoo!, welches von Paul Smith, dem stärksten britischen Oware-Meister 2001 gegründet wurde. In diesem Forum habe ich 55Stones und auch Afrika erstmals veröffentlicht. Víktor hat dann, ohne mich zu fragen, diese Beiträge genommen und in die WikiManqala gestellt. Er hat es also für "relevant" gehalten. Im übrigen bin ich erst durch ihn auf die Wikipedia gestoßen. --Mr. Mancala 10:57, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)
Was sind das denn jetzt für Verschwörungstheorien? Warum sollte ich mir die Mühe machen und ein Spiel übersetzen? Für meine Person ist so ein Spiel wie ein Großteil von Wikipedia nicht relevant. Ich würde mir aber nicht anmaßen, dass ein Spiel deswegen nicht für ein Lexikon relevant wäre. Etwas mehr Sachlichkeit könnte nicht schaden. Wenn ich jetzt noch sehe, dass hier der richtige Name veröffentlicht wird, dann weiß ich wieder, warum ich meinen nicht nenne. Welche Wikipediaregeln kannst du denn anführen, dass das Spiel nicht relevant sei? --SGOvD-Webmaster (Diskussion) 10:17, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)

An Belanglosigkeit nicht zu überbieten. Also: Behalten -- 80.145.35.220 14:13, 13. Mär 2006 (CET)

Gelöscht --Uwe G.  ¿⇔? 14:35, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)

Der Hintergrund des LAs ist sicher diskutabel, aber dieses Spiel hat weder größere Verbreitung noch ist die WP eine Spieleanleitung. --Uwe G. ¿⇔? 14:35, 14. Mär 2006 (CET)


55Stones has been described in the Italian wikipedia (no, not by Ralf), it has been included by the admins of BoardGameGeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/22792) and it's still included in a special German brettspielwiki. To learn more about Tobias and his real motives go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhymeless#Beware_of_Tobias_Schmidbauer Palmiro wrote about him: Thanks for helping sort out the guy who thought I had called him an asshole!

Just a quick note: I am the author who added 55 Stones to it.wiki, based on information taken from the Manqala.org wiki. I am usually against deleting from wikipedias, and the game (if you are interested in mancala theory or classification) looks interesting; on the other hand, I would agree that the looks are against its right to be on wikipedias, as it seemingly exists *per* wikipedias alone. I'll think about it for the italian version. Meanwhile, being a mancala lover, I have copied the rules from manqala.org in case the game suddendly disappears from everywhere as a result of it being "fake". Thanks to the anonymous who pointed me to this discussion. -- Moongateclimber (@it.wiki)


So eight wanted to keep ("behalten" in German) it, three wanted it to be deleted ("löschen").

  • Comment. How many of those who supported behalten were genuine Deutsche Wikipedians as there seem to be a lot of IP and redlinks there. Capitalistroadster 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The redlinks are mainly because they are mapped to en.wikipedia.org instead of de.wikipedia.org. Lambiam 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All are genuine German Wikipedians as Lambiam has pointed out. There were only two IPs who posted (obviously Capitalistroadster is quite confused) and, yes, one vote for keeping it. Makes still 7:3 in favor of keeping the article.

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active Server Pages/Hints

This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.[12] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.[13] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Here are just a few: [14][15][16][17] Nova SS 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete subpage and violates WP:NOT.--Isotope23 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Terence Ong 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the hints are useful, but I must agree that they are not the sort of stuff that we put in Wikipedia. A transwiki (to wikisource or wikibooks) elsewhere seems farfetched, but if the author improves the content a bit it's a possibilty. Cool3 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvise uk

A group of skateboarding teenagers. Non-notable per WP:BIO / WP:VAIN. Sandstein 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protologism

An unreferenced dict-def which freely admits the term is itself a neologism. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, Wikipedia should strive to avoid self-reference, which is what this article is; the word appears almost exclusively in Wikipedia pages and mirrors, with very little use indeed outside this. What is on the Wiktionary page is sufficient, and this stub has no reason to be. In short, self reference + unverifiable + neologism = delete. For the purposes of full disclosure, I'd tagged this article earlier today with prod, this was then supported with a prod2, but subsequently the prod tags were removed. No complaints about this, but I do feel this article is misplaced, however, and so bringing it for discussion on AfD is probably the best way to decide this. Proto||type 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete – It's a useful term, but I can't find evidence of significant usage outside of Wiki communities (the Wiktionary entry defines it as Wiktionary jargon; Google returns about 184 hits). Delete as nn neologism or possibly move to project namespace. --Muchness 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since The Oxford English Dictionary does not attest to its existence [18]. If anything, it would have to be a dicdef, anyway so belong on Wiktionary...which already has it...since they invented it! -Splashtalk 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - it is good to link to this, rather than Wiktionary when we nominate other protologisms for deletion. With wonderful double-think the article admits that the word may itself be a protologism. We have large articles in the (Main) namespace about Wikipedia; this article is a very acceptable self-reference. -- RHaworth 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. It would be ok in Wikipedia: space, and is emphatically unsuitable for article space. -Splashtalk 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as protologism... ah the sweet irony. Could be moved to Wikipedia: space if anyone is so inclined; I can see someone wanting to see this if it comes up on an AfD--Isotope23 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete ironically with Isotope23 Bucketsofg 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms; this seems to come up more and more often in projectspace lately, and having something there, especially if we can ensure that there are no article-space links to it, will curtail the desire to fill in the inevitable redlink later. Failing that, redirect to neologism or Delete. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • We generally avoid unadulterated cross-namespace redirects, especially those emerging from article space, since it is unnecessary and makes life harder for those who reuse our content to know which articlespace pages they should/not include. (We use WP: so widely it is effectively a pseudo-namespace like Transwiki: and I'm sure the mirrors have cottoned on to that.) -Splashtalk 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to neologism, as it's really just a modification of that word. That page also has a link to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms at the top, solving both problems. -- Mithent 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to wikipedia namespace, if it's not there already. · rodii · 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Tail recursion. Mackensen (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a fairly new word, but 507 Google hits, even subtracting the Wikipedia mirrors, indicates that it is in use outside of Wikipedia as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As per Muchness's stat, subtracting the Wikipedia mirrors gives you just 184 hits. And even then, many of these are still related to Wikipedia (such as hits from wikinerds, etc). Proto||type 09:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm..., you might be right that the term is not in wide use. But there is some off-Wikipedia use so I don't think we should have a redlink here. Redirect or merge with neologism then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Dangerous. This would lead to people saying (with some justfication) "Oh, so your little slang words are "encylopedic" but my company/invention/society/whatever isn't?". Googletest also miserably failed. Redirect somewhere sensible at will. Deizio 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This word is a protologism itself. 64.192.107.242 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 587 Google hits including wikipedia entries and 154 Google hits excluding wikipedia entires. So 75% usage is from wikipedia = not notable. -- infinity0 15:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google even asks if you meant something else when you type in protologism. This word is definitely a protologism. StarTrek 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Ballasy

Delete - Subject of article fails to meet guidelines for WP:BIO or WP:VANITY SeannyFunco 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn-bio, looks more like vanity. --Terence Ong 16:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I tagged User:Allgamenab's other creation, Lucas Joseph, as a speedy (NN). --Fang Aili 17:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates the policy. Ballasy is well known on his campus and in the state of Jersey and his shows are all over the internet and he has his own official web site. He deserves the promotion other people who have wikipedia pages dedicated to them and their work recieve. Thank you for your understanding. I don't believe it is vanity. I am simply writing information about the man and his accomplishments like the articles written on many other people here on wikipedia include. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allgamenab (talk • contribs).

  • Delete Non-notable. "All over his campus" doesn't begin to qualify as notable, and these days everybody and his brother has a web site. WP does not exist to "promote" people who are not already well-known. Fan1967 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nn Bucketsofg 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, WP:BIO applies. --Kinu t/c 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Has his own website, huh? I gotta get me on that there internet one of these days. Fellas down at the barber shop say I'm really missin' out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ballasy exists and has really interviewed all those well known people...are you trying to challange that fact?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

Aside, is that your job? To make jokes about entries...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

I understand it's not about promotion, but he and his work exist. Has everyone heard about everything written in encyclopedias? - NO—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete, nn college kid. Let me know how it goes Starblind, my buddies down here at the salt mine say the same thing. Deizio 12:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of you are very sarcastic. I will just have to get others to back me up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

  • Allgamenab, (or Unsigned, if you're different people): it's nothing against either you or Ballasy, who is probably a fine upstanding person with a bright future, but there are standards, as listed in WP:BIO, as to who gets a Wikipedia article. It's not everyone. And you sarcastic folks, don't you bother getting your own websites. This Internet thing is a fad. It will never last. Oh, and Delete, per WP:BIO. GRuban 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Christian H.

Nonsense vanity page, no value. Picture should go too. Egil 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 16:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --phh 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nn vanity Bucketsofg 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:VSCA, WP:BIO-failing, useless article. --Kinu t/c 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- junk article of no significance. Haikupoet 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutatron

nonnotable band, possibly made up. prodded/deprodded. Band ended "when vocalist Sean McDaneld decided to run away from home without telling anyone."Thatcher131 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn-band, vanity. --Terence Ong 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- nn-band, and perilously close to patent nonsense. Haikupoet 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westminster Tree

Delete Vanity Article - Despite a small number of press references, Westminster Tree cannot be considered "notable". It has no official connection to Westminster School. Some Westminster School pupils (who are minors) find the content of Westminster Tree site deeply upsetting. However, since the site is "closed", its content cannot be verified, and might even be illegal. —This unsigned comment is by RihcardHindley (talk • contribs) .

The nominator is a member of staff (IT services) of the school.
  • Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not strictly vanity, but not-notable. 131.111.8.104 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lexis/Nexis finds one story in the Evening Standard in 2004. WP article says site was down, now up again and "going strong;" but since it is members only, current status of web site is non-verifiable. Seems to be a borderline notable controversy. Probably should merge and redirect to Westminster School. Thatcher131 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. --Icarus 08:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nebraska in the Elite Eight

Delete for obvious reasons Kgwo1972 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT as crystalballism... almost makes you want to go Speedy.--Isotope23 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete patent nonsense Bucketsofg 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious patent nonsense as Nebraska didn't even make the tournament... --Kinu t/c 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bad faith article. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Club Passim

Non notable Interestingstuffadder 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: This seems to be an article for a non-notable music club in Cambridge, MA. Although some moderately well known artists have performed at this place during its history, it is unclear what sets this club apart from any of the other thousands of small music clubs throughout the country... Did some particuarly important act get its start here? Was there a riot here at some point? Is this club of general cultural significance for some reason? Absent some notable incident(s) along these lines, this seems like just another non notable local establishment where live music is performed and is thus unencylopedic...'Keep: Change my vote. Additions to the article made since I nominated it for deltion have convinced me that this is notable. In this case, the deletion process seems to have worked perfectly. Interestingstuffadder 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's notable within the genre of folk music and on Wikipedia we don't delete stub articles about notable subjects, we give them a chance to be expanded. (Did you AFD this article just because you didn't like that I AFDed your article?) Catamorphism 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please assume good faith... I did happen to notice this on your userpage during our exchange, but I legitimitely didn't think it met notability guidelines. But to compare this to our fuck truck debate, it is unclear how a local music club is more notable than a local college shuttle bus. And how is this "notable within the genre of folk music"? Is every one of the many clubs where reasonably well known folk groups have played "notable within the genre of folk music"? I see nothing that seperates this club from the probably thousands of other clubs across the country and around the world where bands of this level of notability have performed. These are small venues and there are many of them. Absent some specific reason for notability, this club is insufficiently notable to merit a wikipedia article. Interestingstuffadder 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Interestingstuffadder 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The Boston folk scene is central to the genre of contemporary folk in the US, and Club Passim is the most important folk club in the Boston area. I've added some references to the article that document this. Catamorphism 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping with this one. (Notable artists playing there is itself a sign of notability.) Bucketsofg 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, central element in the Cambridge phase of the folk revival of the late 50s/early 60s. Monicasdude 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable to a folkie and a major Harvard Square destination. Haikupoet 03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Long-time legendary club, much better known and influential in Boston than its size would indicate, long history, cultural touchstone.Herostratus 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calyr Elvin Church

plus Calyr Church (redirect page)

Religion … in which belief, fiction, fact and faith are interwoven. Unreferenced. Possible vanity - author is Freedomelf. I presume non-notable. -- RHaworth 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is listed at the bottom of the article, which is www.calyr.org. The Calyr religion is an actual religion practiced for the past 4 years by members in the US and Canada. The website calyr.org serves as their online reference. I can understand why members of other religions may be upset at the addition, but I believe that deleting this article entirely would cause legal problems with discrimination, since many other religions, even obscure ones, are referenced on wikipedia. However, if you can think of how it could be edited to standardize it for wikipedia, I am open to suggestion. :) --70.162.19.183 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity and unverifiable. --Terence Ong 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I forgot to sign in when I made the comment above. Please let me know how I should edit the article to make it acceptable by wikipedia standards. Thank you. -Freedomelf 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Only info I can find is on their website... no external references that this is a religion that is practiced by any significant number of people.--Isotope23 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable. A religion that appears to be unknown to anyone except itself. Fan1967 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Isotope23. Sandstein 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted the other members of the church, and all 16 have agreed to abide by your decision on whether or not to delete this entry at this time. I apologize if I have offended anyone by putting up the information about our organization. -Freedomelf 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment No apology is necessary and please don't take this personally; it's not meant as an attack or indictment of you or your beliefs. If this page does get deleted at the end of the AfD process, and at some point your group can meet WP:V criteria, there is a process for undeleting pages that you could initiate. There are a number of smaller and/or obscure religions listed here, but they all meet WP:V (see Discordianism for a good example).--Isotope23 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Religion claiming 16 members (according to the above), seems to be primarily internet-based, yet website has no Alexa rank, which is hardly a good sign. No Google hits for Calyr Evin. Unverifiable at the very least. Looks very interesting though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I will take your advice to heart and check out the other pages. Thanks again. Freedomelf

I wanted to add one more thing, if I may, before I close. I'm afraid that my fellow Calyr and I were quite clueless as to google hits, etc. for a web site. We had been working on putting our books of faith on the web for months, but had not gotten it finished until this week. The site was only actually published day before yesterday, and we had a party to celebrate with all of our members (except the one who lives in Canada). One of our members suggested putting an entry in wikipedia and I volunteered to do so for the group. I realize now that we were much too hasty, and should have built up a web presence. I am very grateful for your instruction, Isotope and Starblind. I hope that as we grow in knowledge, we will be able to resubmit the entry at a future date, if it is taken down now. In the meantime, I think I will study other entries on the site to gain some experience. Thanks again and good night. - -Freedomelf 06:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DufferI

Fake user page discloses personal information about the real individual it intends to spoof, and defames the character of the real user. CobaltBlueTony 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy as attack page.--Isotope23 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No need to waste time with this process. Report this person on WP:AN. --BWD (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've speedied it after doing a checkuser - remember that deleted articles/edits don't show up in recentchanges and hence not in checkuser! - David Gerard 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no comment. --MaNeMeBasat 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas Joseph

NN musician. Tagged as speedy but page creator insists on removing the tag. Listing here to give him/her a chance to respond. Nominator votes delete. Fang Aili 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notes on talk and usertalk pages, keeps removing tag after warnings, doesn't meet WP:Music guidelines. TKE 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a shame, because it's a nice little article, but he doesn't even seem to have any google hits. Deb 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the tags...I didn't mean to so. I just saw all this text and deleted it because I was editing the entry. He is in the process of getting a record deal and could use the promotion other people who have wikipedia pages dedicated to them recieve. Thank you for your understanding. What do you mean he doesn't seem to have any google hits? He has a popular myspace page and website.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allgamenab (talk • contribs).

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Again, Wikipedia does not exist to "promote" unknowns. Fan1967 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, it is an unbiased reference for things that are already noteworthy. Lucas needs a hit record or a concert tour or some independent write-ups of his musicianship that could be used to verify the facts and his noteworthiness. Until then... Thatcher131 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT a promotional tool. --Kinu t/c 19:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT a promotional tool.--SeannyFunco 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

he exists and is well known locally - I guess that's not enough for wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Allgamenab Deizio 13:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When he is signed, which will be soon, I will remember how you didn't allow this page to stay up, regardless of the reasoning and I will make sure Lucas does not get a wikipedia article written up about him because this is ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment If he is signed by a major/well-known indie label and puts out a couple of albums or goes on tour, rest assured that someone out there will add him to Wikipedia again... at that point though he will meet WP:MUSIC and his article will belong here.--Isotope23 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Artists who only have one album have wikpedia articles...even ones that aren't even that well known..I could give you plenty of examples...I'll get others to back me up on this too—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.62.95 (talk • contribs).

  • Many artists who have only one album released by a major label have articles; I doubt you will find many whose only CDs are independently or self-published. You already admitted you want to use wikipedia for promotion; we have explained wikipedia is not to be used that way. We will be happy to endorse an article when he releases a record under a major label or goes on a national tour or gets significant radio airplay that can be verified. (Most significantly, look at other articles on the AfD list. Try and spot the people who advocate keeping almost anything. They aren't jumping to your defense here, are they. If you want you can userfy the page so can have it ready to go as soon as that first record hits the shelves. Thatcher131 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fries BBQ & Grill

Local Iowa City restaurant that closed in the late '90s. As I feel that it fails WP:CORP, I vote delete. Andy Saunders 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. The article doesn't tell me anything to counter that assessment. Sounds like any other restaurant. --Kinu t/c 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu. Catamorphism 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I am the author, and this is the first thing I've ever written here. I had no idea that as soon as I posted it that users would be circling like sharks trying to take me down. Can It be notable for the network of people who used to work or eat there, and, well, will enjoy reading the article? I don't know what to say. :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joegoodfriend (talk • contribs).

Replied on user_talk page — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Vote withdrawn): Non-notable, but a pretty decent article for someone's first try. Peter Grey 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, not improving contributors' self-esteem. Whether this was the author's first article or their 1000th shouldn't matter here. Catamorphism 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Just trying to lighten the mood, since the article clearly fails notability and probably nothing can save it. Peter Grey 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Ward

Richard Ward is a contributor to the work of Andrew Collins, and a pivotal player in the world of psychic questing. He has helped Andrew Collins research ancient civilisations, and is credited as such in Collins's books, including FROM THE ASHES OF ANGELS, where his name appears as supplying 'additional research' on the frontispiece. He boasts a specialist knowledge of certain areas like vodon and alchemy.

(The above unsigned comment was left at 09:37, 16 March 2006 by 80.6.88.221) . Waggers 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't know anything about this, I am just rescuing it from speedy, it seems that there is at least enough assertion of notability to make it worth looking at and not speedying. Herostratus 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No vote as nominator, I haven't looked into it, I'm not recommending on it one way or the other. Herostratus 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I can't really find much about this person on Amazon.com, but that doesn't mean he might be notable. I know nothing about his field of research. --BWD (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to sneak into WP:BIO, IMHO. Colonel Tom 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be a team member and a researcher in a niche field. Popular and veriified published author would meet WP:BIO, this misses by some way. Deizio 13:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Deizio. (Note: I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion after removing this vandalism. Although it was vandalism and assumes bad faith, it may be a valid point!) Waggers 09:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even cited as co-author on three volumes (extensive?). H Bruthzoo 10:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neurophone

Prod contested. User:Tenebrous says: "factually dubious, not notable, advertisement". It's about electronic telepathy. I can't really tell if it deserves an article. The concept appears to pre-exist the article. NickelShoe 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Seems to get good Google coverage... by pseudoscience websites. Let's note the dubious efficacy of this device in the article and move on. Sandstein 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing to suggest that anything related to this subject is factual or notable, and I've yet to see anything on the subject that could be considered a reliable source. How do we know this device even exists? This article will likely never be anything more than a stub; there's just not enough context. The originator of this device, however, is a bit more notable as a crank, but only a little bit more so; I'd probably oppose an article on him. An article on pseudoscientific mind-related devices, I could see. This particular one, no. Tenebrous 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tenebrous, read the life magazine article about the patent and the deaf guy at the patent office. Now, tell me where you made up "nothing." Your vote for AFD is frivolous. --JimmyT 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Try and keep it civil. haz (user talk)e 14:03, 17 March 2006
  • Keep --JimmyT 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC) JimmyT (talk • contribs) is the article's author.
  • Keep but needs to be expanded. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Please expand the article, though. haz (user talk)e 14:03, 17 March 2006
  • weak keep Seems to exist, disclaims accepted by mainstream science, seems interesting. RJFJR 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup or delete. Article's author keeps editing the article to make it falsely look as if no one disputes that this device does what it is claimed to.[19][20][21][22] -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: And again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice try Antaeus, next time prepare yourself better. See the discussion and please provide intelligent discourse. --JimmyT 20:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - But rewrite as historical device rather than feasible relevant technology.
    • As an engineer (and a Tufts Alum <g>), I read the article carefully, and purused the Talk as well. I certainly don't see much about credible scientific studies supporting the claim that it actually does pass intellegence directly into the brain (presumably by electromagnetic induction acting upon electrical charges involved in neuron discharge). However, that mechanism (i.e. affecting brain currents) is certainly concievable as CAT/NMRI scan technologies have some similarities, and it is accepted knowledge (shrug) that cell phones, walkie-talkies, etc. (and other EMI fields) do cause some brain damage given LONG TERM and EXCESSIVE use by adverse effects on said current flow, so I surmise that the technology is premature, may just be in it's infant stage (Like semiconductors back in 1910-1920 period—  No one could figure out what to do with them yet. We all own thousands of transistors these days!) But bottom line, the device was given a patent in modern times. That's notable enough to deserve space as an historical article. Lastly, I remember the term back from when I was but a wee Lad. Perhaps the article should be modeled more on phrenology, i.e. a theory about the device.
  • Hope someone stops the edit war noted above by one of it's partisans! Perhaps a lock on the article while this process completes would be in order? FrankB 17:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good idea Fabartus and take a look at the lame basis for the dispute. Just make sure Antaeus doesn't get it locked AFTER he edits it. --JimmyT 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable. The answer to the edit war is WP:DR, not AFD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup or delete per above. Time is ticking. — Mar. 20, '06 [00:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WorldDance New York

Vanity Advertising page, created by admitted employee of the company pschemp | talk 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The person has inserted links and text from this company's videos into articles and then said it wasn't copyvio because she was an employee of this company. All they do is publish dance vidoes, there is nothing notable about them. Fails WP:CORP pschemp | talk 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails WP:CORP. Colonel Tom 01:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. --MaNeMeBasat 14:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noise Metal (Second Nomination)

Non Existant genre. After researching, only 3 of the bands on the list actually exist. The genre directly copies the Thrash Metal and Grindcore articles, except for picking and choosing aspects to remove from each, something like a childs game of Mix And Match. The bands that do exist also have non of the traits on the supposed genre has. List of heavy metal genres nor heavy metal music makes any mention of it at all. Seems like another article in a long list of made up genres to glorify one or two paticular bands. Ley Shade 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom Spearhead 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- metalcruft, not to mention barely disguised vanity for a band which may or may not be notable. Haikupoet 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP per nom. A poorly made article, but not completely wrong. But this genre is not often referred to as "Noise metal", usually either being called Noisecore or just lumping it in with Noise music. It is a new, emerging genre which doesn't have many bands. The creator does seem to toot the mastodon horn quite a bit in this article, but thats because mastodon is a band plently of people have heard of. After searching for the mentioned bands I found that most of these bands DO exist, they are just very obscure and underground. "real" bands that creator mentioned: Mastodon, Sielwolf, Anal Pope, Pterodactyls, Alchemy/Manifest, Humanzee, Plastic Dragon, Amentia, Halaka, and Faizan Qamar are ALL real bands. as for the others, I am not sure. look through MySpace, and http://www.dmusic.com/. You will find the bands i have mentioned above. It is wrong to delete

Information that is correct, if not well known!

  • Leave It should be noted that most bands of this type are Inde bands, that don't hold many elements of genres with noise and Rock/metal as the two main genres.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 content, move to Mason Williams (webcomics) - Liberatore(T) 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tailsteak.com

Delete nn. website with alexa rank of >800,000.Deproded by author wiyhout comment--Porturology 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge into Mason Williams (webcomics) (or similar), the author of a notable work as well as this website. Nifboy 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually, I deprodded the article, not whomever the author you are referring to. It was prodded by Gimme a reason to keep this (talk • contribs), a known prodding sockpuppet. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like to keep this content in some form or another. The site is by the author of 1/0, which was a webcomic that did some very innovative things with the 4th wall. If we don't keep it as a separate article on the web site, perhaps formulate it, as Nifboy suggested, into an article on Mason Williams. If necessary, we might be able to shoehorn it into 1/0's article, but that could get kinda messy. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Abe Dashiell. -- Zaron 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Mason Williams (webcomics) together with relevant material from 1/0. The author is notable for 1/0, but it is not clear that his current URL is. Henning Makholm 08:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete all.  (aeropagitica)  22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Nelson, Silly nelson, Silly Nelson and The Cop Cars

All pages pertain to the same musician, who does not appear to be notable per WP:BAND. Sandstein 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as nn. No Guru 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:MUSIC Deizio 13:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part 1

This page is a autobiography: [23], [24]. Google returns nothing: [25]. I say delete on grounds of nonnotability. Dijxtra 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KEEPITCORE

A record label with a discography of two. No apparent notability per WP:CORP, especially judging by their web page. Sandstein 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Now belatedly completing step 3 of AfD. Sandstein 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, come back in a few years (?). Punkmorten 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep small local record label, but the releases seem to be real as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, being real doesn't make it notable. As per Punkmorten, if it makes it big, let someone write it up then. Ryanjunk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn--Porturology 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. When you have two releases and only your site and myspace to back you up, you need to chill. Deizio 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. --Off! 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a legit label with quite few upcoming releases and bands (many not from the Little Rock area, therefore making it a national label, and according to other research, a band from Europe, making it actually an international label. XAll Out Adamx 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
"Upcoming"? Sorry, this sounds a little crystal-ballish. Are there any sources for this "research"? Sandstein 04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Upcoming releases are listed on the myspace page, and other information is posted up on the nerd for everyone to read that's in the know.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable band. Capitalistroadster 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tubelord

Nonsense article + non-notable band LimoWreck 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. speedy delete as per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acebrock (talk • contribs).
  • Delete Really, really, really non-notable. Not only have they never recorded. Apparently they have never even performed in public. Fan1967 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete with extreme prejudice. Why does every crappy band feel the need to advertise their existence here? Aplomado - UTC 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, unremarkable band. (Also fails WP:MUSIC). Sliggy 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Aplomado. Kuzaar 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Shanel 19:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Maher

"He is perhaps best known for the distribution of over 6,300 copies of self-produced 'zine, 'Fraught Rag'". That's not what I call a substantial claim to notability. No Google hits, anyway. WP:BAND probably also applies. Sandstein 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tits

Delete absolutely no evidence that this meets notability criteria.Deproded by author without comment--Porturology 19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Funny name though. Aplomado - UTC 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band. Maybe they were hoping to slip by based on the fact that you can get about a billion google results for "tits" ;-) Fan1967 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I googled this and got about a billion hits! Surely we have to keep it. Oh ... oh yeah. What Fan1967 said. I guess WP:MUSIC isn't met, then. Delete. Colonel Tom 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 07:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the dab Tits, as redirects are cheap and a possible search term. No objection to deleting history first. youngamerican (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sportssigned

PROD removed; article fails WP:CORP. Delete. Andy Saunders 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, nn comp, 36 Google hits --Nick123 (t/c) 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as they are "secialists", a non-notable and vain type of corporate entity. Slowmover 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Colonel Tom 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Open Space Technology. W.marsh 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open-space meeting

Delete This page is a pretty convoluted conjecture about the origins of Open Space Technology, none of which reflects the sources available on the process. I suggest deletion in favour of a more extensive articel on Open Space Technology which I will help coordinate through the international community of Open Space facilitators Chris Corrigan 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not just rewrite the page now? You don't need to delete to do that. -- Saberwyn 21:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Saberwyn. Sandstein 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of celebrity women who took their husbands' names in marriage

PROD tag removed. Unencyclopedic listcruft. While the phenomenon may be less common than previously, that does not mean it is particularly notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; delete. MCB 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Honestly, who gives a damn? Aplomado - UTC 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate list. Slowmover 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft at its worst. --BWD (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless listcruft, and because the author's so clueless he thinks some of these women were born three times. Fan1967 23:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's the definition of nee, you moron: 1 -- used to identify a woman by her maiden family name 2 : originally or formerly called. The second definition applies. You are ten times more pointless than this list. -- Gerkinstock 15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aplomado T. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. The inverse list would be marginally better, but still no good. -- Mithent 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.--Isotope23 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete CalJW 03:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The inverse list would be far more maintainable, but who would go looking for that, let alone this? Grandmasterka 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete llllllllLLLLLLLISTCRUFT! Deizio 13:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good factual list of unusual phenomenon. Would love to see it expanded.-- JJay 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crouching Jimmy, Hidden Sheen

Delete- This is nothing more than an episode of the children's television show The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. Seeing as Wikipedia is not an episode guide, this is hence an inappropriate entry. Ljlego 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perianal hair

Delete: Looks like a hoax and is not verifiable Joelmills 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep this does seem to get some on-point google hits, but urgently needs cleanup. Yuck. Sandstein 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Occasionally faecal matter can reside on the 'feet' of the 'spiders', and form difficult to remove lumps, which have amusing names such as:- dangleberries - with the 'poo' forming the body of the 'fruit' and the hair the stem; toffee strings - due to the sometimes sticky/adhesive properties of toffee; bum conkers - the small brown balls resemble conkers on strings" Absolutely, completely and utterly ridiculous. Aplomado - UTC 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. A real term. See, for example [26], or [27]. Revolting, though. Slowmover 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the definition, and junk the disgusting ramble. -- Mithent 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A low-humour BJaoDN entry? Hynca-Hooley 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Haikupoet 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense. If someone wants to write an actual encyclopedic article on the subject, they'd be better off starting from scratch than with this. (BTW, commentators should be aware that "BJAODN" is not necessarily considered a Delete vote by closing admins, and in fact may be interpreted as, effectively, a Keep vote, so if Delete is meant comentators should say so.) Herostratus 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Herostratus --Icarus 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHRISTyle

Delete. It appears to be a pure promo for a band that doesn't seem to have any real following, and had not released their first album at the time of the posting. A google search turns up nothing. Carlo 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete "Unique. One-of-a-kind. Speaking the truth from a God-centered view." Unfortunately, Wikipedia AfD experience indicates otherwise, at least with respect to uniqueness. Anyway, fails WP:BAND. Sandstein 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure vanity. Their only album hasn't even been released yet. They may be the first ever Christian rap group from Texas, however. Aplomado - UTC 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Slowmover 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know much about the genre, but I gather there are quite a few groups like these. WP is for the ones who actually sell records and become well-known. Fan1967 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ugh, complete vanity, fails WP:MUSIC, et cetera. Besides, I think Christian hip-hop is really dumb. Grandmasterka 06:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though you don't see enough Reginalds and Rodneys these days. Deizio 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth banknote-issuing institutions

The connection between Commonwealth of Nations and Banknotes is too remote to justify an article. If we need a list of banknote-issuing institutions, why not have a world one? The timescale also needs to be clear. This one seems to try to cover the entire history of banknotes but is woefully incomplete. Cavrdg 21:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral - I'm torn between merge and delete, because I don't know if it would be redundant to place this information into each country's article, or if it's already there. It's neat to know who's allowed to print money, but I agree that lumping together all commonwealth countries is a bad idea. Is there a broader list of money-issuers around the world? Night Gyr 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
However we do end up doing it, it seems like it would be best to have a section under each country for current and for historical, which would settle up the time periods nicely. Night Gyr 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to List of banknote-issuing institutions and expand to cover the entire world. There's no point in limiting it to commonwealth countries. Night Gyr 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any valid reason to remove a list of Commonwealth institutions that issue banknotes. If the nom wants a global list of banknote issuing institutions this would provide a good start. Deleting this will not get us any closer to that goal. -- JJay 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay and Night Gyr. The entire Currency category seems to need some organizing, but this adds something not already here. Agree there is no reason to restrict it to Commonwealth countries. Slowmover 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. CalJW 03:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: It's not clear if the list has any useful purpose. A historical article about banking and currency relationships between Commonwealth countries would be fascinating, though. Peter Grey 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep merge also possible of course. W.marsh 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblack metal

A nonexistent pseudo subgenre of Black metal that has a minor differnce with it, plus it largely overlaps with Christian metal delete Spearhead 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It appears to exist to me, based on a quick search of the terms. It's very different from black metal in that, while there's still the "headbanging" kind of music, the focus of the music is positive rather than "black." The stub seems to describe it competently and it's written in NPOV style. I don't see what's wrong with keeping this. Aplomado - UTC 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A quick google search turned up these sites[28][29][30][31], all independent of each other and all referencing the same phenomenon. Aplomado - UTC 21:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aplomado. It could use some work, though: "affrontrous"?. Slowmover 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been able to find 3 bands that would fall under the "Unblack metal" style: Antestor, Crimson Moonlight and Horde. Several sources [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] call them either Black metal, Christian metal or indeed Unblack metal. You might also find it useful to know that the White metal article in the Portuguese Wikipedia mentions "Unblack metal" as a type of Christian metal. That said, it might be reasonable to either merge it with the Christian metal article (although it somewhat differs in style) or keep it as a cross-genre reference but don't delete it, as it is a term which is notably used. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 23:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how many bands of these are actually notable. Horde maybe... CM appears to be notable, Antestor doesn't use the term in their artcile - the rest is probably not notable. Spearhead 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Christian metal. Catamorphism 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aplomado, and Expand. I first heard of unblack metal years ago - I think on the now-offline Dead the E-Zine [39] - and have heard the term used many times. It's definitely not a "nonexistent pseudo subgenre", and Christian metal encompasses more styles than just this one. Given that there are more obscure genres with good, long articles here, this genre should have more written about it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Christian metal. I'd like to point out that Symphonic Black Metal and Symphonic Power Metal are included under Symphonic Metal even though they are clearly vastly different and the bands are all relatively famous (Dimmu Borgir, Cradle of Filth/Angra, Nightwish). I don't think Unblack Metal needs to have its own article any more than Symphonic Black or Power Metal and should be treated as a subgenre of Christian Metal. Also, I think there are too few renowned bands in this category to justify keeping it separate.--IronChris 06:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per IronChris. Punkmorten 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Christian Metal. The term Unblack Metal is used by Black Metal fans to insult Christian Metal bands. Its also use to mean 'Non-Black', meaning 'any band that isnt black metal', same as UnGothic, and UnDeath, and UnThrash. Ley Shade 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I Disagree. In the many sources that have been cited here, 'Unblack' is used as a term that refers to bands with a Black metal musical style except that their lyrics are against Satanism. Articles such as Un-American exist but they don't necessary mean 'anything that isnt American' but 'anything that is against America'.--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 22:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You might also find it interesting that Metal for Jesus, a popular Christian metal website, has a whole section regarding Black metal within Christian metal. [40]--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 22:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sampi, as much as i respect yew, im also against many sites about Christian Metal. Ive found several that have stated that bands such as Mortiis, Behemoth and Burzum are Christian Black Metal, and ones that have claimed that 'Goth Metal' is another name for Christian Metal bands that wear black. Ive also only ever known the term to be used as 'non black metal bands'. But thats just me. I still vote delete and redirect to Christian Metal, however. Oh, and Sampi, please check your talk page, i posted something there that needs immediate attention. Ley Shade 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miral sattar

It's someone's CV (resumé). There seems to have been an influx of these things recently. Not encyclopedic in any way, shape or form, and probably nn to boot. Hynca-Hooley 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. --BWD (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. Thatcher131 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --sigmafactor 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete part-resumé, part magazine advert, all WP:Vanity violation.  (aeropagitica)  23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dilutes the importance of wikipedia
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Khan

Consider for deletion along with Miral sattar. It is a similar self-promoting article, and a look at the usernames of the articles' creators suggests that these two people have written each other's articles--some kind of vanity exchange? Hynca-Hooley 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as obvious vanity. She's a non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine. Aplomado - UTC 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy, whatever. Thatcher131 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gotham Magazine doesn't have an article so it raises the question as to whether its editor should have an article. In my view, the answer is no at this stage. Capitalistroadster 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, WP:Vanity violation, as above.  (aeropagitica)  23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —GrantNeufeld 04:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DontDateHimGirl.com

Prod tag was removed by creator. Appears to fail WP:WEB. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • On closer examination of WP:WEB, keep. Meaningful 3rd party coverage can include "hey, look, latest net fad" sorts of articles and news blurbs, of which this site has several. Coverage linked by Google includes the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. — Lomn Talk 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it's been covered by several major media sources. I found out about the site on a video menu on CNN.com. A google search for "DontDateHimGirl" shows a remarkable number of hits. --Shultz III 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per voters above. The site itself makes this claim: This controversial site has been featured on MSNBC, the Today Show, ABC News and Entertainment Tonight, which is verifiable. Slowmover 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if someone adds those sources to the article. And fix the title. If the words are going to be pushed together then add a .com. If its more commonly known as "Don't Date Him Girl" then move it there. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to include verifiable sources. There's a bit of sociological significance to the situation, and a level of importance-to-its-users that most websites including dating sites can't match. Barno 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being covered on CNN/Headlines tonight, saw the plug just as I logged in here. Monicasdude 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yep, several sources have covered this in the last few days as mentioned above.--Isotope23 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. NY Times coverage? Case closed. --maru (talk) contribs 02:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it has mainstream media coverage. --Elkman - (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite This article is HEAVILY brused with POV, it should be rewritten in the neutral POV. DragonWR12LB 05:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because of media coverage. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big_Damn_Funny

Delete. The website appears to be a vanity project. It's only been around for a year (unless you count its 6-month existence in 2000) and the only hits for the website appear to be from advertisements and the creator's blog. The humor on the site sucks anyway. Aplomado - UTC 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. You can get over 100,000 Google hits for this phrase, and they seem to have managed to get on every "topsites" listing on the web, but no sign that anybody is paying attention to them except link farms and self-promotional blogs. Slowmover 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa rank of 963,116. Non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are some alexa ranks for sites that exist on wikipedia... awesome funny: 2,508,376

audience of two: 5,770,170 What does alexa ranking have to do with anything? 70.60.152.14 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The fact that the humor sucks does not disqualify the article, of course, otherwise a lot of WP:BJADON would be dumped(!); failure to meet WP:WEB does, however, warrant a Delete. Colonel Tom 00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Save So the fact that is HAS been published elsewhere factors in none? 70.60.149.226 05:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This article doesn't need to be deleted. It is no more a "pagerank-inflating advertisement" than The Best Page in the Universe or Zug.com or, frankly, the various other humor website articles. As a site that dates back five years, I think this article is just as valid as numerous others. 70.60.152.14
    • The above was posted on the article's talk page; I have copied it here for completeness etc. Colonel Tom 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Curtis

Another CV/resumé type vanity article. Hynca-Hooley 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Accurizer 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Wikipedia is starting to turn into Monster.com. Aplomado - UTC 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremys_films

Delete as non-notable vanity project. Aplomado - UTC 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely spam and an embarassment to myself. The person who made it never recieved any permission from me and it contains completely false information. JeremysFilms 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn web artist and forum. When an article starts telling me who the best posters are on a forum, I want to scream. Fan1967 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unauthorised advertising of non-notable forum website.  (aeropagitica)  23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Goodness gracious me. This isn't a forum for forums. Colonel Tom 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh. My. God. Who wrote that mess? MikeWazowski 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UniKEF_Gravity

Delete,because it is an obscure crank theory of gravity. The source for it appears to be a MSN group devoted to it, where it is noted that this theory has not been published.Salsb 22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as noted above. ArglebargleIV 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Theory of a net.kook. --BWD (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for everyone's dodgy scientific theories. -- Mithent 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Content-free substub about probable kook theory. Haikupoet 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, blanked by author. — Mar. 19, '06 [21:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Blazer Boulevard

Prod tag was removed, site fails wp WP:WEB --Obli (Talk)? 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Advertising. Colonel Tom 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Montco 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. Ifnord 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games

Delete - Listcruft; not enough items to populate list. --BWD (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Totally unncessary. Aplomado - UTC 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list is pretty accurate and completed. Definitely not Listcruft. No need for deletion. TomS64 02:22, 17 Mar 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that this user probably meant to vote Keep. In any event, he/she only has 2 edits on wikipedia as of this writing. --BWD (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I just registered for this account so I can have a signature. Before I created this account, I contribute to this site under the name/ip: 154.20.205.3. TomS64 05:22, 17 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I had been searching the net for this exact list. It is perfect, whats the problem?

  • Keep. List seems fine to me as per TomS64 and given comparable lists. -- JJay 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - will eventually be filled up quite nicely. -- infinity0 15:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete discounting comments from people with no WP participation outside this AfD. W.marsh 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otaku generation

Non-notable podcast that fails WP:WEB. kotepho 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the Wiki for WP:WEB

"The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]" This podcast was covered by Newtype USA (a magazine), where I first heard about it. The write up is discussed in the entry. Deletion is not necessary under these terms. 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Seems to be somewhat notable, but only 11 subscribers on Yahoo Podcasts. Haikupoet 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know who to tell.. but we have more than 11 subscribers... more like several thousand... a week, and we're not advertising anything, especially via this wiki. I've very confused in understanding how this came about. chaeseco 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Podcasting is not a mature field and there is extreme difficulty in trying to ascertain what's notable and what's not in the field. The metrics for measuring such a thing simply aren't there, and since podcasting is something that can be done by anyone with a copy of Audacity and a fast net connection there is a presumption that most podcasts simply don't reach a reasonable bar of notability. Based on what I found on Google and Yahoo, I honestly couldn't decide whether it was a keep or not, so I more or less abstained. Haikupoet 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem lies in that it is very hard to get reliable, verifiable from respected sources about this podcast. The article in Newtype is trivial in nature (and thus does not meet WP:WEB) so it is not much help. |kotepho 10:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Isotope23. Kuzaar 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep . It's notable enough to have been mentioned in Newtype magazine, and has been linked by both Scott Ramsoomair of VG Cats and R. K. Milholland of Something Positive following their interviews on the show - only three examples of mention off the top of my head, but still. The article is intended to be informative, and could for example prove useful to someone trying to find out about the show after having listened to an episode and finding themselves confused on a point, though it could use a bit of a cleanup. Just my opinion on the matter, however. 72.67.19.75 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd think that the mentions of the show on well-known webcomics sites and their invitation to do a show at a major anime convention would put them over the bar. However, it's true that it's tough to make these sorts of decisions with the sorts of metrics these days. They do link to some metrics off of their site (e.g. maps derived from numbers and locations of recent visitors), but I'm not an expert in that, so I'm not entirely sure how reliable they are. Since it's entirely possible for a podcast to have a significant listenership without a very active web presence, like any other radio show, doesn't that argue that we should be lenient in deciding exactly how popular a given podcast is, until more reliable, public metrics exist? As a side note: I do agree that it could use some cleanup and perhaps not all of the material on the page is suitable for Wikipedia. Teki D 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The Frappr map with 89 people listed and the hit counter says 14450 hits since Jan 2, 2006 and 22888 since Nov 11, 2005 (or 23349... it has two different numbers). That isn't exactly a large fanbase. The Frappr map has been mentioned on the show at least once. No Alexa rating and a low number of google hits(most of which seem to be podcast directories) also. This isn't about popularity though so none of that matters much. kotepho 23:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep. I've found this entry useful on several occasions when I wanted to look up information about the show. While it may not be the most popular of podcasts, I would say that it has a large enough following to warrant keeping the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:140.232.144.68 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. Come on guys, Otaku Generation is a great podcast. I need the information on the entry to understand some of the in-jokes. Don't delete this entry! I helped make it! Stumpy
This comment was made by 24.94.57.31 not User:Stumpy. kotepho 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove or edit other people's comments. If you are User:Stumpy log in and claim the edit 24.94.57.31. kotepho 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Otaku Generation would definatly qualify as notable, not simply for its production quality but its recognision by other notables and established institusions, such as New Type USA. The show has run uninterupted scince it's inception and continues to draw new listeners increasing it's noteriety with every passing week. To contest that Otaku Generation is not notable would be akin to dismissing the original Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy as being 'just another radio novel' While OG has yet to achive the mamouth proportions of HHGTTG it's fan base is ever expanding, making a virtual guarantee of it's place in the internet lore. User: Armethis ǀ ǀ armethis
  • I think you should keep it. The guest history and in joke explanations make it valuable for people new to the podcast. It definately helped me when I was looking into the podcast to see what it may have to offer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.233.123 (talk • contribs).
This was left on Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation. kotepho 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frankly, the in-jokes were enough before to merit a wiki entry to explain the origin of some of the running gags and what they mean. With the addition of the "Nickname Me" segments, and people using their nick-names in correspondance to the program, there is further need for a wiki entry to keep a lot of this straight. PeytonWestlake 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I say keep it because they have been mentioned in Ain't It Cool news. In addition the entry is also helpful for many a newcomer that has heard the Otaku Generation podcast for the first time because it helps them to understand the many in jokes that are rampant throughout. Such as the infamous flaming duckhole or Tuesday nights. Or my personal favorite the Kyle Dragonash song by Apocalypse Dowell. Saggy Z
  • Keep. I'll admit that the current article for Otaku Generation could due with some "spring cleaning" but I think it's a decent start at a page which covers the show. The initial deletion request seems to have been made due to the supposed "non-notability" of the Otaku Generation website. Internet culture and media do not always have a high cross-over rate with print culture and media so the fact that the show was mentioned in Newtype USA is already a good first step showing its popularity. The WP:WEB notability guidelines referrenced relate to websites only and although Otaku Generation has a web presense, the Otaku Generation wiki article is primarily in reference to the show itself and not the website www.OtakuGeneration.net. If the Otaku Generation article were to be deleted for non-notability it must first be shown to be non-notable as an entertainment broadcast. I'm using the term "entertainment broadcast" to encompass any audio or video media regardless of delivery method be it internet, over the air broadcast, satelite, cable, or local public access. Not all podcasts will be as popular as This Week in Tech or Rocketboom but that does not mean they are undeserving of a wikipedia article outlining the show. As long as Otaku Generation continues to produce shows on a consistant basis and has an evergrowing viewership, I see no reason that their article should be deleted. In looking over the wiki article standards, I do feel that the article for the show should be re-arranged/edited. It should focus more on the cast of the show, the history of the show, and how the show is produced as opposed to being primarily a list of in-jokes and nicknames. In-jokes are good for helping new listeners understand what the cast is referrencing in various segments of the show. The nicknames portion of the article isn't as informative since the bulk of nicknamed listeners are only mentioned when their nickname is created -- with the exception of frequent "callers" such as Johny Two-Times, Kitty, Jefferson, and Mega. ojenkins 2:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles must prove their notability, not the other way around. Just existing is certainly not a good determination of whether an article is warranted on a podcast or not. I urge you to reread WP:WEB as it specifically mentions podcasts twice. Web content includes, but is not limited to, web comics, podcasts, blogs, message boards, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content.[1] How exactly do you think that it does not apply? I am glad you agree that the majority of the content of this article is inappropriate though. kotepho 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Kotepho for the constructive correction. I went back and reread WP:WEB and saw the mention about podcasts. After rereading the notability article I have come up with what I believe validates the show Otaku Generation as notable web content. Criteria 1b of WP:WEB states that The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. I would propose that Otaku Generation meets this requirement due to it's [October 24, 2005 appearance] on [Mondays], the sister-show of .Net Rocks produced by PWOP Productions. PWOP Productions already holds an important place in the world of podcasting by being the [first official podcast production company] with high profile clients such as Microsoft. I have been unable to find any stats for the Mondays podcast, but .NET Rocks -- produced and staring the same cast of people -- has a [subscription base of around 500,000]. Given that Otaku Generation was an active guest for the bulk of the October 24, 2005 Mondays show, I believe that the Otaku Generation show has therefore been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ojenkins 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Another podcast is not a reliable source though. kotepho 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
At this point in the discussion I think I'm more curious as to how this circle of validation, notability and reliability works without any sort of system to begin the first levels of the validation chain. Even the Wiki's reliable source guidelines you mentioned earlier state that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines. Generally trust is gained through government, a person/entity of authority, positive personal interactions, or "having a good feeling about something." Those who are trusted then grant trust to others. As far as I can tell, the Wiki's trust model is more based on the decentralized trust model with those who have exhibited longevity and good decision making being more trustworthy than new users or the "sockpuppets" that Ifnord mentioned below. How, if at all, does this trust model factor in those who are new but knowledgable of the subject matter vs those who have longevity but are not as well versed in the field. Take this scenario: Person A is a mechanic who has been working on cars for thirty years. Person B is an electrical engineer who has just finished their master's degree in DC power distribution. Person A and Person B both work at a repair company doing fixes and diagnostics on vehicles. A driver brings in a hybrid gas-electric car that has been suffering from horsepower problems when in electric mode. Who would be more suited to decide the final course of action. The mechanic who has plenty of experience with traditional gas-powered cars, or the eletrical engineer who has plenty of experience with power distribution systems? Each person is good at what they do but the one who has the most longevity may not be the one with the best perspective on the situation. As I mentioned before I'm interested in how the trust and reliabilty model for the wiki system handles this sort of thing. If you think the resultant discussion would clutter this page, feel free to contact me directly to continue so that I can get a better idea of policy. ojenkins 14:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It really is not about trust and is not about longevity either. New users and anonymous users are normally discounted in the 'vote' (AFD is not a vote, we try to build consensus as polls are evil) portion but they certainly have a voice. This is out of necessity and somewhat common sense. However, none of the comments have been deleted thus they all still have a voice. No one is going to discount verifiable evidence just because of the source, although they might scruntinize it more. We need to disenfranchise those that are new as they are likely to be invested in the article unduely, they are not always aware of policy, and the ease with which anyone can flood an AFD with meat or sockpuppets. If you have futher questions feel free to leave them on my or your talk page or email me. —kotepho 2006-03-20 10:16Z
  • Keep. They will be guests at a convention to be announced within a few business days -- convention organizer - 22:42, 15 March 2006
  • Keep. If Adam Curry's Daily Source Code and the Dawn and Drew Show(hardly notable....just potty talk) get wiki pages, then OtakuG should too.Gorkon 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't believe that this is even up for discussion! Otaku Generation is listened to by thousands of people and wiki page is very useful. It keeps me up to date with nicknames and helps me to remember some of my favorite episodes. If this entry is deleted I would say that it would be a tragedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edunbar (talk • contribs).
Another comment left on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Otaku generation. kotepho 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yes, it's Jefferson here. While I'm sure that my opinion can be more or less discounted due to my status as an oblique participant in the show, I'd like to throw in my support for this entry. No attempt is being made to advertise this podcast's presence on the web and I find this to be a very resourceful font of information to introduce any new listener to the show. Even the professional quality of the podcast itself merits a notable mention as it goes beyond just the typical nature of most others that mostly consist of "one guy and his microphone". Granted, the podcast contains mostly niche topics (and in-jokes, but then even radio broadcasts have them) and the main discussion is limited to a particular genre of fandom, but it is a very popular and fast growing segment of fandom. If all podcasts were this good, I'd probably never stop listening to my mp3 player. JeffersonLeeEng 14:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and discount sockpupptets/ballot stuffing. Ifnord 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd almost like to see this be relisted for consensus as there are only 3 delete opinions, 1 keep by a wikipedian with an extensive edit history and a bunch of first timers or users with edit histories restricted to Otaku generation.--Isotope23 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still questioning your reasons for wanting the article to be deleted. Even if there are as many as three delete opinions and the keep opinions are from those you think should be discounted anyway, then surely the notability factor is a moot point anyway. I may not be as well and truly active on the internet as others, but as such, I find wikipedia to be of great importance to even the most amateur of information seekers. And yet, the Otaku Generation podcast will go on... -- JeffersonLeeEng
What is there to question? He believes that this does not meet WP:WEB (which it does not given everything presented thus far). Also, if Wikipedia is going to be a source of useful, encyclopedic information things that are not verified or encyclopedic need to be deleted. —kotepho 2006-03-20 21:37Z
  • Comment I agree that consensus is not clear even if you discount a great deal of the keep votes. —kotepho 2006-03-20 21:37Z
Even if consensus is unclear, the call for deletion is going to continue to rankle a large amount of the fanbase especially those that appreciated the time and effort put into such a page as this. It seems to be clear the opinions of those that seem to be pro-deletion are not going to be swayed by influential mentions in a widely available periodical publication that is Newtype USA and another more or less high profile review site in the form of Ain't It Cool News (AICN). So, what recourse is there for those against this decision for deletion if and when the inevitable does happen? Obviously, you seem to be making this to be a losing battle for the others that want to keep the article and as such, I want to play the Devil's Advocate on my part to understand more fully what moral I should from learn from this endeavour? Somewhere, there has to be a loophole... --JeffersonLeeEng 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it isn't our problem if OG's fanbase is offended by the deletion of this article. There are many, many articles that have been deleted that raised the ire of their fanbases. Since that obviously would not be a constructive way to decide whether a topic is worthy of an article, guidelines were set forth by our community (like WP:WEB. If you have evidence that it does meet those criteria I would be glad to see it. Even if I were to qualify the Newtype USA mention as non-trivial that is not 'multiple'. The same goes for the Ain't It Cool News mention; it is the epitome of trivial--even if it were non-trivial, it is not from a reliable source. —kotepho 2006-03-21 10:44Z
I just want to echo what kotepho said with all due respect. There are hundreds of articles that have been deleted and in the process fans of the subjects of these articles have been angered or offended. That is not a strong argument for including a subject in Wikipedia. It is nothing personal against your podcast, it is just the fact that you have not, in my opinion, demonstrated that Otaku generation meets WP:WEB (per kotepho above). As a good faith gesture I've recommended keeping this discussion open and relisting it to allow further opinions from Wikipedia users to be gathered. If Otaku generation's article does get deleted at the end of this process and you are looking at a moral to learn from this endevor I think I can provide one for you... or at least a suggestion. If your goal is to get a Wikipedia article, read WP:WEB and work towards meeting that criteria, rather than looking for a loophole. I would suggest that you go out and shamelessly promote Otaku generation on messageboards, blogs, etc. Try and get some major web and print publications to do a writeup on your podcast. Get your fanbase to do some viral marketing... submit stories on digg.com etc. Is your podcast listed on iTunes? You've gotten 2 small cites by external sources so far... but you need to get more substantial citations and greater number.
  • Delete Not notable per WB:WEB If the podcast becomes more notable by all means resubmit the artical. Nigelthefish 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Otaku Generation has been featured in Newtype magazine. I realize that many people in this thread are new Wikipedians, but why should we be discounted? Just because of Ballot stuffing that has happened in the past on other articles doesn't mean that thier opinion should be discounted. Also, I may add that Otaku Generation is listed on iTunes, Odeo and many other podcast directories. Would these not qualify as a brodcast medium?? Also, I think it would serve the internet in general better to have ONE Online Encyclopedia for everything...Wikipedia is already this for many. Since MediaWiki is open source, I have seen many deletions create new Wiki's. Maybe that's more appropriate. I personaly don't think so.Gorkon 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It does not take much to get listed in a podcast directory or on iTunes. kotepho 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keiichi.net radio

Internet radio stations of dubious notability. Articles do not demonstrate cultural notability or influence. Also nominated for AfD consideration along with this article are:

  • Japan-A-Radio
  • J-Fan Radio

Hynca-Hooley 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain as nom, though I note that one of the "related articles", J-Fan Radio, appears to have been deleted out-of-process by someone. Hynca-Hooley 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My mistake re. [J-Fan Radio]], the "appearance" referred to above was the result of a typo. All 3 articles are presently resident on Wikipedia. Hynca-Hooley 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- does not appear on iTunes, seems to have a total listener capacity of a hundred or so. Haikupoet 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haikupoet. Stifle 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Nigelthefish 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folk Fest

Speedy delete A3, only contains an external link. Ought to have been speedied, but was AFD'd and possibly orphaned, so listing. Mithent 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete this rather self-serving link. Aplomado - UTC 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Article should be expanded and renamed "Vancouver Folk Music Festival." Otherwise Delete.
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate
  • Comment: I've turned it into the beginnings of an actual article. What do the contributors here think about creating a "Folk festival" article and then Redirecting "Folk Fest" to that? —GrantNeufeld 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I found the actual folk festival article (I must have had the wrong capitalization when I tried before). It's actually a redirect to List of music festivals. So, I'll vote Delete on this "Folk Fest" article, per the nom. —GrantNeufeld 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If folk festival is just a redirect to List of music festivals, I'd suggest that maybe folk festival should be its own article, with Folk Fest redirecting there. Alternatively, Folk Fest could also be redirected to the same title that folk festival redirects to. Either way, I think redirect would be a better idea than deletion at this point. Bearcat 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Bearcat. --Quiddity 00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of music festivals, merging any listed here but not there as necessary. --Icarus 09:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King George Électronique Inc

Delete. The article fails entry criteria as it is advertising for a particular electronics business, IMHO, complete with a product image with pricetag. Colonel Tom 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad. Carlo 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Montco 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant advertising. Peter Grey 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_March_14_fd01.html"
In other languages