Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 2 December 4 > -->

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] December 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - brenneman(t)(c) 13:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 385, ski run road, Blooningburg, N.Y. 12721

"Biography" of a non-notable residential/family home. Not encyclopedic. ERcheck 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: If it were a person, not a home described, it would qualify for speedy delete as a non-notable bio of a real person. ERcheck 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Both unverifiable and non-notable. Even the name of the suburb is spelt wrongly. Capitalistroadster 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even with a hole in the swimming pool liner, it's non-notable. Chris the speller 22:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Eddie.willers 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just speedy deleted it. No need to waste anybody's time with this. - DavidWBrooks 01:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by RHaworth. Chick Bowen 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Ferrer Florit

Not really any assertion of notability. 1 google hit. Punkmorten 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for heaven's sake. --Impaciente 18:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity or something... Some guy 19:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude WTF. Delete. Herostratus 08:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what seems to be a vanity article, without any real assertion of notability, and no properly sourced, verifiable facts. *Dan T.* 16:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delte NN-bio --Bachrach44 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (tagged as non-notable bio) Stifle 14:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 14:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Falconer

Unverifiable, probably hoax (first paragraph of article more or less says so), no trace of claimed albums. Dalbury(Talk) 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: The article itself says the teens "have decided to give themselves interesting back stories to add to the mystique of the project" which indicates that it is a fabrication. Hu 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment The hoax paragraph at the top was added by 12.77.118.135, who also added it to Sam Lazerwitz, so you may want to take a look at that, too. -- Saikiri~ 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment However, I did try to check out the albums 'Falconer' supposedly recorded, and got no hits at all. Still smells like a hoax to me, independent of that first paragraph. -- Dalbury(Talk) 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • What I meant was the Sam Lazerwitz article is probably a hoax of this flavor as well. Well, I'll go AfD it now. -- Saikiri~ 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism. This man was born in 1976 supposedly became Elvis' successor then went into hiding for 28 years. That would mean that he was 2 when his recording career was at its peak. Capitalistroadster 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. -- Saikiri~ 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No relevant google hits. Pound with asteroids --YixilTesiphon 15:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious hoax. Alex Falconer should refer to the former Member of the European Parliament. David | Talk 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy: Because it admits that it's fiction, it's not vandalism. However, original fiction is disallowed from Wikipedia, including fan fiction and self-fan fiction. Geogre 20:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; fictional biographies are not suitable for Wikipedia. If the project of which it is a part is (or becomes) notable, some of the info here might be suitable for an article on that. *Dan T.* 16:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Patriot Party

Although Google hits are substantial, the results are muddled by entities other than this "party" founded in 2003. A search of 600+ American newspaper archives from 2003 to present shows 3 results. 2 are in passing reference as part of a list of third parties. 1 cites the website for historical info on the revolutionary war. There is no evidence of campaigning or any political activities. Probably 1 man and a P.O. box. delete

Comment That is your offhand opinion. "Probably"? You are speculating. --Fahrenheit451 02:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are the only member? confirmed? Lotsofissues 21:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lotsofissues 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The "2006 candidates" section contains 1 person, which they endorse: Independent candidate Brian Lee Merrill from 1st District, SC who is running for Congress. The state party section indicates that a state chapter has only been formed so far, in Florida. But apparently more are forming at the moment. The national committee reportedly consists of three people. Punkmorten 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The Florida party isn't functioning very well, according to [1]. There is a website for the Oregon Patriot Party [2]. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

CommentYou are acting on the opinion of one person who runs a so-called "third party" website as truth?--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Jtmichcock 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep; of marginal notability, but I prefer to err in the direction of inclusionism. *Dan T.* 18:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete So this one has enough to close with a consensus, definately not notable, unless starting a political party consisting of single digit membership is worthwhile, in which case I say we here start the "American Patriot Party AfD Voters Party", and our main platform can be that everyone should vote to keep or delete this article. karmafist 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks pretty insubstantial so far. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is an extant U.S. political party.--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Argument for delete not clear. -- JJay 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist Soccer

I'm not sure this QUITE meets the standards of notability. It's also partially a copy violation, and a duplicate of Anarchist soccer. Tom Lillis 00:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable, and borderline cruftish.Gateman1997 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete local membership levels, unless I'm corrected by, look pretty low. I might be convinced otherwise if hefty national figures can be quoted. Alf melmac 00:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Modify not sure what cruftish means. definitely a duplicate, so one copy at least needs to be deleted. local membership levels and how widely spread hard to confirm due to organisational structure of anarchist organisations. however a.s. also features in many U.S. national protests (g8, wto, IMF etc) and is undoubtably derived from the well established (and also anarchist) anti-racist world cup - http://www.mondialiantirazzisti.org (see faq) held every year in italy since 1995 or 1996. This seems notable, so perhaps article should be modified to incorporate that more. please point out copyright violations. Limes 19:23 2 December 2005
    • This users has only edited this page. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry, but I don't understand what mondialiantirazzisti has to do with anarchist soccer. Can you point ot a reference that makes the connection? -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've redirected Anarchist soccer to Anarchist Soccer, since they were the same and created by the same IP. Chick Bowen 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and start over if notable. --YixilTesiphon 02:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems original research, and unencyclopedic. I'm holding out for anarchist (gridiron) football — with firearms! Smerdis of Tlön 05:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Anarchist Soccer--MONGO 09:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm? Anarchist Soccer is the article under discussion. Chick Bowen 15:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yikes, you're right...Delete--MONGO 16:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I originally posted it. i'm going to try to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic manner and incorporate more background/establishing info and tie in the a-r world cup info. apologies for posting a very unfinished entry Limes 16:03 3 December 2005*
  • Weak keep; there does seem to be an actual movement of this name, of marginal notability now, but the bar should be pretty low given that this is not a paper encyclopedia. If the author intends to rewrite it (and it does need extensive rewriting as it now stands), he shouldn't call for its deletion, since deletionists around here will then insist on speedy-delete of any future versions attempted to be posted under this name, as they regard an AfD outcome as meaning that the topic is banned here until the end of time. *Dan T.* 18:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How nice of you to speak on behalf of all deletionists everywhere. Maybe next time you could try for a little less POV. Denni ☯ 21:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Modify: apologies again, i'm new to this, but i'm going to do a speedy rewrite, in a more encyclopedic manner and incorporating more historical and supplementary information. Limes 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This users has only edited this page/this is a doublevote.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems fine to me. Stifle 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sounds basically like 'pick-up' soccer, or a joke that has spread between colleges. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Dalbury. Eusebeus 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Per votes here and per Pilatus. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B4632 road

This is a British backroad between Cheltenham and Stratford-upon-Avon. Google Maps shows it as the grey route between the two towns. In British terminology B roads are collector routes that do not carry much traffic. This particular one may have some nice scenery but is altogether unimportant for infrastructure.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - As per B roads discussion above. - Hahnchen 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor road entry. *Dan T.* 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hahnchen. Stifle 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep B roads as per discussion. --SPUI (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep B roads. Kappa 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the consensus identified by Pilatus. And as we can see, clearly working. Eusebeus 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per strong B-Road Consensus.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B500 road

As this link shows, Charterhouse Street (designated B500 road) is a short stretch of road in London. It has no historic significance, it doesn't have an industry named after it (think Broadway) or is famous for anything else (as Tottenham Court Road is). It just exists.

Non-British Wikipedians might wish to consult the article on B roads to gauge the claim that this is amongst the shortest so designated roads in the country – there is no national register for B-roads, they are collector routes, and the number is merely for bookkeeping.

Delete this per the consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 15:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - As per B roads discussion above. - Hahnchen 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor road entry. *Dan T.* 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hahnchen. Stifle 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep B roads as per discussion. --SPUI (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep B roads. Kappa 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 14:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Clone Troopers

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense (the original nominator put the speedy tag in too, but it was removed by the creator). - Bobet 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fan fic 'humor' or hoax. Not a speedy though. PJM 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. I think a Speedy would have been valid, but I guess it depends on the reader's knowledge of Star Wars.Some guy 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh gods... Kill it. Kill it now. Saberwyn 11:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is this, original fanfic? That doesn't belong here. *Dan T.* 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete JoJan 20:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banter

dictdef thats already in wiktionary. delete. BL kiss the lizard 00:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as dictionary reference. Jtmichcock 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as nearly identical dicdef was Transwiki'd on May 10th (see deletion history. Peyna 01:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy per above. Herostratus 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What they said. -Theaterfreak64 07:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete --Merovingian 07:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, dic def with absolutely no possibility of expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Folks, if you're going to say an article ought to be speedied, tag it as such. I have done so. --YixilTesiphon 15:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Last time I did that I was told not to. Admins will speedy if they see it here and decide it worth a speedy. Peyna 15:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I've done it on a few articles recently and haven't been reprimanded. It seems to me this can bring it to their attention quicker and get it off WP. --YixilTesiphon 15:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • No big deal either way. It's not going to cause any problems having the speedy tag. Peyna 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as A5 JoJan 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bass trombone/Temp

This was only meant to be a temporary page; the original trombone article has an extensive section on the bass trombone already. MToolen 06:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per nomination -Meegs 15:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete temporary page apparently no longer needed. *Dan T.* 19:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE Rd232 talk 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Best-Prescription-Prices.com

Obvious Spam. Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)

  • Delete per Monty Python. JHMM13 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. David | Talk 19:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I really hate spam Deyyaz 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious advertising spam. ERcheck 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam spam spam humbug. Reyk 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do those spammers like domain names with several hyphens in them so much? *Dan T.* 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
because some some search engines pay attention to that in rankings. Rd232 talk 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Board of Biffo

Another web forum article... has about 2,000 members and is hosted on a free forum hosting site. 137 results for the forum's name on Google [3]. Fails WP:WEB proposal. --W.marsh 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment this is another article that doesn't link to the site in question... you can find it here: [4] --W.marsh 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - without logging in, how can I check to see how many members? I am not too keen on logging in just to decide which way to vote. Can someone else do it and establish for sure what its notoriety is? For the moment I abstain on the basis of being temporarily unable to verify. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You can log in with L: Wikipedia P: Wiki. 1,246 members as of this posting. --W.marsh 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete responsible for a few internet memes a year? kill it. --Bachrach44 04:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe if the article documented which specific Internet memes (notable enough to have entries of their own here) were created on this board (with citeable references), it would make the board notable, but not enough info is given here to make this any more than a reference to one of numerous non-notable web message boards. *Dan T.* 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly non-notable. Stifle 14:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bojunk testavez

Unverifiable. Orphan article which cites no sources. Only things I can find on Google is this article, nothing on other sites, nothing on newsgroups. I see no evidence this drink actually exists. --W.marsh 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with flying colors; NPOV issues out the wazoo too. --YixilTesiphon 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Put it out of its misery - one sentence orphaned articles don't belong in Wikipedia. B.Wind 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete farce and unencyclopedic anyway.--MONGO 09:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Hurricane111 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable. *Dan T.* 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no widespread knowledge of this drink that I can see. - murder1 03:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bondish

unverifiable. Article even pretty much admits its a hoax: "The above comment is now a lie". Might be based on a drawing from some Deviant Art user. --W.marsh 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Will work on that now. --YixilTesiphon 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Listed for speedy deletion. --YixilTesiphon 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Gritton

Listed as a speedy, but I don't think it quite counts. It almost does, however. It has only a very minimal assertio of notability; maybe if there are additional details I'd change my mind, but for now Delete. -- SCZenz 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Though not a Béla Bartók or a Daniel Barenboim, Gritton has toured in Europe, Israel and the US, recently playing at a concert in Washington DC in honor of the Ambassador to Mongolia. Notable enough. ERcheck 22:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleteas non-notabale. Tens of thousands of people have toured the world and played concerts before ambassadors. Logophile 14:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Also, Google gives 131 hits. --Missmarple 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; has a marginal degree of notability. *Dan T.* 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Only 74 discreet Google hits. Denni ☯ 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsmdgold 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bundles

Unverified slang usage (WP:WINAD even if it were verified) / advert for non-notable blog. Repeated anonymous removals of afd tag [5] confirm even further that it's some kind of vanity entry. Tearlach 00:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Can someone hurry up action on this? I'm getting bored with reverting to the afd version against anonymous users edit-warring. Tearlach 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom.--Dakota t e 19:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it! Advertisement and stolen topics. -unsigned comment by 82.6.0.19 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete; neologism term, combined with "ad" for non-notable blog. *Dan T.* 19:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 194.247.226.254 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Business Etiquette in Ireland

Breaking the rules of What Wikipedia is not, this is a "personal" essay of sorts from a website, just slightly re-worded. No use in an encyclopedia, and no need for an article. Harro5 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a travel article but one with tips about business meetings. - Mgm|(talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Perhaps transwikiable to wikibooks. - Mgm|(talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 19:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete with the possibility of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Stifle 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chambeers

The article creator said it himself: Chambeers.com isn't a very popular site, (there has been only 1500 people there in the past month). A Google search for Chambeers Buttler gives 2 results. Rampart 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails the WP:WEB Alexa test by having no rank at all. Kevin 02:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Olorin28 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Herostratus 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Half the content is about the creator or other sides, so it could also be a CSD A1 if pruned. - Mgm|(talk) 14:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unpopular Web site by author's own admission. *Dan T.* 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charissopoulos Georgios

I was tempted to speedy this under criteria A7 (non-notable person), but was uncertain if being "President of the greek community Wiesbaden in Germany" qualified as a claim of notability. Delete as per WP:BIO. --Allen3 talk 12:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It needs to be edited for tone at the very least, but whether he's notable would IMO depend on the size of the Greek community in Wiesbaden. - Mgm|(talk) 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs editing, certainly; can anybody with knowledge of the area speak regarding the notability of the community in question? *Dan T.* 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A claim to notability means it doesn't hit A7, but it's still a non-notable bio to me. Delete. Stifle 14:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this could have easily been speedied. Eusebeus 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; article merged. Johnleemk | Talk 10:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles T. Shaw

Non-notable upper school principal. Article created for more than 6 months and tagged for importance more than 1 month - yet no imporvement in the article. Willing to withdraw nomination if importance is demonstrated. Hurricane111 22:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charmers

Vanity page about a group of people who chat over IRC. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity page about non-notable internet group.--Alhutch 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. ERcheck 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable group of friends in non-notable IRC channel. *Dan T.* 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Attaway

Non-notable subject; local Michigan printmaker. Returns about 20 hits on Google for "Chris Attaway" + artist. (User:Wmjuntunen has created a large number of these bios for non-notable local artists) Humansdorpie 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Humansdorpie 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; seems only of local interest. *Dan T.* 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Uh...let me count...1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (11 delete, 7 keep, 7 merge) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision advocacy

This article is original research. It defines an activity in a novel way that has little or no mention in reliable sources, then interprets multiple persons and activities in terms of this definition. Jakew 10:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. For the reasons above, the whole article looks like a violation of WP:NOR by being a "novel synthesis" of facts put together to advance a particular position, which is explicity disallowed by the policy. Any useful information in it can be moved to one of the other articles about circumcision. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to History of male circumcision. I understand "original synthesis" to mean citing authors in support of something they did not say. This article doesn't do that. It is well-cited, and its only fault is that it presents some anti-circumcision results as the last word. Gazpacho 11:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gazpacho. Not original research as sources cited. Well known term. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment the original research lies in the interpretation of the cited source, Zordrac. Silly example: suppose I wanted to write an article about glowing angels in the sky. I could cite many documented examples of stargazing ('angel viewing') and identification of new stars ('angels'). It's still original research in spite of the sources, because of the novel interpretation. Jakew 12:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, this particular term is in widespread use, so its not original research. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you know better than I, Zordrac. Could you please point me to a definition of the term or an identification of the 'advocates' discussed in the article? I've been unable to find anything in any reliable sources. So Dan Blackham has found a passing mention of a different term - circumcision evangelism - in a J Med Ethics article, but that's all. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Jakew, Can you point out where this article is misrepresenting sources? Gazpacho 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not suggesting that it does, Gazpacho (though I personally disagree with some interpretation). The problem is one of verifiability. How can one verify that circumcision advocacy is how the article describes it, and how can one verify that these persons are advocates? If nobody has made such an interpretation previously, it must be the opinion of the Wikipedia editor(s) -- clearly a novel view, and thus original research. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator — clearly original research. Nandesuka 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    Although I have to admit, just the other day I was saying to myself "You know what Wikipedia really needs? More articles about circumcision!. Nandesuka 13:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I recommend that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. There is a long discussion of this there. Uncle G 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant, troll magnet. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The AfD nominator for this article has been editing this article since Jan 2005 [6], back and forth with another editor. The article is unusually well-referenced by WP standards, and the various authors discussed in it (read the article, read the talk page) clearly 'advocate' circumcision. The 'original research' argument seems to be a last resort, and the article is (IMO) too long and too different to merge into History of male circumcision. --Squiddy 01:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Gazpacho. A topic worth addressing within the contect of a relevent article. Jtmichcock 02:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ∾ AfD is not a process for resolving long-term content disputes. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sometimes the only solution for a long-term low-grade content dispute is to delete the offending article. Some concepts do not let themselves be knocked into an article with the best will in the world, especially with a paucity of hard sources and a lot of strong opinions. JFW | T@lk 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The content dispute was/is actually over another issue (whether an obscure indirect source for materials distributed by one person should be explicitly specified). Jakew 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Contrary to what Jake alleged above, the dispute was whether the article should give an accurate attribution of where a doctor obtained his information. Dr Jesin's webpage [7] is a copy of a Circlist webpage [8]. I felt it was essential that this was acknowledged. Jake, a member of Circlist, was determined to remove this evidence. When it appeared that this was faltering he changed ground and began arguing that the article was original research. Michael Glass 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a pity that you assume bad faith in your interpretation of events, Michael. Nevertheless, it is good that we agree that the issues are distinct. Jakew 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I am sorry that Jake has taken my summary of the dispute personally. I respect his right to his views and his right to advocate them. However, in this case there is a clear conflict of interest in being a member of Circlist and making every effort to remove information about this organisation from an article, even when he admitted that this information was correct. For details about this, I urge other readers to study the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy.Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please read the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy. I believe the attempt to delete this article is based on ideology rather than rationality. Michael Glass 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more cut cruft. Klonimus 17:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a well-researched, sizeable, and longstanding article. The existence of articles with "advocacy" in their title (just like the existence of articles with "criticism" in their title) has some POV issues, but is defensible when there is a significant movement in favor of (or against) a subject, where describing it would be too lengthy for the main article. *Dan T.* 20:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious original research, no evidence such movement or social activity actually exists. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Claiming that no evidence exists for circumcisionadvocacy is just silly. Just look at the likes of Brian Morris who pushes human genital mutilation against the medical positions of every organization on Earth which has a medical position about human genital mutilation. — — Ŭalabio‽ 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If deleted someone would just restart the page. This article does not fit will in any other article because it is too large (this article split out of circumcision because it no longer fit there) so merging really does not work; besides, merging will not solve the real problem, which is contentdispute. Indeed, the real issue is a contentdispute. This whole vote seems like an attempt to solve a contentdispute by making the problem go away. — — Ŭalabio‽ 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I find it most interesting that nobody who has opposed deletion has addressed the issue of original research. As far as I'm aware, the policy is no original research, not no original research unless it has other merits. Jakew 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NOR. --nixie 10:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment A Google search with "circumcision advocacy" in double quotes yielded 127 hits. One was used in an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics [9]. One article using this term was republished in Jake Waskett's own website [10]. Another group using a very similar term is Advocating Circumcision Today a Jewish group [11]. Usage of the term seemed divided between references to circumcision advocacy and anti-circumcision advocacy. Therefore as other commentators have said, it is a common enough term. As for the claim that no-one addressed the question of original research, this is just not true. Gazpacho, Zordrac and Squiddy all specifically argued against the notion that this article is original research. If there is something in the words circumcision advocacy that raise concerns, then a term should be sought that people feel more comfortable with. Michael Glass 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • These three uses merely use the term in passing. They do not define it, nor do they identify any advocates. These latter are introduced by the article. The remainder of these hits are activist sites, not reliable sources, and as you note, frequently refer to anti-circumcision advocacy. As for an alternative term, fine - let's use whatever someone else has already used! Jakew 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The fact that people use the term in passing and without defining it is evidence that they are using natural English and not a technical term that needs to be defined. The fact that the same language is used in activist sites is further evidence that it is part of the vocabulary of these groups, something that I would have no problem in noting in the article. However, this usage is not restricted to these groups. One example is in Rachel Gathercole's article on the Medicaid funding of circumcisions. She wrote: "Some circumcision advocates still contend that the surgery results in slightly fewer infant urinary tract infections, a possible decrease in incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, and the prevention of penile cancer." [12] The term circumcision advocate is used quite naturally here in a newspape article. A Google search of circumcision advocate yielded about 1260 hits, and this is further evidence that the term is natural English and not some tecchnical term that has to be defined.Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
          • You said above that it yielded 127 hits. Now you're claiming ten times that number. Surely there must be a mistake? Anyway, there is a problem here in that you're saying that the term doesn't need to be defined yet the article defines it. How do you propose to remedy this? Jakew 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
            • 127 hits for circumcision advocacy; 1260 hits for circumcision advocate. Ask Google a different question and you get a different answer. I am glad that you are now talking about improving the article. One way to improve it is to use a dictionary definition of advocacy . Michael Glass 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Addressing the NOR question: it does not appear to me that searching for the specific term "circumcision advocacy" is enough to deny the existence of a large group of people who advocate for circumcision. Circumcision, oddly enough, is one of the most heated and contentious subjects on the internet. I always avoid these arguments because I frankly don't care one way or the other. However, I think that most people here know that there are pro- and anti-circumcisionists. Whatever name is chosen, the collection of information characterizing the views of each side only makes sense. And, honestly, it could be done much worse than this well-references, well-balanced article. InvictaHOG 13:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - A lot of the information is not original research. The article is well written and well referenced. The article contains relevant information on the subject of circumcision which is not in other articles in Wikipedia. --Dumbo1 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no original research. Stifle 14:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. From the lengthy discussion on the Talk page it appears that this AfD is a continuation of a content dispute. I agree that the 'original research' argument seems to be the last resort attempt to delete information. -- DanBlackham 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have noted that those arguing for keeping the article have argued the case at some length. On the other hand, nearly all those who spoke for deletion simply dismissed the article in one line, citing original research. I find it curious that the debate is so polarised. I see the article as fitting the description of "source-based research" as defined below:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia WP:NOR.
Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
So where are the sources defining circumcision advocacy or identifying circumcision advocates? Jakew 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Use a dictionary definition of advocacy and apply this definition to tthe examples of those who have advocated circumcision. This would be source-based research, and is strongly encouraged, according to the policy. If we don't recognise the right and indeed the duty of us to collect and organise information, Wikipedia will be like the position of ijtihad in classical Islamic scholarship, when progress in learning was stifled by defining it as illegitimate. Michael Glass 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You mean using the dictionary definition of one word and interpreting the activities of individuals accordingly? That's the very definition of original research. Jakew 21:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that using a dictionary is to be defined as original research? Is that the straitjacket in which you want to bind those who disagree with you? Please follow this link: ijtihad Michael Glass 10:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Michael, it's a slippery slope. If it's okay to use dictionary definitions to create an article, what is to prevent anyone from creating anti-broccoli advocacy, as discussed on the talk page? The answer is nothing. It opens the door to any article coming into existence, just because the central term is an accurate use of language. That's original research, it's junk, and it devalues the rest of Wikipedia. Jakew 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Jake, please note the civil tone that Slrubenstein uses. I do not see the subversiveness in using a dictiionary. I do not see that sourced-based research can be deemed to violate the "no original research" policy, or that it is a slippery slope. Please read ijtihad for an example of what can happen when a society deems certain approaches off-limits. Michael Glass 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you felt my comments were uncivil, Michael, though I can't see how. I would agree - source-based research is not original by definition. But this article is not source-based. The central theme of the article is that there is such a thing as circumcision advocacy, that is consists of "social and political activity to promote it and ensure access and funding for circumcision" (though the introduction is better now, that's still implied), and that the various individuals listed in the article are advocating circumcision. All of these must be sourced in order to be verifiable. Sure, certain facts are sourced, but the interpretation of them as circumcision advocacy is not. This is the problem.
Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical book. Let's call it Bloggs' Circumcision advocacy through the ages. In it, Bloggs discusses advocacy at length, noting Morris, Schoen, and so on. Now when we cite Bloggs, it's a true source, because there is no interpretation. The reader can check Bloggs and readily see that these people are indeed identified as circumcision advocates. As it is, he's just got Wikipedia's word for it. Jakew 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and NPOVify cited information into Male circumcision and History of male circumcision. There can be no justification to delete valuable, cited information; it is not irredeemable in its presentation.--Eloquence* 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. I have serious NPOV qualms about the article. But if it can be merged with the Circumcision article and NPOV'd, that would be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Please say what your NPOV concerns are. Michael Glass 12:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I am troubled by the very nature of an article on "advocacy;" I think the topic itself is a POV. I know that people who have contributed to the article have tried very hard to conform to our NPOV policies, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate policy violation. But all the things that are good about the article, that address multiple points of view and place them within a larger NPOV context — in short, material I think has value — goes so far beyond the specific topic of advocacy, that I think it should all just go in one article on "circumcision." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I feel that advocacy can be discussed, just as any other topic can be discussed. If we say that certain topics or even certain approaches are off-limits, this raises concerns about what is being said and what is left unsaid and why. For instance, if some things are left unsaid, whose interests does this serve and whose interests are discounted? Michael Glass 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your general point; if we disagree it is in its application. I think any NPOV discussion of circumcision advocacy is best placed within the circumcision article, which provides a larger context for the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at best merge. Much of this does not belong in an encyclopedia; what does should be moved. Eusebeus 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP This article - JDJ -

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Monopoly (game) - SoM 14:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] City in a box

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was it is a rather unencyclopedic article. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Monopoly (game). The later page already has a section devoted to localizations for UK cities. -Meegs 16:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge: lacks proper context. Some guy 19:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge; the Monopoly (game) article already discusses games of the same genre localized for particular cities. *Dan T.* 20:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Meegs. Stifle 14:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Club de Football Universidad de Corinthians

notability--Melaen 00:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. An article apparently about this same unverifiable football team went through an AfD beginning October 9 -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad de Corinthians -- and it was deleted as a result. I believe this may meet WP:CSD G4. --Metropolitan90 01:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unable to verify the team even exists. Peyna 01:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy possible hoax. unverifiable Olorin28 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I checked the previously deleted article and this is not the same. However, the only results for a search of "Club de Football Universidad de Corinthians" was two Wikipedia mirrors see [13]. Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Verify and Keep--Ewok Slayer --(U | T | C) 08:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's the whole point, it cannot be verified. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a Brazilian team called the Corinthians, which was involved in a controversial domain name dispute [14] a few years ago. However, that's not the one being allegedly described here; Delete unless its existence and notability can be documented. *Dan T.* 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, my family is from and I still live near Wexford and this is almost certainly a hoax. Stifle 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I also see that there are no hits on Google for either "Copa d'Albany' or "Capital City Harriers" -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting theories

For a start, this article is currently a mess, full of POV and factual errors, and would have to be completely rewritten no matter what. But more importantly, I don't think this is an encyclopedic topic and I'm not sure what could be said about it that isn't covered in articles such as scientific consensus, scientific method, falsifiability, or theories and sociology of the history of science. I don't think this article has a future, even in the best of all possible worlds. --Fastfission 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, pointless article. --YixilTesiphon 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fastfission just stole the words off my keyboard :-) Vsmith 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Worthawholebean 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Issue is complicated by article's edit history... some previous work has been deleted. Anyway, this work is too good to just throw away. It's not great work, but its hella better than a lot that I've seen. I think the editrs bit off a bit more than she can chew -- it's a very complicated and fraught subject -- but I would not like to discourage her. Herostratus 07:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, I'm not sure this has anything that isn't found in other articles, and much of what it does have is either wrong or much more problematic than it currently is made out to be (i.e. the simplistic accounts of the Copernican revolution, Lysenkoism, and Michelson-Morley). --Fastfission 17:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete essay. No difference between "conflicting theories" and "different theories." Perhaps redirect to theory which discusses related matters. Gazpacho 09:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; seems like too vague a topic. Maybe some of this information can find a place in other articles relating to Theory. *Dan T.* 21:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continual renewal

Either nonsense, copyvio, or original research. Probably the latter. Stifle 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like original research. I got no match for any several-word strings that I tried on google to indicate copyvio from the web. -Meegs 16:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, WP:NOR. PJM 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It reads like a concept paper for a new religious philosophy. Some guy 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; seems more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete after excluding sockpuppet votes. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conviction 365

By the article's own admission the website has never ammounted to much ("Little was accomplished for almost a year"). Not of encyclopedic value. Chick Bowen 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Not sure why it was considered notable. Ashibaka (tock) 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I put some kind of effort and research into writing that, I see this just like the article on George Ouzounian, there's no reason to delete it, so I would vote no on doing so. 08:10 2 December, 2004 Comment posted by User:69.254.230.101, the article creator. The original version claimed otherwise, though he has now edited this.
I don't mean to question your integrity, but what you put seems odd to me. Why would the author vote to delete his own article? That doesn't make sense. User:64.218.194.120
And yet you said delete? Whatever, I don't see this as too bad an article. Keep --YixilTesiphon 02:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it notable? Ashibaka (tock) 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn site.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Olorin28 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a decent article, keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 64.126.61.223 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-03 03:39:03 (UTC) (User's only edit)
  • Delete - it's a decent article, but it still isn't notable. Worthawholebean 04:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website with no alexa ranking. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete With Extreme Prejudice. Site does not even exist yet for chrissakes. I mean there's a page but it says under construction. As a bonus, author on his blog has posts like this (re "protesters": "Well you suck dick. You retarded hippys have no other life other than to piss the rest of us useful people off." Gee that's a contribution to the sum total of human knowledge. Herostratus 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The site does exist, both blogs are there, the fact the site needs work isn't a fact anyone is trying to hide, both the author of the wikipedia article and "Rise and Fall" admit that they're still working on the site. I agree with you in that some of the stuff "Rise and Fall" have written is kind of rude, but as I said earlier, George Ouzounian has said some pretty offensive things in his blog thing too, but he's still notable. These guys have a website that gets some readers, I don't know why we would get rid of the article. 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Maddox is an internet celebrity, and The Best Page in the Universe is an extremely famous website. "Conviction 365" is not an extremely famous website, and "Rise and Fall" are not internet celebrities. Therefore we keep the one and not the other, for the same reason that we keep George W. Bush but not Mrs Eleanor Thrunge of Battersea. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*Notice. All of the above comments with date stamp but no username are by User 69.254.230.101, also the author of the article in question. User 69.254.230.101 has voted at least twice in violation of policy. Let's put this one out its misery, shall we? Herostratus 04:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I voted once and wrote the last comment. I want to preserve my work, that's all. Since, evidentally, you're looking up IPs anyway, why don't you look up the one for this "*Keep It's a decent article, keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)" That wasn't me and there's no username on it either, I've voted once, according to policy. If you're going to accuse me, it helps if I've done what you accuse me of.
You may be correct. You have 12 edits her so far and I can't be bothered to sort out all of them. However, I note that you wrote "I read through it and I think it's a decent article." A bit disengenuos since you are the author of the article.Herostratus 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry if that's been confusing, I've only voted once, just trying to perserve my work. I edited my vote to make it more clear. I didn't think I'd made that many edits, most were just to fix a typo or something. 11:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. I believe you and I sincerly apologize. I have stricken out my previous notice. (In future, you should sign comments with four tildes, not five, to avoid confusion, though.) Herostratus 05:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (User's only edit)
    • Anonymous vote by 66.232.195.60. - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity, spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note to author: It's generally believed by Wikipedians that only websites with a significant number of visitors or some noticeable effect on society deserve an article. Since this has neither, it needs to be deleted. Still, this debate will stay open for 5 days. You can just go into the edit screen again and take a copy of the text for yourself to keep it preserved, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to put it. - Mgm|(talk) 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity spam. Nandesuka 14:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-noteworthy. Ifnord 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the creator's mistaken impression, this website is not notable in the sense that The Best Page in the Universe is, and does not appear to have a large enough audience to belong in an encyclopedia. But feel free to come back when you've got a huge readership. — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think it's a good website, I know some people who follow them (meaning Rise and Fall),and it's gained some national attention, so I'd say it's notable. 10:31 3 December 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by anon user 64.126.63.2
  • Delete. It's an under-construction personal Web site with rants, like any of thousands of others. I've got a personal Web site with rants too; why doesn't it have a Wikipedia article? *Dan T.* 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I like the article because it has much meaning. Rise and Fall have gained some national attention, they ran one of the most popular Xangas ever. Keep the article. 8:13 21:08. 5 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 64.218.194.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nominator. Lots of apparent sock-puppets and random unsigned comments make me think unnotable and unwanted. Stifle 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has gained much attention lately. I don't understand why you can't keep it. There's no other source writing about the website, and it does have some facts about the website. The website obviously gained enough attention to have an entry here, so leave it. User:EncycloMichael 11:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • User has two edits: one to his user page, one here. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Author obviously spent much time on this article, it is well researched. Plus, consider the fact that the author put his social life on hold to write this article, so count this as a pity vote. User:Elminster41111 11:36, 5 December, 2005
    • User has three edits: one to his user page, two here. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not MySpace. Until we start allowing any user to create an article detailing his internet "life", this shouldn't exist either. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 19:36
  • Keep - The guy did write the article out of his own time. Why take that away from him? 10:21 5 December, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unsigned vote by 69.247.164.49; user's only edit. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that votes from anonymous users and newly created accounts which have only been created to influence the result of the vote will likely be disregarded. - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, why is that? Shouldn't the fact that so many people have come out in support of this show that there is indeed a fanbase for these people? If nothing else, they show that the website is notable so it shouldn't be deleted. User:VanillaX 10:20, 6 December 2005.
See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Chick Bowen 03:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - web vanity. - Longhair 08:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup, this should get Deleted Eusebeus 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable web vanity. --Hurricane111 17:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cougarboard

Article is a rambling personal essay about some unspecified webforum that deals with the BYU Cougars. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete it's a messageboard found in what?...the school or college newspaper?--MONGO 10:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what the hell is going on with all the vandalism to that page? By the way, here is the link to the home page: [15]. I am not convinced that 591 hits with no claims of notoriety is good enough though. But the constant vandalism to the page suggests that this is the work of trolls. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a lame chat board disguised as a forum for sports but these fine men hammer out all of the life challenges they face every day. Oprah should be the moderator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.186.134.103 (talk • contribs) 15:59, December 3, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. I don't think a messageboard devoted to one team is, generally speaking, notable enough for inclusion in a separate article; if it's locally notable among that team's fans, it may deserve a mention on the page about the team itself. *Dan T.* 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Csaba Petre

Vanity; article does not establish notability. Demiurge 00:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/resume. Some guy 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this under nn-bio tag. No claim to notability. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted it now under nn-bio. But I don't know how close this thread (e.g. putting the box around it); if someone can do that it would be great. Thanks! Enochlau 00:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. If it even said who his famous wife was, I'd have let it stay. -Splashtalk 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Simone, Novelist

"A new novelist" who hasn't released anything yet. At least a google search for Crossroads of Distractions gives 0 hits. Punkmorten 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Alhutch 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.. non-notable bio. ERcheck 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Deyyaz 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article on novelist who hasn't actually had a novel published yet. Revisit for possible notability if/when the book comes out. *Dan T.* 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio. Stifle 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Nation

A book "to be released in the summer of 2006". See also the nomination for Richard Chandler (American author), below -Rholton 15:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable, unverifiable. Humansdorpie 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 17:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, books released in over 6 months are not notable or verifiable. No reliable info known about the subject. (2 Google hits). - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As-yet-unreleased books by authors who are not yet notable for their other works probably don't deserve articles here. Revisit if/when book is released and possibly achieves notability. *Dan T.* 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, after minus sockpuppet votes. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DarkWars.org

Delete, not notable, no indication of importance in article, WP:NOT/WP:Web Dbchip 08:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You sure you got the right name there? That page doesn't even have a delete history. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
    • Fixed. In such cases check the discussion article name. Gazpacho
  • Delete non-notable MUD. Gazpacho 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - thousands of users. Not a MUD - its a graphical game. See their webpage here [16]. Passes google test with 952 hits, and seems to pass WP:WEB, although Alexa's ranking of 167,279 looks poorly. Has enough players though to assert notoriety. Is not a webpage and hence WP:WEB does not directly apply. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • del nonnotable 300 unique hits, none of them with a review. Severe wikipedia:Verifiability problem. mikka (t) 11:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I already voted, but I did link to their actual web page, and there are a lot of reviews available for them that are independent. 309 unique google hits actually, if we are being 100% accurate. You can choose to vote delete if you like, but I just disagree with you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but which of these does not look like a review to you? [17], [18], [19], [20] (and a lot of others) all look like reviews to me. No problem with verifiability. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • All of them. The first merely tells us that someone with a pseudonym claims to have played something called "darkwars" and tells us nothing about either. The second is a web directory listing on a self-submission web site (that is even called a "games directory"). The third is a banner advertisement collection that doesn't even mention Darkwars at all. And the fourth is an anonymous web discussion forum posting, a classic example of what is not a reliable source, that tells us to "ask mickey he shud be in first page of world ranks and he wil teach you how to play it". Please familiarize yourself with the concept of reliable sources. This is not the first time that you've cited anonymous discussion forum posts as purported sources. Uncle G 15:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • What you meant to say was: this is not the first time you've been abused because of making a valid argument. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • What I meant to say was what I actually wrote. No-one has abused you, here or elsewhere. Uncle G 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - whilst I most definitely do not appreciate the comments from Uncle G, it led me to do more research. I checked. http://www.tucows.com/, http://www.download.com/, http://www.shareware.com/ and http://www.cnet.com/, all of whom you would expect to have a review about it if its claims to notoriety were true. They all came up completely empty. And, whilst there are reviews for "Dark Wars" that is in fact referring to something to do with Star wars and is irrelevant. It seems that the web site in question is guilty of link spam. Nonetheless, I don't think that abuse such as that from Uncle G is really required. No, you shouldn't be writing to me 4 times pushing your point of view across. It's not something that you "have" to do either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Pasting this from Talk:Darkwars: don't delete this article, i will expand this article very soon!!! 71.240.141.128 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd really like to keep it, being pretty inclusionist and having a pretty low bar for notability, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence of this game being notable, or even of it being mentioned anywhere not apparently spammed by the game creator themselves. A promise of article expansion by some anon editor isn't enough to keep it, when even the person who originally voted to keep has changed his mind. Delete. *Dan T.* 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Indpentdent Conservative 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why you should delete it. If you can't find it in google then I have no clue what you are doing wrong. Just type "darkwars" and hit enter. If it has to do with the content of the article I'll come back to make sure it adheres to proper English and worthwhile content.--Anime2000z 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zordrac. Stifle 14:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page was moved, twice, by User:Suril.amin. I know I'm breaking WP:AGF here, but I suspect foul play. A second AfD discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkWars.org. Would someone who knows how merge the two discussions do so? Saberwyn - 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article was tagged for {{afd}} by User:Dbchip [21], but no discussion page was created. A few hours ago, User:Suril.amin created a page from the red link and entered an unsigned vote which is preserved below. Listing it now with no vote. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This site was once featured on the news... Though I have no clue where I could find the article.--What does this do? 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Anime2000z, whose comment this is, has no edits except to the article and its deletion discussions. He also already voted above. —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep do not delete, this article is getting bigger by the minute!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suril.amin (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 5, 2005.
    • User:Suril.amin already voted above, signing as "The Indpentdent Conservative". —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa ranking of 167,268 and falling. Google has only two unique pages linking in. There appears to be no media attention, at least according to my crude Google search. No way to determine number of players without signing up, which I refuse to do. Therefore, this article fails the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB.

    In addition, there is no information in the article demonstrating how this online game is different to any others of its kind. Saberwyn - 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • In the interest of fair play, I have copied the 'votes' (at least thats what I think they are) from the article's talkpage and pasted them below. Saberwyn - 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't delete this article on Darkwars!!! Man, this article is providing so much info on it and will soon cover everything there is to know on it! Sahil.amin 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... Deleting would probably not be the best idea. If he wants to write about it, I will come back through and edit it for grammar and spelling and try to make sure it only contains information pertinent to the game.--Anime2000z 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • don't delete this article, i will expand this article very soon!!! 71.240.141.128 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am working on expanding this article. 71.240.141.128 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am also expanding this article, on the darkwars forum the link to this article was posted, many darkwars members are working on expanding it. The Indpentdent Conservative 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that a discussion page was created. This article was originally named Darkwars, and the existing AFD discussion is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkwars. This is why one should not rename articles being discussed unless one is careful and follows the instructions in the Guide to deletion. Uncle G 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The move appears to have been made by User:Suril.amin, one of the contributors to the article. Its bad to not assume good faith, but I suspect foul play. Saberwyn - 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Special:Contributions/Suril.amin strongly indicates that it was not malice, but simply inexperience. Uncle G 07:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm still suspicious about the reasons behind the move, but will not let that influence my decisions regarding the keep or delete of this article. Saberwyn - 07:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite how instrumental it may be to the daily lives of some people, it is not notable enough for inclusion at wikipedia. Flyboy Will 08:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
            • COMBINE THE 2 AFDS! Or remove one of the AFds, or whatever needs to be done. This is just too confusing. Since both look like being deleted, why not just consider that a consensus has been reached and delete them? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete poor Alexa rank, no verifiability besides the voter above who says rather vaguely it was "once featured on the news". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep comeon on guys, just look at this page's discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.141.128 (talk • contribs) 21:28, December 6, 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep this article!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.14.13.3 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 7, 2005 (UTC).
  • KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.132.88 (talk • contribs) 23:52, December 7, 2005.
  • Delete ugh. Eusebeus 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of classical music eras

Basically a talk-page discussion made into an article. Undoubtedly this topic is legitimately part of European classical music but doesn't need a separate article. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Background: this article was created as part of a revert war over the starting and ending dates in Renaissance music and Baroque music. But not only is this article useless in general, it doesn't solve the revert war problem. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wahoofive. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What else are we to do with this information? Any general-interest reference that discusses classical music contains this information -- it is not mere talk page content. It is not suitable for a template. It should not be duplicated in each of the era-specific articles. There is a need to link to it from each of the era-specific articles. And while it could be merged into European classical music and linked as a subhead, that article is already lengthy and such an exposition is unlikely to survive there. I would like to note that I have not participated in the aforementioned edit war, but rather I stumbled upon it because I've been watching the affected page for link spam. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought from the title this would be some kind of timeline, which seems fine. But it's just meta-commentary. Possibly useful as talk-page fodder or perhaps even some kind of larger policy discussion, but not as a main article. rodii 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with European classical music. Denni ☯ 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into European classical music. *Dan T.* 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per above. Eusebeus 14:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "David Corney"

I'm not too sure about the validity of this article, given that the thing he supposedly invented turns up 0 hits on Google, and the thing that Google suggests doesn't seem very notable, either. A search for David Corney on Google also does not suggest anything definitive or suggest that this person is notable. --Spring Rubber 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no Google hits for "David Corney" Amoxitobol see [22] so there is no verifiability of his one claim to fame. If we were to keep it, should be moved to David Corney. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only patent I found with this name was for "Earthing Plumbling", "Plumbing is earthed by clamping an earth wire 26 by means of a clamping screw 20 in a transverse passage 18 of a cylindrical brass body 14 soldered into the offset 16 of a teepiece 10 incorporated in the plumbing." granted in 1984. [23]. Nothing at the USPTO. Peyna 02:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete udner CSD A7. Harro5 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Perkis

Doesn't appear to be notable beyond a few vague assertions. I'd speedy it, but I tend to hesitate when the content is well-assembled. Tom Lillis 07:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I tried to give him a reason to be, but its just too difficult. Born 1986, what could he have achieved? He's all of 19. Published author? But he's in university. Good on him getting a scholarship - these are hard to get. But he should be careful with the kinds of writing he is making, especially in light of the current attitude about terrorism. By the way, when I tried to vote here, it got me editing the main page. Some admin needs to fix this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, google has no relevant hits. There are relevant hits for a David Perkis at Purdue University, but the article says clearly he is at Sydney University. And considering that the other one lives in USA, I doubt its the same guy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a few articles published in student newspapers does not establish notability. Demiurge 10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a speedy delete. Maybe one day he'll be famous, but not yet. Ben Aveling 11:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! - I was quite amused when I stumbled across this entry. Being a student of USYD myself, it was interesting to see a wikipedia article on this, shall I say, infamous character and I think I would be one of the better suited people here to comment on the topic. David Perkis caused a lot of controversy with some of his writings and more importantly his reaction to critics & most people on this campus and others in Sydney would actually know who he was if you asked them. That is certainly a notable achievement in my books! I may not agree with his views but the fact that one person could become so well known throughout the university deserves an entry here IMO. If you look at the google australia website you'll see he is mentioned on quite a number of veritable sites (govt, political and educational). I heard that the university actually retracted his articles from their online publication after some of the events covered in his wiki-biography. Anyway, he has become somewhat of an infamous character here in Sydney and I'm sure most people who have heard of him in Sydney would agree that this is a definite keep! Kevin_Grady
Kevin_Grady was created 3 dec and has only two edits, both to his own user page. [24] The above paragraph was by 144.137.64.141 [25] who has no other edits [26]. Ben Aveling 07:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It seems to be a well-written, reasonably balanced article about somebody who has at least some local notability, according to the last writer here. That's probably still a bit short of normal notability standards, but I hate to see an article of reasonable quality just deleted... it doesn't seem to be the usual vanity junk. *Dan T.* 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As the writer of the entry in question, I thought it would contribute to the debate if I presented the relevant information regarding the article's notability. Apologies in advance for the lengh of my post, but I feel that it is necessary in order to explain the notability of the individual written about and as to why it should remain on the site. I actually met David Perkis at a writing seminar held at the University of Sydney campus at the beginning of this year. Needless to say I become reasonably well acquainted with Mr. Perkis because he was certainly an intriguing character - he was definitely intelligent, but more noticeable was his outspoken nature. He openly stated his views to all people he encountered (even those who did not ask about them), and was not afraid to share his beliefs. What was also interesting was the fact that, in spite of his young age, he had already attracted people who I could only classify as serious followers of his unique convictions. I had the chance to get to know Mr. Perkis reasonably well over the period of a month and a half or so and during that time he showed some of his works to me. And it was quite evident that it wasn't just a matter of vanity - he actually seemed to firmly believe that his political views were pivotal for others to consider for the "benefit of society", as he put it.
Anyway, as I attend UNSW, I lost contact with him afterwards and not subscribing to his set of beliefs, I didn't seek him out any further. Then, about two or three months later, I started hearing about him from all different directions. A large amount of people on the UNSW campus were talking about him on a pretty grand scale, in spite of the fact that he attended USYD (an institution with which UNSW has what would best be described as a heated academic rivalry). Friends of mine, who did not know that I had ever met Mr. Perkis, had asked me if I heard about "that David Perkis guy", based on the controversy he was stirring up. Apart from his writings and the actions I wrote about in the wiki-entry, he had gotten into arguments with several high-level lecturers and actually developed quite a firm following at his university campus (not to mention sympathisers at UNSW). To put this into perspective, USYD has close to 50,000 attendees and UNSW has about 40,000. I have spoken to many people about Mr. Perkis following the events which took place, and it would not be excessive to estimate that an amount of people equal to at least 10% of attendees from both campuses have heard about him and his exploits, and a far higher percentage in the humanities and politics-related faculties relevant to his activities. That in itself would constitute in excess of 10,000 people who would have come to know about Mr. Perkis to a large extent in the past year or so (including those who attend other universities in the area and have heard about him). I completely agree with the USYD poster on this discussion when he said that Mr. Perkis attracted quite a lot of attention from his works, but it was largely a result of his actions that gained him his notoriety.
I took it upon myself to research more information about Mr. Perkis and write what I see as a well-presented and accurate wikipedia entry, due to the fact that some topics relating to Australian academia have been largely neglected on this website. With such a large volume of people having heard about a single person based on his beliefs and actions would alone constitute an entry into wikipedia, and so I definitely think that the David Perkis article merits a "keep" on the website. I hope my explanation above has convinced others that this is true. Cornelius S 06:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
this user was also created 3 dec and has only edits to 4 pages: this page, users own page, David Perkis and Brian Dorofaeff, a not clearly notable school teacher. [27] Ben Aveling 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of whether we believe you or not. We still need some independant and verifiable evidence of notablity. Where did this controversy happen? Where was it reported? Regards, Ben Aveling
  • I never claimed it was about whether you "believed" me or not. I simply wrote my side of the story to display more information regarding the notability of the person in question. I only joined a few days ago.. so what? I've been busy with university all year and haven't had the time to do any entries up until now. The fact that I've managed to construct what I see as two good quality entries in a few days is quite a good achievement in my books and shows the amount of entries I intend (or intended) to add to this site - not everyone has a multitude of free time on their hands to write entries all year. I thought that if I started writing now during my holidays that I would gradually be able to build up my level of work because it does take time to research and write wikipedia entries. I thought that the fact that Perkis is mentioned on sources such as an official Australian government website, a leading member of Australian parliament's website, the university itself's website, the old and highly notable school he attended's website and various other official state educational institution sites (not to mention the online version of Perkis's work that I could find in the short space of 2 days) would provde "independant and verifiable evidence of notablity", as you put it. Obviously not it seems and so I am attempting to find more sources... University controversies aren't generally published on the internet. Do you really think the USYD would want that type of publicity?

The fact that you would also describe a Mathematics PhD. who has had his postdoctoral work published in at least 3 different countries in numerous advanced mathematics and physics journals thus far as "a not clearly notable school teacher" speaks volumes to your ability for discernment, in my opinion. Also, what are you implying by posting the other user's IP address and his date of registration? I emailed my peers the links to the entries I made and asked them for their comments and to pass them onto anyone who knows of these two people as there would surely be a large amount of those in study circles that would. The fact that you are clearly implying something more nefarious again is extremely insulting - perhaps you should consider reading about not biting the newcomersand to assuming good faith before you bash a newbie who was just trying to add what he saw as relvant additional entries to wikipedia, and accuse him of all sorts of things. It's disheartening to see the level of attacks you have written and implied in your last posts for something which I thought would be trivial at best. If I had known that I would be personally attacked like you have done then I clearly wouldn't have bothered putting in the hours of work necessary to construct wikipedia entries in the first place.Cornelius S

  • Delete, there may be an assertion of notability but there sure ain't any notability itself. Stifle 14:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable by encyclopedia standards. -- DS1953 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could this be an attack page? Pilatus 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether an attack page or not, the subject is wholly nn. Eusebeus 14:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily delete per WP:NOT and WP:IAR. No sense leaving this up 5 days. FCYTravis 01:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davis High School German 4 Class

This page violates WP:NOT (specifically that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Also none of these individuals nor their class are notable. Gateman1997 00:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as advertisement. Mo0[talk] 12:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dbk

vanity/advertising by commercial business StanZegel (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This article is merely advertising for a commercial firm. Speedy Delete --StanZegel (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Blatant spam, lifted from a commercial website. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 09:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been speedied...nothing but spam.--MONGO 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; redirected to DES. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DES (disambiguation)

DES probably used to redirect to Data Encryption Standard, but someone who thought Diethylstilbestrol was more important decided that DES should redirect to DES (disambiguation). Well, what's the point in having DES (disambiguation) then? Why not just use DES as the disambiguation page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.163.173.185 (talk • contribs) 00:47, December 3, 2005.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a perfectly fine disambiguation article. This nomination is the result of a slow burning revert war at DES with Matt Crypto on one side, who asserts that this should be a primary topic disambiguation with Data Encryption Standard as the primary topic, and several editors on the other side who believe that this should be an equal weight disambiguation, since when they came to look up DES they were looking for the drug. It has been discussed, but not resolved, on Talk:DES. Furthermore, the choice between the two forms of disambiguation is a simple matter of whether DES redirects to Data Encryption Standard or to DES (disambiguation). Deletion is not involved at any stage, and AFD is not the place for deciding this. Please learn how to use WP:RFC. I am strongly tempted to close this discussion, and take measures to encourage both sides to resume the discussion on Talk:DES that they have abandoned. Keep. Uncle G 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Redirect DES to this page. I also Endorse User:Uncle G's suggestion about closing the AfD and moving the discussion to the talk page. This did not go under ANY discussion at all. The disambig is appropriate. Don't assume that just because you wouldn't search for the drug, that everyone else wouldn't either. "Data Encryption Standard" and "Diethylstilbestrol" get about equal hits on google. It's an acronym commonly used to describe both things, and to arbitrarily assign importance of one over the other is probably not NPOV. Peyna 16:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
    • I've went ahead and added a comment to Talk:DES and left notes on all related pages for people to refer to that discussion in the event that this AfD is eventually closed due to irrelevance. Peyna 16:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur with User:24.17.48.241's statement below. Peyna 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move or re-submit to Wikipedia:Requested moves--no reason to waste time and resources passing primary disambiguation thru a redirect. DES should either be the disambiguation content (or the "Data Encryption Standard" or "Diethylstilbestrol" content, although neither seems deserving of primary disambiguation, IMHO), but it shouldn't be a redirect to either. 24.17.48.241 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • First: Wikipedia:Requested moves involves deletion, too. Deletion is not a part of solving this problem. Second: Neither of those two articles should ever be at DES, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). Third: DES redirecting to DES (disambiguation) is an equal-weight disambiguation, not a primary topic one. Fourth: Redirecting the undisambiguated title to the "X (disambiguation)" article is a common means of setting up an equal weight disambiguation, and doesn't "waste time and resources". Redirects are cheap, remember. Uncle G 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note that someone has added a third expansion, Delivered Ex Ship. FreplySpang (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep until this matter can be resolved per User:Uncle G. Ian13 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Update. I have changed every wikilink to DES to refer to whatever article it actually meant to refer to (most of which were for Data Encryption Standard, but I did come across a few others (I also didn't change anything on talk pages). I have replaced DES with a disambig page, which makes DES (disambiguation) now an unneeded duplication of DES. If someone would be willing to double-check and make sure I have everything pointing the right direction, it would be appreciated. Peyna 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, based upon the above comment by me. Peyna 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You've forgotten that the {{otheruses}} and {{otheruses2}} templates rely upon this page existing, even if only as a redirect. Moreover, what happens when Matt Crypto reverts you? My opinion remains unchanged. There is no reason to delete this article, and deletion is not involved in solving the problem. Uncle G 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as no-longer-needed disambiguation page now that DES is the dab page. (Hopefully, any edit-warring about this will come to an end once this is complete... wishful thinking?) *Dan T.* 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to DES or keep. Kappa 02:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was closed as an inappropriate use of AfD. FCYTravis 19:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disney World Girl

I am actually asking that only edit 29959282 (the last one for 12/2) be removed due to the publication of personal information following the PrimeTime story Thursday night, which as anyone reading the article would agree should not be made public Wiki'dWitch 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - If the person is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia page, their current city of residence is not generally considered "personal information." It is a basic part of a biography. I see nothing wrong with posting the city. If it was a street address, I'd feel differently. FCYTravis 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment: I can't find a source that verifies that information, however, which means leaving it out of the article is proper. AfD is also not the proper place for this discussion, so I'm going to close this here. Please open a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard if you wish to discuss the matter further. FCYTravis 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatic Phrase: The Firstname Surname Story

Funny as I found this, it's just a list of external links and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. I fail to see how this article could ever reach a length that couldn't covered in the TV movie article Maccoinnich 01:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It's a useless list that is an example of a million lists that could be fabricated at the drop of a hat and would choke Wikipedia. All of the links are external links to the imdb site. Hu 02:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Moderately entertaining, but utterly useless. - Gobeirne 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Worthawholebean 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this would be useful on some of the trivia sites, but not on Wikipedia. B.Wind 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as list of external links and being a list of loosely associated topics, both specifically forbidden by WP:NOT. - Mgm|(talk) 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but... as others have observed, it is kind of funny. Put with Bad Jokes? --Christofurio 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. It's not really a joke, or nonsense. It's a real list, that is inherently funny. It's belongs *somewhere*, but I'm I just can't think of where... Maccoinnich 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing but a link farm. Denni ☯ 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete... these lists can be interesting, and there are a number of them already on Wikipedia (such as various song lists based on trivia about their titles). However, such lists ought to link to the Wikipedia pages on the items in the list, not an external site like IMDB. *Dan T.* 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edison Eagles

An article (if you can call it that; it's just stats) about a U.S. high school football team. This should be deleted, or if it really has any worth whatsoever, merged with Edison High School (whichever one of those on the dab page it is). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHS 2005 Freshmen Roster - the list of the team roster. Harro5 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN. There's a lot of high school football teams out there...What makes this so special? --64.12.117.5 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I would say merge, but there are at least three mentioned Edison High Schools and the Edison Eagles article gives no clue which one it is. It's junk anyway.--MONGO 10:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - belongs in the high school newsletter, nowhere else. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. fails to provide context or references or even full sentences. If it said any more on the team apart from a few numbers I would've voted to merge, but since we don't know where to, that's pointless. - Mgm|(talk) 19:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; we probably don't need pages on all high school football teams, especially when they don't have much info anyway. *Dan T.* 02:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For what it is worth this is Edison High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). I gather this because a google search] for Devonte Baskin (a player on the Freshman roster) lead to this page which has a phone number 703-924-8090, which is in the staff directory on the home page linked from the article Edison High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). Perhaps there might be something worth merging here. Dsmdgold 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing on this page is encyclopedic. -- DS1953 00:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy delete under A1 and A7 by Capitalistroadster --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

[edit] Edward C. Minus

I'm not entirely sure Edward C. Minus is notable considering his Google hits, although I'd certainly hate to be him in college considering the temptation his professors must have had to give him a slightly less than average grade. JHMM13 08:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egjug

Not sure if this is a speedy but I know that it's spam Delete --Aranda 56) 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless article can be expanded with sources that company is notable. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above.Some guy 19:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Jtmichcock 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; seems to be a Java user's group in Egypt, but it doesn't give any reasons for notability, but consists merely of a bunch of bullet points that might have been taken out of a PowerPoint presentation given at the founding meeting of the group, with an ambiguous date (1/10/05; is that January 10th or October 1st? How do they write dates in Egypt?) at the top. *Dan T.* 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EHS 2005 Freshmen Roster

Just a list of high school football players; a connected article to Edison Eagles, also up for deletion here. Even less useful than the article on the team itself. Harro5 05:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per my vote for Edison Eagles, worthless info anyway.--MONGO 10:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete it. —Brim 10:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a whole page of red links, all waiting to be filled in with unimportant non notable articles.... Ah, the terror! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to provide content and is a list of redlinks which cannot lead to proper articles. - Mgm|(talk) 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; redirected to U.S. presidential election, 1828. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Election of 1828

The title of the article is U.S.-centric. The article describes the Presidential election of the United States in 1828. As I suspect most editors will agree, there were many elections in 1828, and not all of them took place in the U.S. Thus, to have a single article titled "Election of 1828", and to have it speak of the U.S. Presidential Election of 1828 as though it were the election of 1828, is disrepectful to our international brethren and sistren. Aside from which, the contents of Election of 1828 largely duplicate the contents of U.S. presidential election, 1828. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment ∾ It seems that there are several of these "Election of $YEAR" articles, some of which have been redirected to "U.S. presidential election, $YEAR". I find these redirects to suffer from the same U.S.-centric problems as the articles themselves. So, at the suggestion of Kelly Martin, I'm going to track these rascals down and make disambiguation pages out of them, starting with the page which prompted this AfD in the first place. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. If there were other notable elections in 1828 (and I'm sure there were, I just don't know if we have articles on them) then make Election of 1828 into a disambig page describing and linking these elections. Firebug 16:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Does it make sense to create a disambiguation page if there is only a single relevant article? This is not a relevant article since it's about an election which already has an article, so I would say Delete. Kreydon 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am indeed having difficulty finding comparable articles about other elections in the stated year, and begin to lean more towards your view. There's no point in creating a disambiguation page if there is no ambiguity to disambiguate. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ∾ As a further comment, I have found similar pages at Election of 1796, Election of 1824, Election of 1860, and Election of 1948. Of those pages, only Election of 1796 required minor disambiguation. The other pages have no ambiguity to disambiguate as far as I can discover, and are currently serving as redirects to U.S. presidential election, 1824, U.S. presidential election, 1860, and U.S. presidential election, 1948, respectively. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig. There should at least be multiple American elections in any given year (presidential, congressional, gubernatorial) even if there were no votes held elsewhere in the world. - SimonP 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Can't that go into US election of $BODY in $YEAR? This is en.wikipedia, not wikipedia.us! 82.26.160.214 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In its present form the article can't be kept because this is English-language Wikipedia, not US wikipedia and there is a better duplicate in the proper place. People would search for, say, 1828 US Presidential Election or 1828 British Parliamentary Election. Election of 1828 is a particuliarly clumsy page title. Election of what? Iff another election of a head of government or parliament took place in 1828 it can always be turned into a disambiguation page. 82.26.160.214 Pilatus 18:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If we have articles on other elections held in that year, it should be moved to Elections of 1828 and used as a disambiguation. If not, it should redirect to the U.S. presidential election, 1828 article until such time as we do have articles. Capitalistroadster 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comparing the two articles, the non-nominated article is far more advanced. The nominated article should be deleted, but without a redirect due to the US-centric concerns above. Then rename the balce of the articles using the U.S. presidential election, 1824 format. Jtmichcock 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate on the condition that there were other elections in 1828. List of state leaders in 1828 certainly demonstrates that there were other republics in that year and thus other elections may or may not have happened. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate if there's something to disambiguate between, otherwise delete. Redirecting a general election article to a US presidential one is POV. Redirects should point to what users are looking for and you can't assume the election they're looking for is the US presidential one. - Mgm|(talk) 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there's any new info that isn't already there, it can be added to U.S. presidential election, 1828 where it belongs. *Dan T.* 06:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely not a keep. Possible to disambiguate, redirect, or merge. My preference is to merge. Stifle 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English for Special Purposes

Misguided page relating to an editor's personal experience. Bordering on a speedy delete. — Itai (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like some personal variation on ESL. Durova
  • Delete. as per nom. Olorin28 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nomination. Hu 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal experiences - not an article. And I think that if this user was teaching English they'd know how to use capital letters too, so I'm not even sure if that part is true. - Mgm|(talk) 14:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to English as an additional language. FreplySpang (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is in fact such a field as English for Special Purposes, or, more common recently, English for Specific Purposes (Google: [28], and see here: [29]). It's a legitimate academic field, with degree programs and peer-reviewed journals and the whole thing. It's not a "personal variation on ESL", nor is it the same as EAL, but it is related. That said, this article is worthless. It would be good to have an article on ESP, but this is not it. rodii 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete so many reasons to delete I can't pick just one. (original research, not encyclopedic, probably untrue, etc. etc. etc.). --Bachrach44 03:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete personal anecdote. *Dan T.* 05:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felicia (pseudonym)

No obvious notability? Long time candidate for a cleanup. Might be worth a merge -> Marvel Comics if anyone can be bothered?Ben Aveling 11:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - why no obvious notability? She is the informant for Marvel Comics. I would say that that classes her as notable. She is a spy, basically. Verified too. Don't delete it just because it needs a cleanup. That's what the tags are for. This is a collaborative effort. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong Keep. Obviously notable, and I say that as one who couldn't care less about the comic book industry. Logophile 14:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zordrac -Meegs 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting piece of comics history. *Dan T.* 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it deserve its own page? Would anyone object to it being merged into Marvel? Ben Aveling 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as copyvio JoJan 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fendalton Open Air Primary School

Non-prominent school advertising, with a significant portion of the text obviously copied from school advertising; nonsense vandalism in for others. Znode 19:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as per nom. Although I'm not totally against school pages, the world might be better off without this one and the job it would take to rework it. On another note, anyone south of the equator wish to tell me what an "Open Air Primary School" is? JHMM13 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as copyvio (tagging it now). --Alan Au 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as A8 JoJan 20:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fleng

  • Delete NN programming language and a NN blogger - TWO good reasons for deletion
  • Delete; article can't even make up its mind what it's about, but doesn't give reasons for notability for either of its subjects. *Dan T.* 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, quickly. Stifle 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fúsíjama Basketball Club International

This article was mandated for relisting by Deletion Review, so here it is. New information was provided by virtue of the following links: [30], [31] (KKÍ is the Icelandic Basketball Federation). -Splashtalk 18:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • See the first debate here. Punkmorten 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we have a translation of these sources for the benefit of the discussion? - Mgm|(talk) 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I personally can't help. I was just copying links from the DRV debate. Sorry. -Splashtalk 02:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete; insufficient evidence of notability provided. *Dan T.* 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless notability is proven between now and vote expiry. --DDG 17:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion2

Blatant advertising. Worthawholebean 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Worthawholebean 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. And I don't think you're supposed to vote as per your own nomination...Some guy 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable advertisement. *Dan T.* 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gadi Lifshitz

non-notable. I could find no unique hits on google. I vote Delete Deyyaz 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, and the articles on G-Radio and GadiArchive should go too. They're this guy's claim to fame and don't seem very viable (to put it mildly). - Bobet 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently non-notable person with some rather... odd... ideas. *Dan T.* 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 05:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game Boy Evolution

It's just a big unsubstantiated rumor. Merely speculation. Delete. Andre (talk) 21:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with the existing Game Boy Evolution section of Handheld game console and redirect. Ливай | ☺ 21:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No such section should exist either, because the Game Boy Evolution is just a rumor. Nintendo has never said anything about it. Andre (talk) 22:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see. According to the current article, Nintendo has mentioned the existence of another Game Boy model and there is a reported working title, but if there really is nothing verifiable to say about it and even the title is dubious this should be deleted along with that section. Ливай | ☺ 23:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and nn for now. Wyss 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete total speculation. K1Bond007 04:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --fvw* 17:07, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete and utter speculation by a couple of fansites. If you were Nintendo, would YOU cannibalize your own product line one year after launch? They're not Sega!  ;-) Terrapin 20:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If and when Evolution is announced officially, someone can always write a new article. Is there any worth in maybe adding a line to the main Game Boy article about this speculation if it's widespread enough? 23skidoo 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Except it's not widespread. It's wishful thinking by a couple of fansites concerned over the technical specifications of a rival game console. Terrapin 15:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia should have factual information. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 21:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speculation, delete. - Vague | Rant 04:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable speculation. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gandlake

Non-notable, and/or unverifiable. Article makes no claims of meeting WP:CORP. Only 14 hits for "Gandlake Technology", all of which just mention the name in passing, without really giving any details, let alone an actual site for said company. Searching for just Gandlake still only gets 84 displayed hits[32]. "Gandlake Computer Services" aka "Gandlake Ltd" seems the most likely candidate to be what the editor meant, but unfortunately the microstub article contains so little info there's no way to be certain. Doesn't seem to be any indication of being included in either a ranking index or a stock index, or "...multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." 24.17.48.241 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded to indicate notabilty. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I get 504 hits for Gandlake Technology and 33 hits for just Gandlake. But Delete per JiFish. Punkmorten 19:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more info is provided. *Dan T.* 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Enochlau 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gogoblank

Doesn't comply with WP:MUSIC, and Google only turns up 8 hits for Gogoblank. Delete. --Spring Rubber 06:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete under CSD R2. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete nearly incomprehensible and blatantly incorrect. - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greater than tens place borrowing subtraction rule

Looks like primary school instructions for substraction. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete, nonsensical. Gazpacho 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete while there is an argument that explanations such as these are encyclopaedic by their very nature, including them in an article by themselves, especially with a heading like that, is useless. If we included things like this, we'd have a million articles on everything. I cannot see any way that this can be justified, and hence, while it is accurate, notable etc, it cannot be here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the author can't even come up with the correct difference. —Brim 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. The instructions are incomprehensible and the mathematical examples are blatantly wrong. --Metropolitan90 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspected that the instructions were written by a primary school pupil, too. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone who needs to know this info won't understand the explanation. Is also blatantly wrong in one example. - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as advertising. Mo0[talk] 23:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Health-Pharmacy-Online.com

advertising


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy crude oil

Recommend transwiki to Wiktionary. Peyna 04:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This article can be significantly expanded. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 2007-04-9 10:26
  • Keep per above. --Worthawholebean 04:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Potential for expansion. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above; an informative stub. Smerdis of Tlön 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into Light crude oil; it seems like the articles could benefit from being able to compare the two terms without having gobs of redundancy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 06:14:52Z
  • It's an encyclopaedia article about heavy crude oil, not a dictionary article about the phrase "heavy crude oil". The latter wouldn't satisfy the Wiktionary inclusion criteria anyway, because it is not idiomatic. It is a simple combination of heavy and crude oil. Uncle G 06:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems pretty idomatic to me, who would guess that "heavy" in this phrase means "does not flow easily". Kappa 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename it to Heavy oil (over 500,000 Google hits). There are lots of issues on refining it too. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator decides this might be worth Keeping after all. Peyna 14:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect this and Light crude oil to crude oil'. The provide little additional context and are better covered in its entire context. - Mgm|(talk) 17:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; it's a distinct type of oil. *Dan T.* 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to know if someone is lying

An original research essay is not what Wikipedia is for. This is, or should be, covered at Lie and this article serves no use as a redirect as it is unlilely someone would search for this title. Harro5 02:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Would keep, but seems to be unsalvageable (is that a word?). At any rate (if it can not be merged/cleaned up or whatever - even though it sounds interesting) I say delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: "unsalvageable" is a word. I used it myself to advocate a deletion just minutes before I saw your use of it here. However, if sources are referenced, I think it would be salvageable. Hu 03:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsourced and POV. People who have respiratory allergies scratch their noses often. Does this make them habitual liars? Nonsense. Durova 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The subject is better covered in the article on Lie anyway. -- Saikiri~ 03:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: This is useful information, mostly common sense, some based on research which should be referenced. Not much loss if it is deleted. Hu 03:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because if its common sense than it need not be on an encyclopedia, because its just telling readers stuff they already knew. Like Hu said, good to know, but like I say its not necessary in an encyclopedia. Croat Canuck 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like an original essay for a college class rather than a publication. Not referenced, and a "how to..." which Wikipedia is not. B.Wind 04:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this persons term paper.--MONGO 09:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for want of verification. Gazpacho 10:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced OR. As far as I can tell much of it is wrong as well and it fails to mention one needs to study the subjects base behavior before trying to detect lying behavior. - Mgm|(talk) 16:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research. Further, it's at a non-encyclopedic lemma. Geogre 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The answer to the title question is "When their lips are moving!", of course.  :-) But delete... WP:NOT a "how-to" essay collection. *Dan T.* 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Have Dreams (band)

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Vanity page, doesn't meet band requirements. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, based on the article and the linked website. Wrote three or four original songs, with no albums and no media coverage. - Bobet 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMG. PJM 16:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... band that broke up years ago, and didn't seem to do anything particularly notable while they were together. Their official Web site is so poorly designed that it didn't show anything in my Mozilla browser; I had to view the source to find the URL of the real site, which was supposed to pop up in another window (yuck!), but didn't seem to do this for me. *Dan T.* 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Bobet. Stifle 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to x86. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IA-16

Duplicative of x86. Intel does not use IA-16 term. Mirror Vax 02:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to x86 (if nom is correct). Some guy 19:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but don't delete; Intel may not use the term, but other people do, and redirects are cheap. — Haeleth Talk 01:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. *Dan T.* 03:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'RENAME' to 16-bit Intel CPU architecture 132.205.45.148 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Motorola 68070 merged and redirected (to preserve history); others deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola 68050, Motorola 68070, Motorola 68080

Hypothetical article about something that never existed. Mirror Vax 02:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I consolidated these three AFDs into one since the underlying facts are identical. Firebug 16:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Next time you may want to consider making the articles point at it. —Cryptic (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As noted in the corresponding articles, these chips never actually existed. Firebug 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge as section of Motorola 68060,. ...dave souza 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article under WP:NOT/Crystal Ball. These may exist as "true" styles in the future, but we don't know that, and it appears unlikely.
  • Merge the "odd number" fact into their corresponding even number styles that they upgraded. karmafist 20:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete articles on nonexistent chips, but put info on numbering scheme in remaining related articles. *Dan T.* 06:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT 68050 to 68040, 68080 to 68060 132.205.45.148 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP 68070. The CD-i article claims that the 68070 is the chip contained in the unit. So it's a real chip 132.205.45.148 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] InkLink

No obvious notability. Overly longstanding need for cleanup. Ben Aveling 11:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've heard and played the game. It gets several thousand hits on Google. To me, that's notable. Halo 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for 95,400 hits with main web page here [33]. It exists, verified, notable. Nuff said. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of those are for a different InkLink. (Seiko Instruments USA Inc. - InkLink) InkLink + game gets about 25,000 hits, mostly but not all for the InkLink game, and most of those seems to be sites that have a copy of every free shockwave game known to mankind. Ben Aveling 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got no idea how to determine the notability of a Shockwave game, but the tricks section needs to go. It tells there's tricks but doesn't explain them. So they're bare of info. - Mgm|(talk) 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm not sure of the notability, or what the criteria for games ought to be, but it seems marginally notable at least. *Dan T.* 04:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Dtobias. Stifle 15:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intergroup conflict

Personal essay dealing with Islamic relations with the Western world. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 13:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Original research/eessay. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; we're not an essay collection. *Dan T.* 04:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with possible transwiki to Wikibooks. Stifle 15:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPod hacks (second nomination)

This page is nothing but links, mostly to commercial sites. This is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • keep - This page is an important resource. Please look at under the heading Different Prespective under the discussion page for IPod hacks. In it I explain why the current page is necessary, and how the purely commercial links are being weeded out. -FromACanteen
I looked at that. Please review what Wikipedia is WP:NOT...one of those is a link repository. The whole reason it was saved the first time was on the condition that it would improve the content. Adding more links is not adding content. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way we can set it as an archive? Then the data would remain while users could draft a new, more WP friendly page? -FromACanteen
  • Delete May have some real purpose on wikipedia, but in this form, it's just not it. Bobby1011 23:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing but a list of links. Some of these might be useful in another article. --Hetar 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a user guide, please move it to Wikicities or another location. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    Made a copy here
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a link farm. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cuñado - Talk
  • Delete --Terence Ong 03:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a link farm Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of external links, nor is it a how-to. Stifle 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irvin Favre

No other claim to notability except that his son plays football. —Cryptic (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Delaney

This footballer plays on the reserve team for a seventh-tier club in England. Punkmorten 15:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the article solely consists of the fact that this person is a non-notable footballer. Sliggy 15:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, since AFC Wimbledon which he plays for is a semi-professional team, and he has only played for the reserves for them (based on the club's website). It just makes me sad that I probably spent more time writing this afd vote than it took the creator to make the article. - Bobet 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Reserve-grader for semi-professional team. Capitalistroadster 19:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; near-empty article on minor player for minor team. *Dan T.* 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This player is a player of good quality, has had trials at Reading F.C. over the summer and is only 17....I also have very nice hair. That was cut recently. Thank you for keeping my page.

Jake...P.S. I could have all of you..because I've got Shaan as back up. Im 6ft 4 inches tall and very sexy. I also wrote an incredibly well informed essay on Marvell and Duffy relating to the imagery evoked by these poets. This means that not only am I a very good footballer but I can also speak very good english compared to the rest of America who are incredulously stupid. And by the way...colour is spelt with a U as is favoUr, and no not all Muslims are terrorists you stupid country...and if you would like to read the rest of my essay ( i am aware they may be some words you do not understand if you have been born in America) then you will have to keep my entry so that I send you the rest.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Hawkins

If you're here because of a request from an external website:

Please understand that this is not a vote; it is a discussion. Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this article from being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

""Keep"". This guy is widely known in the mid-south. He is famous in high school footballLenwood 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Delete. I'm not entirely sure this is even remotely notable. He's been nominated for some obscure "Coach of the Year" award and hasn't even won it yet, which still wouldn't make him notable. See the page for yourself. JHMM13 08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Again, speedy delete non-notable. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete slowly. High school football coach albeit one with a good record. A Google search shows an American footballer and college basketballer who are more notable than Coach Hawkins see [34]. Capitalistroadster 09:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - definitely who he claims to be. [35], [36] and [37]. Notable person per google matches: 188 hits, using "Joey Hawkins" and "football" and "jackson", including this [38], this [39], this [40], this [41] and others. Don't be confused with "Joey Hawkins" the new NFL star - this is the coach. Consider a disambig as they both seem notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's your definition of notable? He's one of the best high school football coaches in The State of Mississippi. High school football is one of Mississippi's most beloved sports, and communities really rally around their teams. Hawkins is one of the best. Deleting this post would smack of elitism. —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs) 3:57 AM, 3 December 2005 (EDT)
    • Elitism? Is that the best defense you can come up with? This is an international encyclopedia, not a local register. Please take your "elitism is destroying the common man" rant to someone who believes illogical and poorly laid-out arguments. JHMM13 09:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You haven't given a valid reason to delete the post. You're uncertain Hawkins "is even remotely notable", but you fail to articulate what is notable, at least for an entry on Wikipedia. Should an individual have minimum contacts in more than one state? —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs)
        • Perhaps if you could convince me that I should give a damn about Joey Hawkins, it might be worth keeping. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
          • I suppose if I said I could care less about 85% of these entries, that wouldn't suffice. We can't all have common interests. But even people for fail to appreciate high school football can appreciate a man who is one of the best in his field. He's reached the pinnacle of his profession four of the last five seasons. Very few coaches can say the same. —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs)
            • BTW, you're mistaken on the sockpuppet reference. —preceding unsigned comment by 199.111.188.213 (talk • contribs)
            • Sorry, you have failed to convince me. Time to empty the chamberpot. And no, I'm not mistaken. Anonymous votes are sockpuppet votes, and do not count. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
              • Whilst that might be your opinion, it is not actually the policy of wikipedia, see Wikipedia:sock puppet. Whilst a user is encouraged to create an account, they are not required to. Whilst a closing admin may choose to ignore suspected sock puppets, they are not required to. As the policy stands right now, an IP address can vote. If you think that this should be changed, your should comments in the sock puppet channel. As it stands, the current definition of sock puppet is someone who creates additional accounts to impersonate someone else. This is not the case here. This is merely someone who has yet to create an account. Please be nice to newbies and encourage their participation. And remember WP:AGF - assume good faith! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The author who I assume is the anonymous voter has put a lot of work into this page. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet WP:BIO which is our guidelines to biographical entries. I would recommend a Geocities page or Google Base article see [42]. Unfortunately, while I am sure Coach Hawkins is highly respected in his home town, he doesn't meet our notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Capitalroadster, though we disagree, you've stated your opinion eloquently and referenced the guidelines. I'm glad to see snottiness is not the culture around here, but isolated to a few souls. I've made a an account for myself. Cheers. SnyGuy
      • Thanks. I assume that you are the author. Please sign yourself with 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end so that we know who you are. As you have already voted here, you can't vote again. It is unfortunate that a lot of people are suspicious of new users at present. I hope that you continue to contribute, and even if this is deleted, that you are not disheartened, and that you continue to try to have a go. Why not try to add to existing articles? It is a lot safer, and less likely to raise questions about you. Consider following redlinks and create articles that are requested to be created rather than creating your own, at least for a while. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Is it really necessary to make a separate section to accuse someone of sock puppetry? Sock puppetry is supposed to be when someone is impersonating someone else. I see no evidence of this. This is just someone who has yet to make an account. That's not sock puppetry. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have deleted the header "Sockpuppet votes" since the accusation does not appear to be supported by the facts. Anonymous votes are not necessarily sockpuppets, and they definitely are not sockpuppets when there is only one of them. --Metropolitan90 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Newbies != sockpuppets. I added a template I designed, {{afd-newbies}} to advise newcomers who may have been asked to come here that we have a consensus process, not a straight up-or-down vote. BTW, Delete, on the basis that this doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements. Firebug 16:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per roadster. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I really like that this article does provice some newspaper references. It's a cut above most articles of its type, actually, but it's still basically an article about a high-school coach and doesn't meet WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with extreme prejudice. --Agamemnon2 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with respect for a good attempt. Don't bite the newbies. rodii 22:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep" In the whole scheme of Wikipedia... does one really think that having a single bio page on a pretty darn good HS Football coch will hurt? Get a life... keep the page.
  • Weak Delete- Very well written article, but unfortunately fails WP:BIO though not by much. Reyk 00:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, also. It's not bad as this type goes. Although to think everyone well-known in Mississippi must have an article seems a bit peculiar logic. Daniel Rayford McGehee was a Mississippi Congressman for a decade, including a period during WWII, but there doesn't seem to be an article on him yet. Clifford Davis represented Tennessee, but was originally from Mississippi. He was also shot in the leg during the U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1954), but there is no article on him yet either. Still , to whoever the creator of it is, you should maybe keep this in some personal file in case this coach ever say gets a movie made about him or something that would warrant this.--T. Anthony 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep; pretty well-done article about somebody who's somewhere near the edge of the boundary between notability and non-notability, and I prefer to err in the direction of inclusionism. *Dan T.* 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Emotions aside, this is a non-notable bio. Stifle 15:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and dab; this is the kind of article which Wikipedia should definitely include some day. The question is when? Considering the recent work on Jackson Academy, and the detail of the article, I think we can keep this one. I do wish the contributors would also fix up Indianola, Mississippi, though. +sj + 13:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but this is a very well done article and I think that if we were at the point that [[User:Sj] thinks we should be at someday, I agree that this coach (with that many state championships) would be included. I am not sure that we'll ever be there and right now this doesn't fit our criteria, IMO. -- DS1953 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn figure, writing skill aside. Eusebeus 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is one of the best articles ever that never should've been written. I hope we never reach Sj's point, and keep high school coaches forever out of the encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jungiery

Article looks like a phone listing for a small business that books musical groups. --207.136.9.28 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. PJM 17:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hu 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. --Bachrach44 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; gives no reason for notability. *Dan T.* 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kakfif

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, German language neologism. - Bobet 16:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Bobet. Some guy 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism; not even listed in German Wikipeda. *Dan T.* 04:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaufman County ARES, Inc.

Vanity article touting a local, non-notable charity for a county in Texas. This is one of a series of vanity articles created last night about various Kaufman County organizations. The others have been speedy candidates, but this one is meaty enough to warrant an AfD. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - ARES is the Amateur Radio Emergency Service. There are thousands around the country, and they don't need their own Wikipedia page. At best, Redirect to Amateur Radio Emergency Service. FCYTravis 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I feel that this page has great potential and feel that is should be given a chance to remain, until otherwise shown that is does not contribute to Wikipedia. I have personally been over the Wikipedia site, looking at many articles and have seen many that I would consider either a vanity page or of no use to some people, but that does not mean it's of no use to someone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.40.97.170 (talk • contribs) 01:59, December 5, 2005., who is the original author and primary editor of the page being discussed by this very AfD.
    • Comment ∾ The fact that there is grafitti on the south wall of the building is not a justification to add new grafitti to the north wall of the building. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; there is not generally any need for articles on local chapters of organizations if there is one on the parent organization, unless there's something particularly notable about the particular chapter. *Dan T.* 04:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agreeing with above. Eusebeus 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knifethruhead

As per WP:MUSIC. The article states that "they have several self-releases on vinyl" but gives no other indication of accomplishment. --Allen3 talk 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - are we no where nearer haveing a music-speedy delete for nn bands? doktorb 19:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 19:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; no indication of notability. *Dan T.* 04:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korketrekkeren

Seems to be about 598 Google hits, and practically zero of them in English. Delete or Give to Norwegian Wiki as they don't seem to have a page on it yet. JHMM13 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The information is true. It's a sledging hill in Oslo. Does it deserve an entry? Punkmorten 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; I guess it just barely qualifies, but why did we get it in English before the Norwegian Wiki got it? *Dan T.* 05:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It does seem to be viewed by Oslo as a prominent attraction. I also cleaned it up. -- DS1953 00:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lastthursday.net. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last Thursday

Sounds a lot like linkspam, probably doesn't meet WP:CORP. --Alan Au 19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Worthawholebean TalkContribs 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Lastthursday.net. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lastthursday.net, where I've voted to delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 20:59:59Z
    • Actually, I think the reverse redirect makes more sense; keep the article (if you keep one) at the name of the organization, without a top-level domain appended; that's just their Web address. *Dan T.* 05:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete; it could possibly be a notable organization, but this hasn't really been demonstrated yet. A Google search finds all sorts of probably unrelated organizations with "Last Thursday" in their names; I'm not sure how significant this particular one is. *Dan T.* 05:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect from Lastthursday.net. I was one of the original editors of Lastthursday.net. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, and it's been explained to me that my contribution was badly named and less than optimal. The duplication of the two articles was an error. I hope the deficiencies in that original article have now been corrected on this page (i.e. Last Thursday). 84.12.138.158 11:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (NOT redirect). Non-notable corp. Stifle 15:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Thursday. Johnleemk | Talk 10:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lastthursday.net

Probable linkspam. --Alan Au 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I hate spam Deyyaz 20:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because of lack of notability. At least they made an effort to make it somewhat wikified, which is more than I can say for most link spam. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 20:58:14Z
  • Delete Advert ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Last Thursday. I know somebody has already voted for the converse, redirecting that one to this one, but I think the other way makes more sense, as "Last Thursday" is the name of the organization; Lastthursday.net is just the domain name of their Web site. Anyway, at most there should be only one article about this group. *Dan T.* 05:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That's cool with me, either way. I guess my point was more to draw attention to the redundancy. I believe they should both be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:51:27Z
  • Redirect to Last Thursday Please accept my sincere apologies as a previous editor of this entry and creator of the Last Thursday entry here on Wikipedia. This original, URL based entry was made by someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia articles and I guess I am also at fault as I should have simply changed the name of this article. I would hope not to have caused offence or be thought of as creating link spam, this is certainly not the intention. Last Thursday is a new socio-business network which is growing very rapidly within the UK and Europe. We encourage our users to make use of direct linking to Wikipedia (which we provide a markup tool to allow for simple link creation) when creating their blogs and articles within the site to help promote Wikipedia as a reference tool to many who are not otherwise familiar with it. 10:48 (UTC) 5 December 2005
  • Delete (NOT redirect). Non-notable corp. Stifle 15:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Spam. Eusebeus 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete after speculation from fellow Wikipedians. =P - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Chee Yin

looks like vanity and there are only 17 google hits. BL kiss the lizard 09:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • People need to be a bit more bold with the speedy delete tags. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • This isn't a speedy as notability is asserted but not proven. However, 16 Google hits none of which confirm this article [43] No Google News hits [44]. The claims about Lee Chee Yin are not verifiable so Delete slowly. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. I just went and did the same check. If even a single hit turned up that confirmed his claims, I'd consider a keep. But unverified makes it a delete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; notability not demonstrated. Subject to recreation if notability can be shown. *Dan T.* 05:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life without doors

Album by the article author. allmusic.com recognizes neither the album nor the artist.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Nandesuka 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of albums which include 9 or more tracks

Serves no useful purpose and is apparently misnamed anyways. The ARK 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Misnamed, misconceived. Chris the speller 05:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Another song list? Get rid of this shit, and block the user who's making it. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete. Absolutely pointless list. And stop bringing us lists of music sorted by all kinds of meaningless criteria. This is right up there with List of songs with an adverb in the title and List of songs with a fraction or non-integer in the title. ◎DanMS 06:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 06:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Songs with nine letters in the title. Songs with the word "of" in the title. Where will it end? List of all songs with or without titles! Laszlo Panaflex 07:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if it was "list of albums which include 24 or more tracks" then we might have a useable list - because there aren't many of them. But 9 or more? 9 or less? 9 is the average number. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsensical unencyclopedic crap. Tagged for that purpose. --YixilTesiphon 13:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy del: criterion A3 (no content). mikka (t) 10:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon websites

All links contained in this unlabled list are available on the main article, and the invitation to add more websites (labled in bold) makes me feel this is not WP material. Ian13 10:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loco Art

Vanity, promotional page, written entirely in Spanish, touting someone's website and their shiny new way of playing with Macromedia Flash. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 18:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete wrong language. Some guy 19:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Common procedure is to translate stuff in a wrong language. - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: For the benefit of us non-Spanish people, can we get a translation before continuing this AFD? - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's a rough translation: Loco Art. Web page of entertainment. Loco Arts with their creator Marcelo have created capitulos [Ed. note: Drawing a blank on this word. ΞU] with the Web with MACROMEDIA FLASH. Those episodes like Alejo and Valentin have made a great change in the Argentine entertainment. You can view those episodes at the webpage www.locoarts.com.ar. disfrutelo! → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though I can't speak spanish, it looks like advertising and I'm more than willing to trust whoever VFD's this in the first place. Besides, "loco" is slang for "crazy", so it's "crazy art". Sounds like advertising to me. -Jetman123 03:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since it has made it to TV and may have some notability I change my vote. - murder1 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delet it, it's an Argentinian TV serie. I've more or less translated it and, as far as I have understood, the article was not advertising, though maybe it WAS a substub. Please someone correct it since English is not my mother language. Muriel R 14:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - this article has been only listed on WP:PNT on 3 Dec 2005. I believe it's against wikipedia rules, to vote it into deletion just because it's "too short" or wrong language: we want to give it a chance and the current procedure is to allow 2 full weeks for translation. After it's been partially translated and worked upon, it no longer quite fits the description of the nominator, I don't think. Perhaps other voters would reconsider their votes based on new information? - Introvert talk 04:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; it's been translated to English now. It's apparenly an Argentinian Web site which has turned into a series of cartoons that have aired on TV, so it may have some notability. *Dan T.* 05:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, they made it onto MTV. Kappa 02:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luna Samerus

"Luna Samerus" turns up 0 matches on Google, would appear to me to be made up. ∫eb²+1[talk] 16:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems unverifiable. The town has the dubious distinction of being the site of Britain's last recorded execution for witchcraft. And Madonna was married there! Dlyons493 Talk 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can provide more legit sources. I got 2 hits: [45]. Both go to a goth message board. PJM 16:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources can be provided that this person is notable. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a source is provided. *Dan T.* 05:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M.U.F.F

Fails WP:MUSIC based on the article, I can't find it through google. It said the article was about a school band in an earlier revision, but another editor removed that. Maybe they graduated today. - Bobet 17:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Expanding this discussion to also include the band members: Matt Nicol, Giles Poulter, Jonny Crowe, James "Salty B" Boulton, James Robertson (pianist), James Harper, and Ed Allen. --Allen3 talk 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I put the {{nn-bio}} tag on all of the band members, since even if this band was real, there was no claim of notability beyond that in any of them. - Bobet 17:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, unless evidence is presented that they satisfy the criteria of WP:MUSIC. JeremyA 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. A search of Google find loads of stuff named MUFF but no indication that there is a band among then. --Allen3 talk 18:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete. This band may not be able to claim notability yet but are on the verge of signing their first contract with MMD Records (coincidentally their first contract too) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.159.32 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete without prejudice; if they become notable in the future it can be recreated. *Dan T.* 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete It has been made clear that this band are notable for their contribution to the foundation of a revolutionary new genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.159.32 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment: From the article, it seems that the band's new 'genre' consists of performing without drums, which has been done for thousands of years. - Bobet 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Bill shannon 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 11:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marv Weisbord

Wikipedia is not for original research or personal essays; this is nothing but! Harro5 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Somewhat insignificant. The writing borders on incoherent. Unsalvageable. Hu 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Patent nosense, no context. Impossible for anyone unfamiliar with subject (whatever it is) to understand. --Worthawholebean 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to Cleanup. Wow, this is really really far from patent nonsense. A quick Google shows that Marv Wiesberg has published several books and appears to referenced in the field. Granted, the article is not about Marv Wiesberg. However, a shorter clearer version of the Wiesberg Model might reasonably be included in a bio of Wiesberg. Also, IMO this is clearly not original research, it is a synopsis of an existing methodology that appears to have at least some notability in the Org Dev field. It reads a little like an essay because it's a bad article, but it's not. It being NOT original research, I challenge to prove lack of notability for Wiesberg (which he may not be, I don't know.) Otherwise, keep and cleanup. Herostratus 07:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This article scarcel mentions Marv Weisbord who has written a couple of books on management theory see [46]. At the bottom of the article, it states: Written by Tanim Chowdhury, California State University, Northridge. I haven't been able to track this down so the chances are that it is more likely that Tanim Chowdbury is the author. I will vote Delete for this article and request that Marv Weisbord be added to the list of requested articles. I would vote Keep for a decent stub or better of Weisbord. Capitalistroadster 08:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. Peyna 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. It's a painful personal essay. Ifnord 14:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research or class study notes. It's an entry on the Weisbord model by a student, so it's most likely that we're being used as a jumbo legal pad by college students (several times I've seen something like this). Geogre 20:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Replace this essay with a bio and a link to the essay--Ewok Slayer --(U | T | C) 08:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • An article about that person might be valid if it can demonstrate notability. However, what's there now is an essay that's only tangentially related. Delete. —preceding unsigned comment by Dtobias (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dtobias. Stifle 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename Weisbord model, which is what this article is all about. I have no question that Marvin Weisbord deserves an article but there is nothing about him in this article expect the title. If someone wants to write an article on him, let them get the credit for creating the article, not the person who mislabeled this article on the Weisbord model. -- DS1953 00:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as BJAODN stuff. Mo0[talk] 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maude, I Swear I Shall Fucking Kill That Flea-bitten Cur!

I believe this is a hoax. Joyous | Talk 21:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - this is part of a series of articles/edits by the same author ... including adding this to Kafka's wiki article. Sounds like a hoax, no evidence that any of it is true. ERcheck 21:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I must admit I found the German translation (That Darn Kat!) rather funny. CanadianCaesar 22:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete The Kafka site knows nothing about it [47] Dlyons493 Talk 22:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been speedy deleted. - DavidWBrooks 01:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mavra Matia

Can find no external sources for this, single author removed unsourced tags pgk(talk) 13:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. See also Andy Petridis and Andy Anesti Petridis, two duplicate articles which are the only ones linking to this. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Mavra" is Greek for "black"; "Matia" i dunno. To me the failure to translate suggests, as does the ambiguous "NOC", an inside joke, with the emphasis perhaps on "joke", which is consistent with the bad faith of removing tags. Descending into hunches, my suspicions are heightened by
_ _ the strong degree of rhyming with Harry Potter's "Avra Kedavra" spell;
_ _ Kedavra/cadaver paralleling matia/"-mate" in checkmate (which derives from "shah-maht" meaning "the king is dead"), and
_ _ the somewhat similar Romance-language root "mort-" ("Morte d'Arthur", "mortal", "mortician", "mortified", "mortgage") meaning death and perhaps a cognate with -mate if not matia.
FWIW.
--Jerzy•t 16:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more information can be provided to make it verifiable. *Dan T.* 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media news

Pointless definition of a wide term. Not even usuable in the Wiktionary. --Kiand 16:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete although a more appropriate article title would be something like Media media (media focused on media) which would be in line with News media (media focused on news) and Mass media (media intended for a wide audience). Peyna 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could see several ways this could be made useful, but all of them would be nothing but a honeytrap for linkspam. Better to let the page die. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, longish dicdef. - Mgm|(talk) 23:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; not much point. *Dan T.* 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry media

Non-notable media news website, being link-spammed across the entire Wikipedia. No Alexa ranking. No sites link to it on Google. Page Rank is 2/10. --Kiand 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=merry+media&meta= try following that link. I don't own the site but it is clear that where the link has been placed is relevant to the site. Why do you disagree with that? If you consider links to be spam then you must look acorss the thousands of articles for thousands of spam links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
Ahem: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22merry+media%22&btnG=Search&meta= would be more accurate. And it finds 308 hits, in total. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiand (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB; close to being CSD db-empty; probable spam entry from User:Merrymedia who claims not own the site but is sufficient a fan to choose its name for his/her username. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising spam. Humansdorpie 16:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete the article if you wish as I said it isnt my website but then same sites as merry media are digital spy and they have listings on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
Digital Spy, with an Alexa rank of 3,079, is many orders of magnitude more notable --Kiand 16:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kiand. I don't think a rewrite could save this either. Peyna 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I already said I would delete the links, but why delete the article? Notable isn't an issue, it is still a thing in existance. delete if you wish no doubt one day someone else will make the ariticle again or will you delete that from them as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC).

Notability IS an issue, read WP:WEB. This site meets none of the requirements. --Kiand 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that exist that don't belong in an encyclopedia. See Third desk from the left in the second row from the back of Room 302, Bogstandard Junior School, Hamlet, Somerset. Peyna 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Merry media, You could check what color tie George W. Bush wore on the first day of the most recent G8 convention. It would be true, existing and verifiable, but nevertheless unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Reading WP:WEB as suggested is indeed a good place to start. - Mgm|(talk) 23:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert spam, and nn. Strengthened due to link-spamming wikiwide, highlighting spamming intentions. Ian13 21:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence this site has a significant amount of visitors. Counted 5 links to the same domain before removing them, which may be reason to call this link spam. - Mgm|(talk) 23:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Will I delete it for you? Save you the bother? I'll hunt through wiki and find other articles that are of no interest or 'notable' and put them up for eviction as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Go ahead, you'd be saving us a lot of time finding them ourselves. --Kiand 02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly Kiand, you are looking for problems rather than letting them find you.

  • Delete; doesn't seem to be a particularly notable site. (And if they're nonprofit, shouldn't they use a .org.uk address instead of .co.uk?) *Dan T.* 06:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Conspiracy

Speculation and silliness: "if Microsoft created robots with Trusted Computing built in, it would have a potential army."

  • Delete. Gazpacho 12:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - silly. ...dave souza 20:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball, and this is just plain speculation Ian13 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that whether this is plausible or sensible is irrelevant: as a conspiracy theory, the question Wikipedia needs to ask is not "is this true", but "is this verifiable as a theory", i.e. "do lots of people believe this". In the absence of any evidence that anyone actually believes that Bill Gates' secret plan is to take over the world with an army of Palladium-enabled cyborgs, we should of course delete this - but for the right reasons, please! — Haeleth Talk 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Smear piece on Microsoft hypothesizes (Crystal Ball) and does not belong. Jtmichcock 02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; there are already other articles for mentioning criticisms of Microsoft. *Dan T.* 17:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midwestern emo

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "You may think that this article is bullshit..." - I do. PJM 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay. Punkmorten 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, without delay if at all possible doktorb 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I tagged it for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 21:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted - patent nonsense. -- ChrisO 22:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy delete under CSD G4 by Zoe. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

[edit] Mike lorek fan club

Non-notable organization devoted to a non-notable person. Delete. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Keep Do you have any valid arguments to back that up?Ognit Ice 04:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Instead, why don't you prove to me why this "Mike Lorek" is notable? --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
      • Never claimed he was notable, its the organization that is notable. This organization has been recognized in the community countless times and contributes to local charities. This is an organization that brings the community together by hosting car shows and local wrestling events. They are a positive influence in the community, and have been for the past six years. Whats not notable about that?Ognit Ice 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • So it's notable in it's community. How is it notable in the world at large? --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
          • Doesn't have to be a worldwide organization, even though it is expanding. Theres countless businesses and groups on Wikipedia that don't have a global presence. The organization exists and is verifiable. There are no "organization inclusion guidelines" in Wikipedia that state an organization needs a global presence.Ognit Ice 05:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Presence doesn't really matter; it's whether or not an organization is notable outside its presence that counts. Nobody outside of the vicinity of Johnstown, PA would know or care about the Mike Lorek Fan Club; ergo, it is not notable. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
              • Well considering i'm from Pittsburgh, I have to disagree with you. Thats a bold statement to make about an organization you obviously know nothing about. If other communities had groups like the Mike Lorek Fan Club the world would be a much better place. Other people wanting to start an organization to benefit there community could follow the blue print set up by this organization. No where does it state that the organization has to be known in France to be worthy of Wikipedia.Ognit Ice 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
                • You're gonna have to do a lot better than that to convince me. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete, nn, silly. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Hey, guess what I found. Previously deleted page means that this can now be speedied under CSD G4. I'm gonna add the tag now. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
Thanks, Aurochs, I had thought I'd seen this before in the Recent Changes page. Now speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. As the original nominator, I am now satisfied that the page is not meant to be a backhanded attack page. And the article seems to be about someone reasonably notable. I therefore withdraw my nomination, thus allowing this AfD nomination to meet the speedy keep critera. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Shaver

This page smells like one of the many backhanded attack pages we've been seeing here of late. I could be wrong, however, which is why I'm sending it to AfD instead of slapping a speedy tag on it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, nn-bio. Okay, it appears that this guy is, in fact, notable. Keep. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Keep. Shaver appears to be notable as one of the founders of Mozilla and with 99,000+ Google hits. How many of those hits are to this individual, I don’t know, but the first few pages of hits apply to him. However, the article needs to be wikified a little. Get rid of the “tongue-in-cheek” long picture caption. ◎DanMS 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. 26,600 hits for “Mike Shaver” Mozilla. ◎DanMS 06:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. --Merovingian 07:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep minor notability so long as it doesn't violate WP:NPOV--MONGO 10:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Um, hi! I'm writing it, with Mike's permission. It's not an attack page. It's a biography, and it's written in his style, which is to say, tongue-in-cheekish. I'm making sure it chock full of fact-y goodness, though. Also, I appreciate the fact that you were trying to protect him. Beltzner
I suggest you check out the style guidelines before proceeding. Tongue-in-cheek style is unacceptable here. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
Will do.Beltzner
OK, first pass at the content is there. Decide as you will, I guess. Beltzner
Looks great now! -- Saikiri~ 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
So how do we get the deletion notice removed? I'm somewhat new to this process ... Beltzner 07:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The nominator has to give a "speedy keep" vote, or it must be proven (or obvious) that the nomination was made in bad faith. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
Well if one follows the link to Shaver's blog, one would find plenty of references to a Beltzner, which definitely contradicts the grounds for the deletion nomination, i.e. it's an attack.
See Wikipedia:Speedy keep for speedy keep criteria. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


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

The result of the debate was keep. DS 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Dwek

This nomination has more to do with verifiability than with notability. If the contents of the article are true, then the subject is (IMHO) notable and worthy of inclusion. The problem is: I can't verify the contents of the article. Googling on "Moshe Dwek" returns only four hits, none related to the article's topic. Googling on the alternate spelling of "Moshe Douek" returns only two hits, neither related to the article's topic. The news link provided within the article directs to a webpage that is written in Hebrew, and to a newscast that is spoken in Hebrew. The Geocities link simply has a picture with some Hebrew script. And the Jewish Virtual Library link mentions the hand-grenade incident, but doesn't name the perpetrator of the incident. I'm hoping that someone with greater google-fu than I — perhaps one of our brethren or sistren interested in Israeli history and politics — might shed further light on this subject. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Have you tried posting a note on the Hebrew Wikipedia, or asking a English Wikipedian who speaks Hebrew for clarification? - Mgm|(talk) 20:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. The incident probably happened, but there is no support that Dwek was the perpetrator, and the walla.co.il page is not about Dwek - it just blogs all the minuscule parties from Israel's turbulent political history. One chap (whose email address is listed) asks what happened to Dwek (דואק) and his party Tarshish (תרשיש), which means Tyre or Tarsus. I find it hard to believe there is no record available of a convicted felon starting a political party. This could still be a hoax. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Adequate support presented. JFW | T@lk 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - IM NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS SYSTEM. I AM THE ONE WHO PUT UP THIS ARTICLE. I AM DOING RESEARCH ON THIS TOPIC .MOST OF THE INFORMATION HERE I TRANSLATED FROM THE HEBREW WIKIPEDIA. HERE IS THE LINK http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%93%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A7 you many email me at sammyusa123@yahoo.com. Note: I speak Hebrew, English and Yiddish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hebrewpride (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 December 2005.
    • Please stop writing in all-caps, sir/madam. Thank you in advance. El_C 23:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The page on HE is in no way supportive of the present allegations. It contains no sources, and Special:Whatlinkshere only lists the Shapiro article (the politician wounded in the 1957 bombing). JFW | T@lk 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

From an authoritative source:

1957 רק לאחר שמשה דואק, המעורער בנפשו, השליך רימון לעבר שולחן הממשלה ב-29 באוקטובר

[48] El_C 23:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is another authoritative source which mentions dwek by name and confirms everyting I have written.

This is from Israel's daily MAARIV http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/401/237.html

Here is another source. I found this on an Israeli forum where someone offered the archives of DWEK'S party TRASHISH for sale . The aforementioned seller also leaves his 2 telephone numbers. I would love to know if he still has them or not. Heres the link http://www.findabook.co.il/main/forums/all.asp?Fnumber=18&page=13 He's the subject of my research (I left that comment on the walla site) and i find it amazing that theres very little info on this man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hebrewpride (talk • contribs) 01:06, December 4, 2005 (UTC).

  • Keep After looking up the Hebrew word for hand grenade (somehow I missed that one all these years), I read the story above, and yes, it does in fact verify that Dwek threw the grenade, started his own party Tarshish, and somehow got 700 votes. (I also found a few other places which confirmed these facts, all of them thogh in Hebrew). I've been trying to find an English language site which mentioned Dwek's name for hours and come up with nothing. Also the Hebrew wikipedia site does mention Dwek and the grenade on his page as well as on the page of one of the ministers who was injured in the attack. I'm really sorry I can't seem to find an English page that confirms this, but it appears that only the Israeli media ever bothered to mention the man by name. --Bachrach44 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination ∾ In light of the comments from El C, Bachrach44, and the original author of the article, I withdraw my nomination. I suspect this article is about as verified as it's going to get in English. If JFW feels up to withdrawing his conditional delete, someone can speedy keep this article. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP (withdrawn by nominator). Harro5 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim jurists

Problem: Not necessary, could lead to tension. I dunno, help me out? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • keep So, will you also vfd List of Jewish jurists, since it can "lead to tension"? --Striver 02:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, thanks for the sarcasm. I was just concerned about it, I did not think it was necessary, and I found that it would lead to tension because it gives (in my opinion) an unnecessary division on the terms of religion. Wouldn't it be better to have a list like Zambian jurists? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Striver. --YixilTesiphon 02:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep important topic. Smmurphy 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well damn, I did know....after all, I was asking for help in the top nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it wan't a very constructive vote, I'm trying to figure out what to add to the article, so it was goot that it was posted.Smmurphy 03:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to forfeit this nomination, my mistakeεγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Would be a regular keep except for shortage of content. Religious Muslim law does exist and have force in some countries. Durova 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Nothing wrong in principle with the article, but as it stands it is not encyclopediac since it doesn't add anything that is not decipherable from the title alone. Hu 03:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: An editor after my vote has significantly improved the article. Hu 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • *bow* Smmurphy 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Abela

World Famous Guitarist that Google failed to notice User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. Rampart 01:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Userfy like his pal Daniel Johnson. rodii 02:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Was created by anon, so userfication is not appropriate. The user who made additions seems to be someone totally different. - Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
True, I was assuming it was a self-created page. So I guess I mean that he could redo it in userspace if he wants. Sorry for being unclear. rodii 18:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, right a world-famous guitarist at 17. NN, POV, vanity Olorin28 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Worthawholebean 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with apologies to Kate Helga "hot and horny" Smidtke. Ashibaka (tock) 05:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete given no verification of its claims. *Dan T.* 06:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to List of ethnic slurs, and protected. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nigger-lover

Delete because, although this is a common phrase, I don't think it is worthy of its own article, as it is already listed in List of ethnic slurs. JHMM13 07:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 07:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect it to List of ethnic slurs then, as much as I despise the term. 69.236.192.161 07:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Completely unnecessary as its own article. Racists will want to use this to link to, or worse. Hu 07:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I wouldn't even take the time to offer it to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I respect your opinions, I think we should remember that it is a very common colloquial term among many English-speakers, even if it embodies a belief that you don't necessarily endorse. I despise the term, but we should delete it as per the guidelines and not our personal beliefs. Just a comment. Thanks for the response. JHMM13 07:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Not in at least forty years. Redirect. Durova 16:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs, then protect to prevent recreation. -Colin Kimbrell 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect. Gazpacho 09:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs - way too hot to allow it to stay. I know that Wikipedia is considered to be not G rated, but in my opinion it should be G rated, and hence articles like this shouldn't stay. As a lot of people said, it'd just become fuel for racist attacks and create hostility. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs as above, and Protect to avoid future vandalism. Firebug 16:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Protected redirect per Colin Kimbrell. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. - Mgm|(talk) 20:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --Bachrach44 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems somebody has already redirected it... so leave it as a redirect now. *Dan T.* 06:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect. Stifle 13:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990

This was speedily deleted, but Deletion Review concluded that it should not have been and sent it here instead. -Splashtalk 19:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm...not entirely sure about this one. Check this Amazon page out. It seems to me the only reason it didn't garner more notoriety on Amazon was that it came out some 6 years before Amazon itself became notable. For now, I vote a weak keep with a cleanup until someone can slap my logic about the head. JHMM13 19:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a sufficiently notable biography. Take any relevant info and put it in Stephen Ambrose. David | Talk 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with this since it seems more sensible to merge with the author's article. Delete JHMM13 19:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly, this article is certainly worthy of deletion under A1. Merge with our Stephen Ambrose article until such time as a real article can be written about this book which in my view would warrant a legitimate article. This isn't it. Capitalistroadster 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expanded into a full stub. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; seems to be a reasonably notable book. *Dan T.* 06:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would feel better about this if the other 2 books were also given articles/stubs. Bill shannon 02:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, book by notable author. Kappa 02:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Name Killers

This is a non-notable group of video game players. According to the page: “It currently consists of two rosters and more than two dozen players.” •DanMS 02:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Everyone knows the brains in the outfit is really PapaZit.
  • Delete. An organization of two dozen high-energy-particle physicists, yes; two dozen vidgame slackers, no. "NNK Official History" is cut-and-paste copyvio. Herostratus 04:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Worthawholebean 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Demiurge 10:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Can you say vanity: NNK was established by our fearless leader Grudge. --Bachrach44 03:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; just because a group of friends get together and play games doesn't make them notable. *Dan T.* 06:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are all showing your intense bias by choosing to decide that NNK is 'vidgame (sic) slackers'. The cut and paste, by the way, is from their official website.

I'd speculate that online affiliations of reasonable reknown should be afforded the same status as obscure roads in Massachusetts and Tiffany discographies. But perhaps that's my inner slacker speaking out of place.


I nominate Herostartus, Demiurge, Bachrach44 for deletion.

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NoMaSoNHa

This is promotion/advertising for minor locally distributed zine, for which I found only 130 Google hits. Additionally, a large part of the article covers guidelines for writing articles for the zine and how to buy advertisements in the zine. This not encyclopedic material. •DanMS 02:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but chop it: Keep this but delete everything except the first paragraph, the bio, and one external link. Everything else is unencyclopediac and subject to change, especially things like advertising rates. Hu 03:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've got no idea how notable this zine is, but I agree with Hu, that there's a lot of cutting to do. - Mgm|(talk) 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I started out to do exactly what Hu suggests when I first came across this article. But then I wondered if it was worth keeping at all, so I put it up for AFD. I am not opposed to keeping the first paragraph if the community deems it worthwhile. ◎DanMS 20:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable shameless advertising. Olorin28 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn magazine, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn, advertising. B.Wind 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Ifnord 14:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: the magazine is one of hundreds of locals serving the local scene. Life as we know it depends upon the continuance of these zine scenes, but none of them are encyclopedic. In fact, they should be underground works, and both they and we are better off without advertising. Geogre 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; I don't mind the various local entertainment magazines being listed here; however, the article should be heavily trimmed down. We don't need ad rates and detailed submission style guidelines. *Dan T.* 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NRG (band)

Band vanity. Reads as an advertisment. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - a non-notable band, the need for a speedy-music-delete criteria is great. doktorb 19:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bandcruft. We definitely needs a {{db-bandcruft}} or {{nn-band}} CSD tag. Some guy 19:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I would hire them for a backyard bash, but they're NN per WP:MUSIC Chris the speller 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; notability not shown. *Dan T.*
  • Delete with extreme prejudice - this is a commercial for a band. might as well be on a flyer on a lamp post. Bill shannon 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete; a merge would be impractical anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 10:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numack

This is a short article about a robot-building project by students at Northwestern University. Not particularly noteworthy. DanMS 18:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, since it just doesn't seem notable. I get 6 google hits for Numack+robot, which I believe would be a good indicator of it's notability. If anyone has heard of Numack, that person will probably know more about the project than this article can tell them. And if they haven't, they're missing on a trivia bit about an obscure school project. - Bobet 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Northwestern University, since it seems to be mainly of interest within this institution. *Dan T.* 16:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't currently appear to be notable. In a few years if the project advances and is hailed as a major breakthrough then maybe, but for now it just doesn't appear to be getting that much attention. --Bachrach44 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obscurami

del way too obscurami. Sorry dude, but the provided external links look highly dubious to me, and I don't see better ones. mikka (t) 10:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for being way too obscurami, I mean way too obscure. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, go ahead delete it - but I do know that this term has been used in the same context it has been addressed in the article. It has been the topic for debate across conspiracy forums. In any case I can't argue your statement, I was actually expecting this day to come, seeing as I don't have enough online evidence to submit it's notability just yet. However please bear in mind that there are many more articles within the "conspiracy theory" and "secret society" categories that have no links or even elements to source it, not to mention hardly anything written about them. An example of this could be found at Illuminus, just to name one. But there are many more that have averted deletion and have very little in terms of information or source material. Piecraft 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete gibberish per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for the pure reason that I am fed up with people like the above poster who continuously vote on articles, especially by making such remarks as calling it gibberish when they have no previous knowledge surrounding the occult, the conspiracy theory world or even secret societies. This is in fact a confirmed name in the world of secret societies, and if this article goes then you should look at the other articles relating to other less notable and unverified secret scoieties here Secret societies. Piecraft 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi there. I am very interested in the occult, conspiracy theories and secret societies and the like. Indeed they are some of my favourite interests. I would be very interested in learning more about them. I only voted delete because of Wikipedia guidelines. Personally, I'd be very happy for this to be kept. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, I understand all the above (and below) statements regarding the lack of verification for such a term related tot he existence of this "purported" secret society - however I feel insulted (and this was the purpose for my reason of keeping the article) that some people would simply write the article off as gibberish or ""fabrication" when I have attempted to put into words all that I do know or have read and been told of this secret alliance. I do realise that this article is probably not entirely in keeping with the Wikipedia guidelines, and this is why my initial comment was to delete if everyone thought it was truly not worthy. But again I digress, that there are many more articles related to conspiracy and secret societies with less information and sources than this one. This is what I tried pointing out with my first comment. In any case I will attempt to continue my search on finding further information and possibly sources that will help verify this article, but do remember that this is if anything a secret society - and as far as I know most secret societies like to be kept secret otherwise they defy their purpose. The only reason we know of Freemasonry and the supposed Illuminati (which is still debatable and highly conceptual in my opinion) is because millions of people have discussed them in relation to common problems and events in today's world. If you want to find out more about this article or continue any discussion relating to these areas please don't hesitate to contribute to my talk page. In nay case thanks for your interest Zordrac. I will be saving this aticle on my talk page so as my entire work will not have been in vain. Piecraft 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You correctly understood that the main issue here is wikipedia:Verifiability. "Gibberish" and "fabrication" don't refer to you. There is no reason not to believe that you honestly collected bits and pieces of what you've heard about this. But this does not preclude the fact that you wqere collecting gibberish. In wikipedia, only reputable works are legitimate source of verification. The only reason we have an article about Freemasonry is precisely because millions of people spoke of them and then reputable and trained historians wrote about them. By definition, wikipedia authors are not considered "reputable". Please make your article printed in, e.g., Boston Globe, wait for a discussion and then we'll see. mikka (t) 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; has only 34 search results from Google, and some are here on Wikipedia, and others are in non-English-language sites. Maybe it is indeed in wide use within secret societies as alleged, but their very secrecy prevents the verifiability that is a requirement of Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dan T. Stifle 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OUW

This article appears to be spamming for a 1up.com web forum. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete linkspam, non-notable. -- Saikiri~ 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as promotional and non-notable. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Note that the discussion was blanked by user:66.191.214.120, who will be blocked for 24 hours for the vandalism. Geogre 03:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's not all that clear what it is, but it doesn't look notable. *Dan T.* 06:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ∾ Page was once again blanked by 66.191.214.120 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. looks like spam, non notable.--Dakota t e 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PlusOS

A page about a hobby operating system that doesn't actually exist yet. Delete AlistairMcMillan 19:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with speed. Crystal ball silliness and non-notable to boot! doktorb 19:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per one of these suckers right here: WP ain't no dang old clear round thing.
  • Delete per above. --Worthawholebean TalkContribs 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; unreleased OSes are generally non-notable unless they're being developed by a major company or organization that's already notable. *Dan T.* 06:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was flush the article, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PoopReport.com

Vanity article, Alexa rank of 91,509. Lunar Jesters 21:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this is deleted, make sure those "shameful shitting" and other red links have not been created, because they'll need to come here as well. ESkog | Talk 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this shit. Firebug 21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. ERcheck 21:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Doody-lete! (Flush!) *Dan T.* 05:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this should take the ride down the water slide (woosh!) B.Wind 08:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as recreation of previously deleted content.

Capitalistroadster 04:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pottercast

This article was previously deleted under the name PotterCast (record is here). Per CSD G4, this should be a Speedy because it is previously deleted material. Same reasons as first deletion, not notable. Jtmichcock 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete G4. -- Saikiri~ 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Speedy? Whoa. I'm not qualified to vote on this, but I do see a lot of Google hits, and according to The Leaky Cauldron (website) "[Pottercast] reached number one on the iTunes Music Store in its first few days online, and has been in the top 100 since." Is that significant (and true)? If so, does it indicate notability? On the other hand, Mugglecast occurs one a week; the next Pottercast is scheduled for Summer 2006. Herostratus 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I am aware, PotterCast has never hit #1 on iTunes, Mugglecast holds that distinction (and MuggleCast is a featured podcast on iTunes). Nonetheless, the article "PotterCast" (note capital C) was nominated and deleted last week after a vote and the only difference between the articles is the capital C. Jtmichcock 04:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsoomair

Asserted enough notability to survive CSD, I think, but is nothing full of biased flattery. Delete. --Nlu 07:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. What's his publication record? I daresay the school he works for isn't all too notable itself in the B-School community. I could be wrong, would anyone like to prove me so? JHMM13 07:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I don't know about the "Business School" community (which is what I assume you meant), but Wilfrid Laurier University is generally fairly well-known as a Canadian university. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Step 1: google check gives us 181 hits. Step 2: Is he real? yes. Step 3: Is he who the article claims he is? yes. Step 4: Are there any claims of notoriety worthy of mention? From the article: "Franklin has been recognized with three teaching awards selected by students - the SBE Outstanding Teacher Award in 1997 and 2005, and WLUSU Award for Teaching Excellence in 2002 - and the Royal Bank Teaching Award in 1994." 3 awards. Are these awards notable awards? yes Step 5: Does this meet the criteria for deletion? In this case it is not clear cut, and this debate should be a discussion as to whether his established claims of notoriety are sufficiently notable to warrant encyclopaedic value. This will be up to an individual to decide. In my opinion, being 4 times awarded as the most outstanding teacher, in a period of 12 years, is a notable achievement. I have some knowledge of just how difficult it is to get such awards. Ergo, I encourage voters to vote for a keep. This is my detailed researched reasoning behind my decision. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Step 1. Google gives 181 hits. Step 2. Notability relying on three tin stars selected by students seems weak to me. The article is also ghastly hagiography, and if you cut the comparisons to Socrates et al, there wouldn't be much left. --Squiddy 10:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I did spend a while checking this one, to save everyone else time. sighs. I thought it'd help to get more votes for the debate. Took me about 30-40 minutes to do all that checking. I am tired now. :( Just trying to make things as fair as possible. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I wasn't getting at you, and I did follow your links (that's where I found the line in bold in my vote). Apologies if I caused offense, I appreciate that you've taken the time to provide info. I still don't think the guy meets the BIO criteria, though . --Squiddy 12:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How exactly would awards voted for by students make him less notable? IMO students are the only ones qualified enough to judge their teachers. - Mgm|(talk) 20:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The 'SBE Outstanding Teacher Award'[49] and 'WLUSU Award for Teaching Excellence'[50] appear to be internal to the college. Fair enough, students are best placed to judge (I agree), but they aren't national awards or anything. If he had been awarded some kind of first place in competition with all the college and university teachers in Canada, that might count as notable. All this means is that his students like him. --Squiddy 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I agree with Squiddy's concerns about the evidence Zordrac has done, but thank you for giving us as much information as possible to make an informed decision. As an aside, if this is kept (or recreated), it should be placed at the person's proper full name. ESkog | Talk 21:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- Thanks, Zordrac, for providing all that info. Unfortunately, the info just seems to prove my original suspicions that this dude is just not notable. Reyk 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete; he seems almost notable... If it's kept, it needs massive cleanup. *Dan T.* 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ratchet (Robots)

I've been waffling about this article for a good 10 minutes now, and even went so far as to slap a cleanup tag on it initially. But ultimately, the contents of this article are already covered at Robots (movie). This article brings very little new to the table that isn't already covered in the parent article. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to Robots (film). The film page could withstand some expansion, and this is one of the main characters in the film. — RJH 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Robots (film). *Dan T.* 06:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RepublicanCrap.com

An apparently non-notable online store (with no Alexa rank). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Even my barely-visited website has a 100,000 or so. JHMM13 19:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Kind of interesting site, but hasn't yet achieved notability, I don't think. Delete. *Dan T.* 06:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. Stifle 19:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Chandler (American author)

Only claim to fame is a book that he is "releasing...in the summer of 2006". -Rholton 15:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. abebooks.com returns one possible hit; amazon.com returns 3 possible hits. Google search for "richard chandler" boston author returns 174 results; none looks relevant. Humansdorpie 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, plus WP:NOT a crystal ball, and the only book listed is set to be released next year. - Bobet 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 20:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless and until the upcoming book actually comes out and is notable. *Dan T.* 06:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sahfor

NN website - EurekaLott 18:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable (no Alexa ranking)Deyyaz 21:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, and has spamvertising written all over it. Chris the speller 23:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Vital article for Wikipedia - Alexa rating is listed as Alexa ranking
  • Delete non-notable web directory. *Dan T.* 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sdc.com

Purely an advertisement for their website. Should be deleted. --QEDquid 14:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's an advertisement. Alexa rank says 8,617 so it seems like a notable website, and I'd vote to keep in case someone wants to rewrite it. - Bobet 16:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite, since above comment shows it's a notable website; it just needs to be rewritten so it's a description rather than an ad. *Dan T.* 04:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 19:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'secularized' countries,

Original (or, more likely, "copyvio-ed") essay under a nonsense title. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete' tried to fathom out the content but fairly clear copy-vio. doktorb 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - couldn't understand anything, though not sure about copyvio. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 19:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay. Punkmorten 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an essay and not encyclopedic in content. Not to mention pretty hard to read/understand. Bryanmckay 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ... obviously - DavidWBrooks 01:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; WP:NOT a collection of essays. This one is pretty inscrutable, anyway. *Dan T.* 04:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete some odd, non-encyclopedic, obtuse essay with no place in wikipedia.
  • Delete, NOR. Stifle 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Most likely computer generated. Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Thephotoman 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as A 5 (was already deleted 3 times before) - Besides this dicdef is already in Wiktionary JoJan 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shart and Manpon

Neologism, used in one movie and then, as far as I know, never used again. Should probably also delete Manpon if this is deleted. -Locke Cole 12:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -Locke Cole 12:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and the redirect at Manpon for being an unexpandable dicdef. - Mgm|(talk) 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdefs (and probably neologisms). *Dan T.* 04:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS REALLY FUNNY AND TRUE!!!!!!!!!DON'T DELETE —preceding unsigned comment by 68.221.116.195 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Delete, doesn't deserve a transwiki yet. Speedy delete as repost. Stifle 19:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaytonian Chronicles, Tamal's Journeys, Destiny Sets, Shayton, Talkar Mara

Fantasy series, apparently self-published (see author's website [51]), fails WP:FICT. 25 Google hits [52], most hits are from the author's website or link pages on other sites. Delete as vanity, self-promotion. Saikiri~ 06:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - although I had a look at the author's page and it says that she won the Nanowrimo writing project twice - in 2004 and 2005. I have heard of this project, and I believe it is along the lines of writing a novel really quickly. However, as far as I can tell the winner is just someone who manages to write an entire 500 page novel in a month. If its more than that, and she actually managed to win something, then it might be a claim to notoriety. But from Nanowrimo it doesn't seem like it is enough. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • NaNoWriMo is where people get together once every November and try to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days. In my opinion it doesn't qualify as a claim to notoriety - the contest is not monitored (it is technically possible to "win" by just pasting your name in a Word doc 50,000 times and submitting it, and some people actually do game the system like this), and you do not "win" anything except the satisfaction and pride of having written a novel in a month. It is a great project and a ton of fun, but in my opinion a NaNo win is not enough to establish notability on its own. -- Saikiri~ 12:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't find any reference to their publisher. Google hits I tracked were all self-promotional, on free sites and not on reliable sources. NaNoWrimo is won by at least 2000 people a year now it's taken off, so that's no claim of notability. - Mgm|(talk) 20:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable. *Dan T.* 04:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot per nominator. Stifle 19:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by ChrisO, as advertising. Mo0[talk] 23:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shipwrecks of the river humber

advertisement

  • Delete - advertisement JoJan 20:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted - spamvertising. -- ChrisO 22:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was transwikied. Johnleemk | Talk 11:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slow networking

Probable neologism, and WP:NOT a dictionary; at best, redirect to Social network. --Alan Au 19:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Clean up and Move to Wiktionary. It looks more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. --Worthawholebean TalkContribs 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary unless more can be said about this than a mere dictionary entry. Some citations as to its widespread use would be useful as well. *Dan T.* 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slutbag

This is slang and is nothing more than a definition. If it is an acceptable enough term to move to Wiktionary, by all means vote for that. Croat Canuck 04:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as slang. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. B.Wind 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; unencyclopedic material, and biased against "baglike persons", i.e. Anthozoan-Americans. Smerdis of Tlön 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not for Wiktionary and definitely not for en.wiki--MONGO 10:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - personally I'd love to delete this atrocious word, but it is a real word, per 15,300 hits, so we have no choice but to keep it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Zordrac, we do have a choice. We can transwiki dictionary definitions no matter how real they are if no full encyclopedia article can be written about them. - Mgm|(talk) 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I just thought that I'd point out that we have an wikipaedia entry for slut, and hence I really see no reason to not have this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - while Google does confirm that this is a word in use, the article as written is about a quarter-step above nonsense. Also, I don't really see how it could be expanded beyond a dicdef, so even a well-done article on the word would belong at wiktionary, not here. ESkog | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Create protected Redirect to Slut. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary if they want it and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as WP:NOT UrbanDictionary. FCYTravis 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Barely even a dictionary def. --Bachrach44 04:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I laughed at "baglike persons", though. NatusRoma 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't really have much encyclopedic purpose as it now stands. *Dan T.* 03:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: From what people are saying, if I *really* was passionate about this being kept, I'd just have to rewrite the article. I could do that, but I really am not that interested. :) I just don't really understand the point of view that "right now" is all that matters. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Because deleting bad articles does not harm Wikipedia, because a better article could always been written later to take its place. Keeping bad articles does hurt Wikipedia, because someone might come across and wonder why Wikipedia allows such garbage. Peyna 07:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Legitimate. Leave it be, but the 1988 date needs explanation. User:RealBerserker 01:12am, 5 December 2005


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sociocultural perspective

This sub-stub has sat unexpanded for over a year and a half. The contents don't even rise to the level of a definition - they are more a self-evident restatement of the title. The article is an orphan, leading me to believe that this topic is probably unexpandable. The article has, however, been vandalized. (I discovered it while digging through the contribution history of a problem-user.) Unless solid evidence is presented that this article is expandable, I have to recommend deletion. Rossami (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete dictdef. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete it's also an orphan with no prospective step parents. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article name based on 37,900 hits on the exact name as written. It is clearly a well-used term. Stub it and expand. Simple. Flags are already there. Why not just expand a little rather than wasting our time with an AFD? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What would you expand it with? - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd be happy to vote keep on something expanded, but I can't do it, and dicdefs shouldn't stay for over a year just because they could be expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mgm. A note about Google about something like this... it would pick up every instance of someone writing "From a sociocultural perspective...". I think it's more analagous to searching Google for "black couch" or something like that. Number of Google hits is just one aspect of determining whether an article should stay. ESkog | Talk 21:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a rather vague concept. If somebody would expand it into something useful, I might reconsider. *Dan T.* 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Zordrac. Stifle 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: Collapse!

Online game on Nick.com. Utterly not notable. Yes, I certainly hate Spongecruft. Haven't you noticed? --Apostrophe 07:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Strong Keep - no way in hell I am going to vote delete on 11,500 google hits on the exact term (in inverted commas no less). Can't justify a deletion I am afraid. Its very notable, obviously. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment There aren't 11,500 Google hits, there are "approximately" 11,500 Google hits. In practice this translates to just 334 unique pages. And the vast majority of those, if you actually look at them, have no meaningful content - they're just nonsense like "Jennifer irvin winnie the pooh bassinet glory foods spongebob squarepants collapse route 5 elisabeth shoe". A lot of the rest seem to be mirrors of the game itself. Looks to me like someone is trying to exploit Spongebob popularity to boost their pagerank. — Haeleth Talk 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ESkog | Talk 13:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- Unencyclopedic, fancrufty crap. Reyk 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no actual evidence of any notability since Google's results are so ridiculously unreliable in this case (see my comment above). — Haeleth Talk 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep; it's an online game out there featuring a notable character... but the article can use massive rewriting. *Dan T.* 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the google hits demonstrate that this game has found itself an audience, otherwise webmasters wouldn't be using it to attract surfers to their sites. Kappa 02:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: Saves The Krusty Krab

Online game on Nick.com. Completely not notable. --Apostrophe 07:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Eventualism refers to how bad articles can turn into good ones "eventually". It is not about how we can allow articles for non-notable subjects. - Mgm|(talk) 20:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep; it's an online game out there featuring a notable character... but the article can use massive rewriting. *Dan T.* 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Association with notability does not make something notable. --Apostrophe 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per CSD A1 (small and no context). - Mgm|(talk) 14:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ssforce

Delete: Inconsequential, almost empty, vanity Hu 02:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Insignificant, not notable, and definately vanity. --Spring Rubber 02:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. db-empty, db-bio, vanity, unverified. Herostratus 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, small article with no content or very much context. - Mgm|(talk) 14:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steffdj

Non-notable. Google reveals few hits, none pertaining to a musical career, though does reveal a couple of message board and dating site hits. pgk(talk) 12:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity, NN. Olorin28 13:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lest dating site hits become the new criteria for inclusion. Paul 18:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete badly writen vanity Ian13 21:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; gives no good reason for notability, and as presently written is not NPOV. *Dan T.* 16:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sublimate (software)

Non-notable software which doesn't even state what it's for

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did not research notability, but it clearly states what it's for in the first sentence. It is not end-user software, it's a library for use in development of other software -Meegs 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It says it's an easy to use framework for ... (with ellipsis) which isn't much help for a non-specialist. That's an argument for cleanup rather than deletion, but I don't feel it's notable enough to warrant cleanup or expansion. Dlyons493 Talk 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it now stands, as there's nothing to indicate its reason for notability. If somebody revises it, I may be willing to modify my vote accordingly. *Dan T.* 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Please don't delete it, we are working on the documentation. Thanks.
  • Delete. doesn't meet WP:V -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Traditionalist Catholic; no content merged (yet) because I have no idea where the hell this should be merged, I'm not an expert on the subject, and Traditionalist Catholic is protected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate

Most of these terms are used on other pages in Wikipedia. Many of them are not included in the Traditional Catholic article anyway. I think this was created with good intentions but this is not deserving of a page of it's own. Dominick (TALK) 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC) }}

Please vote following the standard WP:AFD process. Dominick (TALK) 12:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To make this easier, I modify my vote to Delete and Merge into the correct article. Dominick (TALK) 22:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"This latter definition has been adopted in the relevant Wikipedia articles, including this one," says the article, thus taking sides on the controversial question of the definition of "traditionalist Catholic". Such a point-of-view article is inadmissible in Wikipedia, and should be eliminated.

In addition, the article says that "using the 'wrong' term can cause considerable irritation or offence." Thus, by its own admission, this article, which is mainly about the "wrong" or insulting terms, is almost bound to cause considerable irritation and offence, and should be eliminated.

Lima 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we read that as a Delete vote? Dominick (TALK) 19:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Yes. I don't think there is anything worth merging that is not already in the associated articles.Lima 19:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge any relevant info from here into applicable other articles, but it doesn't really deserve its own article. *Dan T.* 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything that should be kept into the articles they belong in. JG of Borg 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Dtobias and JGofBorg. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above or fork/transwiki to wiktionary as appropriate. Each term is, 1) Something that can be explained well enough in a sentence or two to be used in any article, with no dedicated article or definition needed (the merge/delete case), 2)the term for a concept so important it deserves its own article (fork), or 3)the term for a concept that just needs a definition, in which case the wiki-dictionary and not the wiki-encyclopedia is its home. Regardless, the concept of "terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate" doesn't strike me as something that an encyclopedia article can actually be written about, and I don't think anything much more than a redirect begins at a page whose title begins with "terminology". The Literate Engineer 04:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Aftermath

Completed unfinished Afd process. Originally nominated by User:RussellMcKenzie. This is a work by Stephen King. I vote for Keep. —Brim 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I'd consider this notable enough to keep. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 00:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Reyk 01:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep first work albeit unpublished by Stephen King makes it notable enough for mine. May be eligible for Speedy Keep.
  • Keep; it's a notable author even if the work is unpublished. *Dan T.* 04:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dream Stalker

Entry is unimportant stub without real informative or useful content. Insignificant except to fans of the show (and even then questionably so). Bryanmckay 06:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: On the Xiaolin Showdown page there is this tag, "important: This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate." Maybe that's what the author of the dream stalker was trying to do? WP:AGF Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Xiaolin Showdown page appears to have been significant trimmed since that tag was put up. Also, nominating an article for AfD and whether article stays or goes has little to do with Good Faith or not. AGF would have use put a friendly note on the talk page of the creator of this page informing him that it is up for AfD and why and welcome an explanation. Putting up a newly created page for AfD is rarely a violation of AGF. Peyna 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge; I'm not really in favor of separate pages for episodes unless there's a lot of significant stuff that can be said about it; there are other sites out there to serve as thorough episode guides to TV shows. *Dan T.* 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep See no reson to delete, every other xialon showdown episode is getting one. J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not exactly a good reason. If I go create a page for every member of my family, would that get to stay on those grounds? Peyna 18:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • No. That's vandalism/self-proclaiming yourself brilliant. But the page List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes has red links to all episodes. Most are made, so really either A:keep them all, B;Delete them all. I vote for A, but having articles on SOME episodes and not others is just silly. J.J.Sagnella 18:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, TV episode seen by a large audience. Kappa 02:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no sources cited, fails WP:V, even with sources, I fail to see how this is encyclopedic -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You must have missed the bit which says "It's an episode of Xiaolin Showdown." Kappa 02:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. No, I didn't miss that. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep" How complete does Wikipedia want to become? This page has a rather detailed account of one episode. The main page has a terse summary of each episode, and links to pages for details on each episode. If you want to delete this, because "It's just a TV show", then you'd have to delete ALL episode detail entries from all TV series information, including all star treks, all MASH, etc. Not that that's wrong, or a bad policy, but if that is to be the policy, then you should make that the policy. (I do not know what the procedure is for determining Wikipedia policy). As long as that is not the policy, I see no reason for this page to be deleted. In other words: If "No episode details" is the policy, then delete this page for not meeting the policy. If that's not the policy, keep this page.
    • This article is more suited for www.tv.com or similar site than Wikipedia because the detail is overwhelming. Trim and merge as Xiaolin Showdown is not as notable as Star Trek, M*A*S*H, or Twilight Zone and even they don't go into all the detail as presented in the article in question. B.Wind 08:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that when this article was put up for deletion it was a mere sentence long (maybe two) summary of the episode. Even as it stands, I would argue that this has little place in an encyclopedia. How many encyclopedias have you found with detailed descriptions of television programming. The show itself is probably deserving of an entry, but each episode does 'not' need individual entries. The same should go for any television show, with the exception of extraordinarily important or ground-breaking episodes, IMO. Bryanmckay 20:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fictional Southern Mauristemo Islands

The title of the article starts with "The Fictional..", which I think sort of sums it up. I at first thought these "Fictional" islands must be from the universe of some TV show or movie, but no mention is made or reference given to this effect. I'm at a loss. Zero Google results for "Mauristemo Islands" [54] is the nail in the coffin, for me.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominated for speedy delete as falsehood. Am I being too bold with that? --YixilTesiphon 03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was a hoax perpetrated by User:Influenceuh in edits to several articles concerning Oceania. There's even a map. When I challenged him he wrote "We aren't going to allow your pedestrian geographic expertise to obstruct our legitimate work. This is years of research come to life!" on my talk page. The "Fictional" was added by another editor--there was a little rename war going on there for a bit. (See also Mauristemo and Southern Mauristemo Islands, which now redirect to this article.) There are most definitely no such islands. rodii 03:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And Southern Mauristemo Islands (Fictional). Uncle G 04:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Enochlau 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The location on the purported map (Image:Mauristemo.gif) is where one will in actuality find the Federated States of Micronesia. Uncle G 04:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like speedy delete wins again. Use it more often, folks. --YixilTesiphon 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The forum site

Non-notable Forum. It has 1270 users [55] under the 5000 recommended by WP:WEB and its alexa rating is 391,686. Also, see this discussion on the forum about their article. Broken S 14:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

they assert that they have more than 5000 users (from forum). I can't verify that though (although I have no reason to doubt it). BTW to the forum members reading this. You can comment by clicking on the edit link at the top and typing a message in under mine. Please end your comment with ~~~~, to sign your message. Broken S 18:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am convinced by their stats list on their main page.

Forums: 3170 • Members: 5630

   22 online
   9 new today
   526 recent

• Topics: 24798 • Posts: 391109

   865 today
   Goal: 2325

• Journals: 5586

    28428 replies

• Pics: 4266

   16063 replies
   23160 ratings

• Points: 756601 • PMs: 75282 • Friends: 9955 • Reviews: 305 • Polls: 1017 Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-encyclopedic. Barely over the user count minimum, and a poor Alexa rating, spells delete this subsubsubsubstub. The essential problem with pages like is this, there is absolutely nothing to expand because there's nothing encyclopedic to say about the site. There is no suggestion that this site has influenced a wider audience or that it is anything more than a chat page. Beyond the (POV, I will note) "friendly place to chat" - what are you going to say about this site? List all the moderators? All the forums? Who cares! WP:NOT a Web directory. FCYTravis 19:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It may fall into the criteria, but it seems to lack worth, and I don't see how this is or can become encyclopedic Ian13 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per our usual policy with things that cannot meet WP:V. If we can cite reliable independant sources that document its friendly community, reputation, and addictiveness then I might change my recomendation. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... not really much point in having articles about web forums unless there's something notable to say about them. *Dan T.* 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This highlights one of the things that is wrong with the WP:WEB criteria: An inclusion criterion of "has M or more members" yields a discussion forum directory, with many entries that can never be more than "X is a discussion forum. Domain name: D. Number of members claimed: N.", not an encyclopaedia. (This is just the same process that yields a business directory, not an encyclopaedia, when inclusion criteria for companies include things like "has N or more employees".)

    Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the forum actually has the number of members stated, any more than Wikipedia actually has the number of editors that Special:Statistics states. (Consider people who create one-off vandalism accounts, for example.)

    The best criterion to employ is whether anyone else, wholly independent of the subject, has found it notable enough that they have gone to the effort of publishing non-trivial works of their own that are about it. For Usenet, for example, one will find independently written and published FAQs, guides, papers in conference proceedings, and a large number of books. Searching, I find nothing like that for this subject. Indeed, the web site appears not to even have an "about" page of its own. Anything in this article beyond a mere directory entry, of the form described, would be original research. Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per various reasons given above. Fails WP:V. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with WP:WEB? Well, ok, lots of things. But the main thing is lack of wider participation in forming this proposed policy. (Hint hint nudge nudge, everyone.) - brenneman(t)(c) 01:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Kidney Stones

Non-notable band Akamad 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been speedy deleted. - Akamad 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Odee Company

Non-notable; although they seem somewhat larger than (e.g.) a small family-run printshop, they don't come across as being *that* big, and I can't find anything particularly notable about them in the article or on their website. Fourohfour 13:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete; seems to be of local interest at best. *Dan T.* 16:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (The following comment was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Odee Company by User:BuzzTatom at 14:30, 5 December 2005) I am the person that wrote the article. This was only meant as a history of a 83 year old company with an intersting history of how it came about. I did not go into the history as much as I should have but I also did not want it to appear as though this was an advertisement. I have read the tutorial and first article pages. Can either of the people who put this up for deletion expound on their thoughts. I could go into how we are a $10 million dollar company which by PIA(Printing Industry of America)standards this is considered a rather large company. Just not sure what is stepping across the line or how to correct what editors don't like about this so to get this reinstated.
    • I was the (single) person who originally nominated this for AfD. It's not been deleted yet; we're still discussing it. If a majority disagree with me, the AfD tag will be removed and it won't get deleted. For what it's worth, I didn't think it was spam or advertisement-like... I just didn't think the company was notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I don't believe that there are any hard-and-fast rules about how large a company has to be to warrant notability on size alone, so this could be open for debate. Fourohfour 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for feedback. I have added some more historical information on the page. That is why I feel that it warrants consideration. It is an 83 year old company that is connected to a 127 year old company(Goes Litho). Historically there are not a lot of companies that are that old that are still under their original name. Especially ones that sold something that is collectible at this point or were the largest legal form publishers in the state of Tx. We also are not just of local interest but have sold regionally with the Goes borders and sell nationally in all 50 states as well as internationally into Mexico and Canada. I just felt like that in this country it is important for us to keep a historical reference of companies that have been through the Depression, all of the World Wars and all the other historical times that businesses have had to withstand and succeed. Let me know if there would be anything else you would like to see on the page.
      • Comment The criteria for retention of articles about companies is set out in WP:CORP. If you have additional verifiable sources that would support notability as defined in WP:CORP, please provide them. The standards for verifiability are set out in WP:V -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, per Dan T Stifle 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:CORP, no sources. If that changes, I'll consider changing my vote. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The company is 83 years old and the author states that it is the largest legal forms printer in Texas. We can't have every small local business, but there is history here and the company has a state-wide #1 position (in an admittedly niche market). I see no good reason to delete it. -- DS1953 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - All statements in articles have to be verifiable per WP:V. If you know of a source thaqt verifies this article, please share it with us. -- Dalbury(Talk) 01:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think your prior reference to WP:CORP is well-made, though that is a proposal that many editors have commented on as being too restrictive. Your comments based on Wikipedia:Verifiability, on the other hand, seem to imply that a statement must be verified rather than verifiable. It seems to me that all of the statements in the article can be verified. I have no reason to think that they are untrue and personally don't believe that is an appropriate test at AfD (short of an outright hoax, which a simple Google search confirms not to be the case here). You are entitled to your reasons for voting and I to mine. -- DS1953 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment - And how is anyone supposed to know an article is verifiable without veritying it? I'll just note that the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors." I think it is unfair to put the onus of finding verifying sources on the reader. I think it is lazy and sloppy, and un-Wiki, to write an article without including sources. I'll continue to vote against any article that doesn't cite credible sources. If such sources are added, I'll reconsider my vote. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dalbury thanks for the info on Corp & Verifiability. I did read both before posting the article. I can verify that Odee is the SW Goes distributor by their website goeslitho.com
I could send copyrighted borders and show the insignia in the art in several borders. I could have Chris Goes verify we have been the SW distributor since 1924 but that would also be his word as well. As far as the being the largest legal form publisher in Tx it was common knowledge to attorneys in the state in that time period who was the source for federal bankruptcy kits and legal form blanks. I do know the only other legal form publishers in TX were Pound Printing & Martin's Stationery(Will Odee stole their customer list). Neither are in existence any longer. The reason I know about Martin's is my grandfather was robert martin and that is also how I knew the history on Will Odee. We were several times the size of Martin's and Pound Printing and they actually had us print many of their forms due to our equipment being larger. The problem with private old companies is records are not kept that long. Knowledge is passed down by generations and my grandparents are long since gone. My father and mother are still alive and could verify all that I have said but I'm not sure how that applies to the rules. It has been a very important company at times for the legal and financial(stock) community but I'm not sure what verification I can give you beyond what I have offered. Please feel free to tell me if any of these ideas would suffice. Thanks for your consideration.
Buzz Tatom
    • Comment Can you cite a newspaper or business magazine that has featured the company in an article? I have developed a real bug about wanting to see credible sources cited in Wikipedia articles. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is a link to a conference I spoke at: www.pinc.org/vault/FallCon_2003.pdf (Printing Industry conference for California printers) I am on there under panelist. This doesn't again give you any historical reference on The Odee Company but establishes me as somewhat industry expert. I could have Joe Polanco President of PIA MIDAmerica(Printing Industries of America)verify that we have been around for many years although he is not old enough to have seen us in 1923. He could tell about us selling legal forms and being the supplier for Goes borders in the 7 state region for as long as he has been associated with the printing business. Any articles that we have been written in would be long gone from years ago. If you have another person from a company that we have been long associated with verify some of this info(Goes Litho) and you have an industry representative from PIA Mid America(Joe Polanco)tell you what he knows and I have shown via this link that I have been sought after to be a panelist for a printers conference does that not suffice to prove that I am what I say I am? Let me know if there is something else I can help with. Thanks, Buzz
  • PIA's website is http://piamidam.org This is for anyones reference on Joe Polanco.


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Parable of the Water-Tank

Delete. It's a slightly modified version of a story from Edward Bellamy's 1897 book Equality which already exists with proper attribution on Wikisource. Pretzelpaws 22:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; Wikipedia isn't a book of parables. If it's a notable one, then an article can be created explaining its cultural significance, linking to the full text on Wikisource, but there's no call for having the full text here. It's very anti-capitalist POV, anyway. *Dan T.* 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, Wikibooks, or whatever. Stifle 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomalism Universalism

Delete: Original research, vanity, and/or nonsense -- JimR 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be an anthology of poems never published before the release of the anthology in question. - Mgm|(talk) 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. No relevant google hits on "Thomalism" alone, either. -Meegs 16:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. *Dan T.* 16:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

While many of these claims may be correct if wikipedia is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia it should not be limited just to articles that are popular. The essence of an encyclopedia should be to help perpetuate learning and if that means it involves supporting an individuals theory then so be it.

  • Comment The above remark of 6 December is by 64.136.26.227 (whose contributions are worth a look). Your viewpoint on this is contrary to the No original research policy. -- JimR 09:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Stone

Delete. Unless any further information comes to light on Tawnee's "sister", I vote that the page should be removed. It merely duplicates information that is available on the Tawnee Stone page and is, therefore, redundant. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Andjam 05:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Merge with Tawnee if you think it worthwhile. Herostratus 07:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - IF and only IF this is the same Tori Stone I am seeing 290,000 google hits and a fabled porn star. I won't give you all the links, but try this one: [56]. Some people occasionally say "model" as a nice way to say "porn star" lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup, its her. Check this out [57] and [58]. Lightspeed is a porno model agency. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • For the fourth time: Counting Google hits is not research. For the reasons explained on Wikipedia:Google test, the Google test is useless as any sort of metric when it comes to people in the Internet pornography industry. In the pornography industry, most people are deliberately unverifiable, by their own choices and due to the nature of what they do. If you have a reliable source of biographical information on this person that can be used to construct an encyclopaedia article, please cite it. But bear in mind that the purported biographies that accompany the pictures on pornography web sites or in magazines are almost always made up. All that you have cited so far are three advertisements, one of which even explicitly describes itself as an "Advertising Come-On". Advertisements for Internet pornography are untrustworthy. Uncle G 14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Please stop the abuse! It is not necessary! Counting google hits is a valid method to determine notoriety. It is not the only method, and you can personally disagree with it, however it is a method. Your tone is verging on a Wikipedia:no personal attacks and I would ask you to tone it down and stop the attacks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Zordrac, I sincerely doubt that Uncle G is making a personal attack against you -- he is only being matter-of-fact. And, unfortunately, he is correct in saying that the Google test is sketchy at best and shouldn't be used as the sole litmus test to determine the notability of pornographic personalities. For the record, Google bombing (or search-enginge bombing in general) is a common phenomenon by producers and distributors of pornography -- unsurprising, given that many technologies such as video on demand are first accepted by the pornographic industry prior to the "mainstream" industries. (Side note: I would wager that if Hollywood were to Google bomb as well, we would have the same problem in determining the notability of actors, actresses and even productions.) Anyway, don't take any comments personally and take them as constructive critism (or new lessons as a Wikipedian). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Its not used as the sole test, it is used as a factor. If you'd been following my votes, you'd know that. And the Google test is a legitimate method described in Wikipedia guidelines to determine an article's notoriety. So telling me that I am not allowed to use it is silly and just plain nasty, especially if it is done 4 or 5 times in increasingly nasty ways. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless she's done something more than take her clothes off in front of a camera and had her picture put on a few websites. Sadly, porn stardom is becoming so common that's it not that much of an accomplishment. Peyna 14:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources of biographical information that can be used to verify the article. The only purported sources supplied here turn out to be simple advertisements from the people/organizations selling pictures of this person, that are in no way reliable sources by their very nature as self-sourced self-promotional advertisments. The widespread advertising and Googlebombing employed by the industry in which this person purportedly works makes it impossible to locate actual sources of biographical information after the fact. If someone has published a magazine feature article, a news article, a book, a documentary, or some other non-trivial work about this person herself that doesn't amount to a simple catalogue entry, it is impossible to find. (Wikipedia is not a simple catalogue of people. It is not a Yellow Pages or a telephone directory.) And there are no audience figures for the works in which this person may have appeared. As with many people in this industry, it is no doubt deliberate that the only information publicly available about this person herself is fabricated blurb. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Existing article is virtually content-free and this individual doesn't appear to have achieved the notability in her genre yet. 23skidoo 16:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. She might be notable but the article isn't much chop. Keep Zordrac's rewrite - she seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I honestly don't know if the current article is still good enough. I will give the proper acknowledgement to Zordrac for making an effort to epxand what was a glorified stub article. However the article reads less like a bio and more of a profitability study on "Tori Stone". Perhaps a page of Lightspeed models is in order, with Tori Stone as redirect? Just a thought or three... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have rewritten most of the article, including links, I think I have 10 independent reviews in there, and so forth. Most of the links are pornographic however so I am not sure of the protocol for that. I could find absolutely nothing that suggests that she is not Tawnee Stone's sister. Every single place said that they were sisters. However, given that there are videos of them having sex with each other, and they are frequently displayed together on web sites, it seems likely that they are not really sisters, and that it is merely being used for the incest angle. The fact that she charges US $35/mth for a soft porn web site with only herself in there and no bonus extras to me says a lot. Average price for full on porn sites is something in the order of US $15-$25, with 100s of models. For her to charge that much by herself, well, only the very best do that. Ergo, significant claims to notoriety. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If I start a web page and ask for $100 a month to see pictures of me, will you nominate me for Article of the Day? 24.164.154.130
      • If 1,000s of people are prepared to pay it, yes. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • But we have no evidence of that here. What we do have is a naked person whom someone decided needed to be spammed all over the Internet. Peyna 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I disagree. There were a number of independent reviews of the site, which have suggestions of how many people use it. It would be interesting to find out how many people do pay to see it, but I am not sure if it is possible to get that information. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis article needs some editing, but I say keep. You people trolling afd pages are too trigger happy.--Ewok Slayer --(U | T | C) 08:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • ) I think that you should vote more, Ewok Slayer. I think that the M:Inclusionism angle needs to be represented in here as well. By the way, I got sick of trying to rewrite the article, as I had personally never heard of her and have no interest in this kind of thing, but if you'd like to add bits to it, then please do. I could have included more reviews in the refs, but I got up to hit number 350 on google and got tired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; apparently has some mild notability in her industry. *Dan T.* 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP I though probably the best option is to maintein it with a few little information so people go to Tawnee Stone page and when we could know more about her, put it. Piranna
  • Keep notable.  Grue  20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She apparently "entered the business" about May, 2005 (according to the article) and she is "notable" 7 months later? Why? Just because the industry has cranked up the PR machinery and generated a ton of links? Not verifiable! Let her establish notability first like some other porn stars, then include her, rather than fall for the PR. -- DS1953 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the PR machinery has put her in the realm of things that users would hope to be able to read about in an encyclopedia. Kappa 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Everyking 06:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OffTopic: What means PR machinery? Please... :D I supose it, but here at Spain i haven't hear it. Piranna 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, "PR" means public relations (a form of marketing) but the term "marketing" might have been a better choice anyway since marketing would include the website creation and the various search engine optimization (SEO) techniques that they use to blanket the Internet so that someone who, by July 2005 "produced \'15 solo pictorial sets, as well as 10 videos, of combined length approx 30-40 minutes" (per the article) causes editors to fall over themselves in a rush to label her notable. As you can tell from my comments, I am amazed that so many people fall for this. Hype is hype, regardless of the industry, and I can't understand why we lower the notability bar so low. There are certainly notable porn stars but I find it hard to believe that this is one of them. -- DS1953 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • So Tawnee Stone is notable, yet her "sister" (marketed as her sister), photographed together all the time, always talked about together, filmed together, is not notable? How the hell does that work? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Tawnee hasn't even done all that much work herself; however, I have seen many photos and videos of her, and only very very few of the two of the them together, and even less of her "sister" alone. Trust me, if there were more out there, I would have found them by now. 65.185.187.7 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torr the Relentless

this article contains no information as to its importance or notability. I vote Delete Deyyaz 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Guild Wars but I'm leaning towards an outright delete here. It's a Guild Wars boss [59], but nowhere near notable enough for its own article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since there's nothing to merge. Only thing you could say is that there is a boss called Tor the Relentless in the article, which would probably be confusing, since I'm assuming this isn't the only one. If someone made a list of guild wars monsters or whatever (and it was considered encyclopedic), it could be included there. - Bobet 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • considering that A) the main guildwars article has no mention of Torr the Relentless and B) this article has some information not included in the guildwars article, I suggest that a merge is reasonable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as sub-sub-stub that is incapable of expansion. Eddie.willers 23:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a comment here (and I know I am asking for trouble by doing this) but why do you say "incapable of expansion"? I would argue that it could be expanded quite a bit more than it is. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As it is now, it has no real info; just a few blank sections and some redlinks. If somebody wants to try to expand it, maybe I'd change my opinion, but as it is now I'd say delete. Perhaps a brief mention of this creature should be added to Guild Wars. *Dan T.* 04:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not presently mentioned in Guild Wars, and, as it is a boss, I think that it is certainly notable within the sphere of the Guild Wars world, and hence should be mentioned there. Which, as far as I am aware, equates to a merge. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Town-naming contest

Wikipedia is not for personal essays or original research. This piece contains nothing but these things. I would speedy delete it, but it is just barely above patent nonsense. Harro5 03:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. You're right, its not a speedy, but it's such an obvious delete that there ought to be a speedy category for it. Herostratus 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. The substantive, non-personal content is already in the Dallas, Texas article and does not require a merge. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as waste of space. --YixilTesiphon 13:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced, first-person essay. - Mgm|(talk) 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with discussion page of Dallas, Texas. It's an absorbing piece that's more suited to a talk page than to an article. Wikipedia has room for first-person reminiscences as sidelines to the objective articles. Fg2 00:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; this is not a place for personal anecdotes. If citeable sources can be found for origin of city name, this can be added to the Dallas, Texas page. *Dan T.* 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as blatant copyvio from IMDB. The copyvio has now been replaced with the stub from the temp page. - Mgm|(talk) 14:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tremors 4: The Legend Begins

Painful formatting, run-on, lacks encyclopedic value YixilTesiphon 02:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a straight copyright violation of the IMDB plot summary. See Tremors 4: The Legend Begins/Temp for the rewrite. Uncle G 03:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (copyright violation): I would have voted keep, but a quick search reveals it is a violation, probably a regurgitated advertising blurb. Hu 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete (copyright violation). --Worthawholebean 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio. The temp page is a bit too stubby right now. - Mgm|(talk) 14:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was overwhelming delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trollaxor

The original AfD on this was closed as no consensus and challenged at Deletion Review. There, about 70% of people sought to overturn that closure to a deletion based on concerns over the validity of many comments in the orignial AfD debate. That level, however, is insufficient to directly mandate a different AfD result, so it returns here for reconsideration instead. -Splashtalk 19:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of verifiability, as before. I've brought up the lack of sources on the talk page, and the best anyone's been able to do is point to his own forum postings for "verification". Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Friday (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is an article with the heavy scent of advertising and self promotion which Wiki is not. doktorb 19:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per per User:Friday --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trollvertisement. —Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails to show any references indicating that anybody other than himself is interested in his varied writings. *Dan T.* 15:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable, unencyclopedic, and easily a Speedy candidate for notability reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons.  Grue  20:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Everything above. Ashibaka tock 23:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Troll cruft, not notable. jni 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous troll cruft. --DDG 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unico Partido

Est. in 2005 Searching for party name paired with one of the founder's names yields 2 hits. None of those hits appear to have anything to do with a so-called American party. delete because the only evidence of this party's existence is a wikipedia entry. Lotsofissues 16:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No Google results in English; probable hoax. Delete. Peyna 17:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - probable hoax; anyway : non-encyclopedic : WP is not a propaganda machine JoJan 17:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsilent Phenomenon

Fails to assert the notability of the band. Bandcruft. Some guy 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmmm.... "Unsilent Phenomenon"+band gives about 930 hits [60], however searching around on google shows they only seem to have one album (which appears to be an EP), and I'm not sure if they meet any of the other factors on WP:MUSIC. Delete for now, unless they meet WP:MUSIC in some other way. Cyclone49 02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above --Worthawholebean 04:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, subject to being re-added later if at least some minimal degree of notability is achieved. *Dan T.* 15:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I AFD a dozen of these bands a week. Stifle 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verband der Schweizer Studierendenschaften - Union des Etudiant-e-s de Suisse - Unione Svizzera degli Universitari

merge or delete - This page already exists as VSS-UNES-USU, and should be deleted or at the very least merged doktorb 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to VSS-UNES-USU. You could've just merged the one sentence and changed it to redirect, since it really is about the same organization. I've merged them now. I don't know how likely it is that someone will type that into the search box though, so if the redirect isn't deemed useful, just delete it. - Bobet 23:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge; we only need one article about this organization, whatever it's called. (The title of this one is quite a mouthful!) *Dan T.* 15:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry its all my fault, I actually made both entries (one a year ago). My question is: Having Organisations under their Acronyms or under their full names? Decide by yourself and then redirect the one to the other... I also guess that the creator of the "National Unions of Students in Europe" Article wants to creat entries under the English names: National Union of Students in Switzerland (Germany, Ireland, Italy) and so on......


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volcano boy

NN web site. No Alexa rank and only 96 links in according to Google, most of which are self-references or come from another blog site. Fails WP:WEB by a longshot. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, some guy's blog. I live near Worcester and I've never heard of it. Ashibaka (tock) 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn advertisement. And it is certainly not my blog ;) . Some guy 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn blog. B.Wind 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like a blog to me.--MONGO 09:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a blog of local interest at best. *Dan T.* 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watumishi

A non-notable college group fighting against AIDS. A noble cause, but not one deserving enough of it's own mention on Wikipedia I'm afraid. Harro5 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete: Essentially agree with the nominator, except the last clause he or she wrote is unintelligible in this context or is humor that completely passes me by. Hu 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 04:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the group is shown to be notable in some way. If kept, it needs significant cleanup. Hu, I believe the wording was just awkward. The cause certainly deserves mention, but this specific effort to support the cause does not appear to be worthy of an encyclopedia. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 06:20:24Z
  • Delete as per HorsePunchKid. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, same as above, with note that some content can still be merged into Marquette University at Sports, clubs, and traditions. Tronno 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Marquette University where it can be listed with other student organizations. *Dan T.* 15:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Relevancy not shown. --Eeee 05:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Marquette University -- Ze miguel 09:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per eeee Stifle 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 08:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked laser

Neologism and advertisement (surprisingly sans link). --Improv 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; neologism not in widespread use. There may be some good info there that could be merged into Laser pointer or something like that. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 20:56:15Z
  • Delete. I see no information in there except the assertion that a frequency-doubled Nd-YAG laser is called "wicked". Pilatus 21:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Could it be that the recently registered author bought the keyword "wicked laser" from Google and is related to the webshop that prominently advertises 532 nm lasers with 100 and 125 mW output power on its top page? Call me paranoid, but the "sponsored link" tells me just that. Pilatus 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to be the name used by a company in China to market powerful lasers; hence, it is more of a product name (perhaps trademarked?) than a generic name as claimed in the article. Does anybody know what the proper generic name is for portable lasers that are more powerful than the typical laser pointer? Those things come up in the news sometimes, like when an airline pilot is interfered with by the use of one of them, so there must be a name for them? *Dan T.* 15:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't believe there is a generic term for that. Normally people would just say laser, and use adjectives to get close to whatever finer-tuned meaning they want. I don't think there are definitive borders between the external physical forms of a laser anyhow -- there are terms for lasers produced via different means or different strengths of laser, but all these should probably just be covered under laser. I could imagine if we got some really in-depth stuff on the means to produce lasers giving those seperate articles at some point. --Improv 16:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, Delete... if it's not something that's got an established name. Subject to recreation under whatever generic name the concept eventually gets, if it ever does. *Dan T.* 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pilatus. Stifle 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged and redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiNode

Neologism. Ashibaka (tock) 03:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I'm usually against neologisms, but this one appears to be in fairly widespread use, and it may well be useful for Wikipedia to provide a definition, being a natural place to look for the concept. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 06:18:32Z
  • I agree it should be covered somewhere, but this is a dicdef. Merge and redirect to Wiki until it's matured into a non-dicdef stub. - Mgm|(talk) 16:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to wiki, as the other editor said; maybe eventually it will deserve a separate article, but it's not there yet. *Dan T.* 15:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Mgm. Stifle 19:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to wiki -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woe betide

Vocab stub. Transwiki to wiktionary. ∴ here…♠ 21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

copied relevant to wikt:woe_betide . ∴ here…♠ 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. More than a dicdef is already in the article. Encyclopedias carry information about things, and this article (that might not even be a stub, it might just be a short article) certainly has information about "Woe betide" that is not suitable for Wiktionary. -Splashtalk 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't look like an obvious keep to me... Kappa 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is a (marginally) notable phrase, and the entry has more than a dictionary definition. *Dan T.* 15:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Dan T. Stifle 19:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfeboro Pioneers

nn Boy Scout organization. 79 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a legitimate organization. If there is any information that is believed to be incorrect or missing or any additional sources that need to be cited, please change it or contact me. Thank you.

    The Author, --Papist 04:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I never said it wasn't legitimate or incorrect. I said it's nn = non-notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If you want to convince Zoe and others, the first thing that you need to cite is coverage of this organization that is not sourced from the organization itself, i.e. not from the organization's web site, and not from a web site that simply parrots the organization's own blurb. Autobiographies, be they of people, companies, or organizations, are not reliable sources. Are there any third-party books written about this organization? Or third-party magazine feature articles? Or papers in reputable historical journals? Uncle G 07:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nn. --Worthawholebean 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Who cares if it's not notable. This organization has hundreds of members. This website is a place for all information as long as it's correct and not profane. The Pioneers work alongside major Honor Societies such as the Order of the Arrow and many hold dual membership. --Papist 04:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia cares if it's not notable. This is not a web hosting site, nor a PR firm, it's an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Papist, if you could provide some information on how this society is unique or distinctive from all the other minor Boy Scout organizations out there, you'd have a stronger case for keep. Delete as non-notable for now. Changed to Keep per claim to notability. -- Saikiri~ 05:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is a place for content that is verifiable, not original research, and presented from a neutral point of view. It is not a place for "all information". Uncle G 07:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sighs I'd love to back up a newbie who is trying really hard, and offer words of encouragement to Papist. It is very crushing to have an article deleted. Come over to my talk page and have a chat about it, and I'll help you out. But at the same time, I am having to vote delete on this one. Remember that when someone deletes one of your articles it is not an attack on you. We know full well that you did your best in creating this article, and that you did it in good faith. We know full well that you would like to see this created and for it to exist in this encyclopaedia. However, you also know that it would not exist in Brittanica or any other encyclopaedia, and indeed nobody would legitimately use it in a research project. Hence it is being deleted. I am sorry that you are being attacked by people as a newbie. I know its hard. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate Zordac's understanding. However, I do not understand why one of the few surviving minor Boy Scout organizations in the United States (one that has not been absorbed by the Oder of the Arrow) is coming under attack*. By presenting this article, I hoped to make readers aware of the great tradition that exists within Boy Scout camps across the nation. The Wolfeboro Pioneers is undoubtedly one of the largest of these minor organizations. Every summer, it inducts 90 scouts, which is a pretty good annual induction rate for a "minor organization". These scouts come not only from California, but from around the nation and world. In a way, the Wolfeboro Pioneers promotes Scouts from around the nation and the world to come together and express their common bond.

Yours In Scouting,

--Papist 16:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment: That's an actual claim to notoriety, which could validate its inclusion. "One of the few surviving minor organizations". Now, if you can expand on that, then there may be cause for this article to be kept. For an article to remain, it must assertion a valid claim to notoriety. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Papist's claim to notability. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 18:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Keep - whilst I am not entirely convinced that the claims are either suitably notable or suitably verified, I am for the moment going to WP:AGF that they are true and suitably notable, but reserve the right to change my vote back to delete if not proven later. I will have another look at the page later to see if it is fixed up to stake these claims properly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep, per Zordrac. RMG 21:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and request further sources; these claims should be verifiable. Bring it back to AfD later if it turns out to be impossible to verify to Wikipedia's standards. Oh, and kudos to Papist for responding so well to this AfD; it's a refreshing change to see someone actually making reasoned counter-arguments and citing sources instead of bringing on the sockpuppets. ;) — Haeleth Talk 00:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Haeleth. Just my opinion on this is that new users are often directed to AFDs on articles that they created and have no idea what they've done wrong. Whilst sock puppeting obviously exists, I think that a good section of the people are genuine new people. I took it upon myself to write a welcome message to Papist and to explain why people are so hostile, and I think that it at least helped to make things a bit easier for him. I think that if we could all take the time to do this, rather than all of the immediate defensives of accusing of sock puppetry etc, then perhaps people would be more likely to respond in a nice manner as well? Just a thought. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the grounds that (from what I see) it's apparently notable as one of the few independent scouting organizations not part of the Order of the Arrow; this fact should be better explained in the article so it doesn't give the appearance (as it has at present) of being merely one of numerous non-notable local scout groups that exist and probably don't deserve Wikipedia articles. *Dan T.* 15:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per DanT. Stifle 19:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per *Dan T.* This is borderline, but the history tips me in its favor. -- DS1953 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WoodenBoat and WoodenBoat Forum

Promotional. No evidence of notability. Does not even give address of the forum's website. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, the WoodenBoat forum page is simply a lark, and should probably be deleted. However, the original link (to WoodenBoat) is serious and should be kept (though edited and amplified).
    • Unsigned comment by 209.195.116.184. - Mike Rosoft 18:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well, keep WoodenBoat and redirect WoodenBoat Forum to it. And expand. I have the impression that WoodenBoat Magazine and the associated boatbuilding school are very significant in the world of wooden boat building. Which is not a very large world, I admit, but it's more than a few people. FreplySpang (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Please - "Wooden Boat" was a seminal publication at the start of an international trend to appreciate our small craft maritime heritage anyone who has ever read "Swallows and Amazons" or "Sailing Alone Around the World" might have an interest in this.

  • Keep, precisely per Freply. rodii 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, please; and add a link to this entry from the entry at Brooklin, Maine which references WoodenBoat Magazine.

You can add that link yourself! "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Also, please sign your edits here by adding four tildes at the end, thanks. rodii 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Delete, obviously self serving promotion, very poor net-etiquette to attempt free advertising on an information database, This commercial venture has no business being on Wikipedia. the owner of this publication should be contacted and admonished

*Mike* 18:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep the magazine, Neutal on the forum. I've seen the magazine on newstands plenty of times: beautiful-looking publication, even if not my cup of tea. Also, paid circulation of 105,000 readers makes it notable enough. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Please note that WoodenBoat publications did not add this article to Wikipedia. I did. I have no affiliation with this organization, although I do read their magazine and frequent their forum. WoodenBoat emerged as part of the heritage movement of the sixties and early seventies (the same movement that gave us the Whole Earth Review, Foxfire, and the Folk Revival). WoodenBoat also runs an important school at Brooklin, Maine, where the old skills have been disseminated by many notable figures, including Joel White (who has an article in Wikipedia). Bruce Taylor

  • Keep Woodenboat and Delete or Redirect Woodenboat Forum. I don't see that we have any clear policy on articles about periodicals, but I don't see this as advertising, per se. The magazine has been published for more than 30 years, and there are books available that are collections of columns and articles from the magazine. I have some interest in this as I have a list of old magazines that I might try to write articles for. If anyone wants to discuss the possibility of working up some recommendations for criteria for periodical publications, contact me at my talk page. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yasotha Sriharan

Only claim to fame is that her poetry was once publicly disparaged. I suppose that's enough of a claim that it's not speedyable. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 20:54:18Z

  • Delete NN ••MDD4696 ( talk - contribs ) 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete... I'd like to be convinced otherwise, since I'm inclusionist at heart, but the article as it is gives little reason to assert sufficient notability. The fact that people were criticizing and defending her on CNN points to a possibility of there being some notability there, so if somebody expands on this in the article I might change my vote. Just why did her name come up on the TV show anyway? *Dan T.* 15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Hmm. Let's see. Google has zero hits the "eminent literary critic" Ishmael de los Despropósitos. And "Despropósitos" translates from both Portuguese and Spanish as "nonsense". The article was created by an anon IP address with no edits except in this article, and modifed by Call-me-Ishmael (talk • contribs) (does that name sound familiar?), who has no edits except in this article. Do I sense a pattern here? -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_December_3_2a2e.html"