Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 17

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Takashi Hasegawa

Who is this guy? Seems like a fairly regular programmer. The cable he apparently helped invent seems pretty minor. Google doesn't love this guy either Deiz 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, but if he helped to invent something maybe merge it (if we have an article about it). --King of All the Franks 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep His MLVWM turns up 19,000+ hits despite being one of the worst acronyms I've ever seen. The 10 Gigabit Ethernet Media Converter seems to be less notable, but he is credited in the documentation, and seems to be worth mentioning. 1 and a half noteworthy things is enough to warrant a wiki page in my book. --Bachrach44 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By virtue of being a computer program it gets google hits.. the program seems to be aimed at the Japanese market (otherwise it would have a help file in English, for example) and the linked page above was created in 1998 and last edited in 2001. Not notable. --Deiz 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What does any of this have to do with notability? Age of a project shouldn't matter to an encyclopedia. Nor country of origin. - Jaysus Chris 23:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. Project was shortlived with no lasting relevance 2. Country of Origin doesn't necessarily matter but international appeal would certainly help assert notability. Deiz 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep. His notability is too borderline to justify deletion.--ragesoss 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MLVWM already has an article, and there is no distinguishing stuff here... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • However, he's done more than just MLVWM. Is he had, I would say merge, but since he has done other stuff, which can't go on the MLVWM page, it needs its own page. I admit that the "other things" are borderline which is why I'm keeping my original vote at "weak keep", but I don't htink he can be plainly merged into MLVWM. --Bachrach44 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The only other thing here besides MLVWM is the "10 Gigabit Ethernet Media Converter" which is just something your everyday "engineer" does - for example, do you think the person who helped make one of the USB-to-PS2 converters would be here? WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WhiteNight. —gorgan_almighty 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He's a programmer. Good for him. Can I write an article for my plumber now? -R. fiend 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Has your plumber contributed something notable to his field? Then go ahead. See my comment below. - Jaysus Chris 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Bachrach44 - N (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep per BachRach44 -- Eddie 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • People, seriously. Ever looked at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)? And have you looked at the article?? A very short bio on a Japanese guy who wrote some source code for a mac app when he was a student in 1998 and collaborated on some kind of cable. Notable? BachRach, fair do's for defending the little guys but is this Wikipedia or The Online Mega Web Directory of Absolutely Everything in the Whole World Ever? You know the answer. If the things he created are notable then they should mention who created them. And my final word on the subject, this is from my talk page by the author of the article: "Thanks for the link to the guide on Notable subjects. For whatever it is worth, I agree with (and support) your arguments for the article's deletion. Cheers. Folajimi". --Deiz 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We list tons of reporters for simply doing "everyday" reporter things (just an example). This guy's actually done something notable, what's the problem with keeping him? - Jaysus Chris 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete miscelleneous techie. His major contribution to the field, which he co-created with four other people according to the article, doesn't even have an article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an invention including small ones is quite notable for an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Stifle 14:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Agamemnon2 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article, but maybe keep MLVWM. Just because the invention is notable doesn't make the inventor notable. Peyna 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for a comprehensive encyclopedia. Kappa 08:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Maustrauser 08:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted non-notable advertising --M@thwiz2020 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIMPLY SOFTWARE NZ LIMITED

This company is "in the final stages of formation" - but it needs to come back when it passes WP:CORP or perhaps WP:WEB. I'm sure Yellowikis will host its page though. Kappa 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why should that matter? Wikipedia is available to anyone to create articles at any stage so it can then be built upon. SuperRobot5000 _{(User has 7 edits, all on this article, user page, and Wikipedia Introduction.Tokakeke) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)}

• That does not mean anyone can create an article about anything they want and consider it notable enough to be kept. The article is NPOV and advertising, regardless.Speedy Delete, or Delete Tokakeke 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe it will be notable after its created, but there's no indication on the page that it's notable now. --Thunk 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable, doesn't come close to passing WP:CORP (it's not even real yet). I find SuperRobot5000's argument completely flawed as that is, simply put, not the standard that wikipedia holds itself to. --Bachrach44 01:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:15Z
• Delete The website isn't even up yet. Anyway, the pagename is wrong. And, as argued above, we dont have proof that this thing exists (no google hits) --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Now I know what happens when two people edit a page at the same time. This company needs to exist, and reflect WP:CORP, or it has no business with it's own Wikipedia article (no pun intended). Captain Jackson 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable.--ragesoss 04:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable advertising. Sycthos^Talk 04:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, advert is not a speedy category (sadly), and neither is vanispamcruftisement, which is what this is. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Pure intentional ad spam. Should have been speedy from the beginning. Admins should not be afraid to speedy stuff like this whenever they see it. —gorgan_almighty 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Try standing for adminship with that on your platform and see how far you get :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• LOL per comment. I think this should have been speedied immediately, saves a lot of time. Tokakeke 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this vanispamcruftisement because even Kappa doesn't like it. Besides Yellowikis will host anything. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:18, Jan. 17, 2006
• Delete as an advertisement for an (as of yet) non-notable company. JIP | Talk 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Kappa. <sm>Wow, I just typed that!<sm> Barno 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Vanity, nn club. Madchester 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaptercheats

Least notable forum ever. ~~ N (t/c) 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not true, we've had articles about forums with 50 members. But delete. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well myself and the other moderators have been contributing to this.
  
  I mean, it has 6,000 members now, how can you say that it is least notable, and also you want to delete its wiki? 6,000 members with no advertising, I think the forum is doing quite fine with that kind of back-up.
  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinCheung (talk • contribs) .
  • Read WP:WEB. Ashibaka tock 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I once had a forum with a whopping 13 members. howcheng {chat} 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is this an awful article, it's a non-notable webpage. Tokakeke 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• comment As much as I hate to say it, they are a forum with over 5000 members. That being said, it sppears that WP:WEB no longer uses that as a basis for notability, which is why I have no vote for now. (Except to say that if kept, the article is not very encclopedic and needs some work). --Bachrach44 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable web forum. 6,000 members but only 22,353 total posts -- less than 4 each. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:18Z
• Delete as non-notable.--ragesoss 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable vanity club. This page explains the rules of the forum. It belongs on the forum, not Wikipedia. Sycthos^Talk 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this forum was notable, you couldn't tell it from the completely pointless article. Hint to ANYONE wanting to write an article on a forum: WE DO NOT CARE WHAT YOUR USER LEVELS ARE. WE DO NOT CARE WHO YOUR MODERATORS ARE. WE DO NOT CARE WHAT YOUR RULES ARE. WE DO NOT CARE WHO BANNINATED WHOM FOR POSTING TUBGIRL WHEN. We care about *what you talk about on your forum* and *why people should care that you talk about it.* Thank you and have a nice day. FCYTravis 06:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ok..try looking at every other forum wiki you jackass and you will soon find a recurring pattern. Moderators are part of a forum, so it would be useful if they were included. It is obvious that you wikipedians are a bunch of uptight fools, just looking for ways to damn other pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.102.90 (talk • contribs).

  Lots of articles on forums here suck, and I've been on a mission to clean them up. FCYTravis 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Best nomination ever. OhnoitsJamie 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• 22,543 posts is due to mass-pruning of posts which is carried out periodically, every 3 -6 months.
• Speedy Delete as per Sycthos. Vanity ad spam pure and simple. And I somehow doubt that KevinCheung is an admin with only 13 edits! —gorgan_almighty 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per FCYTravis. --Terence Ong 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kid emo

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but non-notable comic is not a CSD. The given reason by Sputnikcccp was "non-notable. (the comic is cute though)". No vote. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Speedy delete would have been useful but since it's not a valid CSD, delete using AfD seconded. Tokakeke 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable webcomic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:19Z
• Delete as non-notable.--ragesoss 04:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity advertising. Sycthos^Talk 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable comic and the link is only a comic strip from photobucket.com.--Dakota ~ ε 10:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I didn't know nn webcomic strips are encyclopedic. --Terence Ong 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. -- Dragonfiend 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The way the article says the comic's author's surname is "withheld for privacy reasons" is a dead giveaway that the article's author is, or is a personal friend of, the comic's author. A clear case of webcomic vanity. JIP | Talk 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nn. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Cnwb (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Jaworski

This article is a joke. I doubt anything in here is acurate, and if it is, we can't confirm it with our any external or internal links. This one is a clear Delete Tobyk777 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is no joke here. I don't know anyone who finds someone's birthday and place to be funny. Your comment looks more like a prewritten request for deletion that could be used with any article. Paulwithap

• Delete non-notable, no references. Maybe not a joke in that it's a real person, but a without further evidence seems a pure vanity article. JRawle 00:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per JRawle. Sango123 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Tomczyk

This is listed on WP:CP as a copyvio, but the site is inaccessible, so I can't verify it. Regardless, it's just a resumé (C.V.) so it's unencyclopedic as is. I'm don't even think he qualifies under WP:BIO anyway. howcheng {chat} 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic resume posting, appears to fail WP:BIO. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Would support a speedy A7 delete. -- Saberwyn
• Speedy Delete --Deiz 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feth

A fictional swear word from the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, in particular the Gaunts Ghosts series of novels. All that needs to be said about the swear word is located at List of fictional curse words#F.

I'd wealky support mentioning it in the Gaunts Ghosts article, or in the Tanith section of the History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), with a wikilink to the abovementioned list of curse words, but don't think the article really needs to be here, and have trouble seeing where it would serve as an appropriate redirect. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep. The article will be useful for the few people who actual care about the topic; it is slightly more useful than just the entry on the list.--ragesoss 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • When "Battlestar Galactica"'s Frack/Frak and "Star Wars"'s Sithspawn get articles, I'd consider it. Anyway, at the moment, the article says, in a really 'wordy' way, almost exactly what the entry in the list says, with the addition that the series is part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. -- Saberwyn

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a fan site for any specific topic. This article belongs in a fan site wiki. Sycthos^Talk 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of fictional expletives per JIP. Sycthos^Talk 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn and Sycthos --Qirex 05:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per sycthos WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I play 40K, and there is no way this is notable enough for its own article. Perhaps worth a brief mention in Gaunts Ghosts, but no redirect. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: not enough content to justify its own article. Turnstep 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of fictional expletives. JIP | Talk 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from main space per nomination. -- Eddie 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This should be deleted, full stop, not just form the mainspace. NSLE _(T+C) 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, full stop. --Terence Ong 11:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of fictional expletives. Points users in the right direction without wasting their time over a not really notable word. --Pak21 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. fancruft Incognito 02:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Incognito. --Agamemnon2 12:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth About Ebonics

Irredeemably POV screed. The title itself is enough to indicate the contents are not likely to be neutral. Nohat 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV. --Revolución (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Captain Jackson 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork. Endomion 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. --Thunk 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard to see how it can be salvaged from POV-dom. Crunch 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork --Bachrach44 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - utter POV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV,original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:22Z
• Delete. Might have merit despite atrociousness if it describe a specific argument put forward by specific people, but as it is it has nothing worth saving.--ragesoss 04:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, copied from [1]. Dbtfz 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as blatant copyright infringement per Ragesoss. Possibly offensive POV article. Sycthos^Talk 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV --CopperMurdoch 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being a biased and unuseful fork Tuf-Kat 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research and POV fork. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitnews.co.uk

speedy deleted as non-noatable, but WP:CSD A7 does not extend to websites, so i have undelted and listed here. Notablity not clearly establsihed by the articel as it stands, so Delete unless notability established by verifiable sources. DES ^(talk) 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. No Google rank. Traffic Rank for unitnews.co.uk: 810,508 . —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:22Z
• Delete unless notability can be established.--ragesoss 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. Sycthos^Talk 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Incognito 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not just fancruft and non-verifiability that are of concern here. Another reason is given here. --JB Adder | Talk 13:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination, fancruft. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Acyso 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only verified by the site itself --TimPope 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Form

This article, oddly named and rather barren, is rather redundant with list of sovereign states, where numerous variants of country names are listed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, made redundant per nomination, Unlikely serach term to justify redirect. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to exonym. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:23Z
• Delete as per nom --Deiz 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dbtfz 04:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as repetition. Sycthos^Talk 05:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wordnet.Net

Does not meet WP:WEB. Google finds 7 links to it, and the alexa rank is in excess of five million. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 02:24Z
• Delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Dbtfz 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity advertising. Sycthos^Talk 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert Incognito 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Wordnet. —gorgan_almighty 14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Wordnet, remove advert language. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - WordNet.Net is only 6 months old so there are few google links. It is an open source resource used by developers and researchers. WordWeb is allowed to stay (linked from WordNet) and WordWeb is freeware/commercial ware, so shouldn't WordNet.Net as an open source project be allowed to stay? WordNet.Net is also linked by Princeton's WordNet project in their related links ebswift
  • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please taka a moment to read WP:WEB to get an idea of which websites are and are not listed here. Also note, WP:NOT describes that Wikipedia is not, among other things, a web page directory. Whether or not something is open source has no bearing on whether it merits an article. It's nothing personal, it's just a guideline being used to keep this an encyclopedia. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was thank God the lunatic mentality of "keep all schools" didn't rear its head - delete! Johnleemk | Talk 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genius Home Collegiate School

This article remains completely unverified. At the last AFD (which was "no consensus") some felt there hadn't been enough opportunity for verification. Some votes were conditioned on verifiability. All agree verification is required. So, hopefully there will be consensus this time. I am hoping we can keep the discussion to the topic of verifiability, as that's something everybody agrees is required (no point in a rehash of the usual school debate). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius home collegiate school for the last discussion. I do apologize for another renomination, and will try not to renom in the near future, as they are something of a pain. Rob 02:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Just as I voted the last time, Not verifiable, NN. --Ragib 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Piedras grandes 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's probably not necessary, but I'll recap the history, and issues:
  • The article was created on September 3, 2005
  • The article was first AFD'd on January 3, 2006. This was also the first day is was tagged as "unverified", making some feel there was no proper attempt at verification. However, there's been ample time since then.
  • Only two sources exist to show the school exists: the school's own web site, which is a free web host; and a couple job adds like this, on a site which anybody can make an add themselves.
  • The school's own web site gives contradictory info on what grades they teach. It's not clear if they teach up to grade or eight, or wish to do so.
  • The creator of the article has a user name, that's remarkably similiar to own of the school's owners names, suggesting self promotion.
  • The creator of the article was asked two weeks ago to provide verification, and has not responded.
  • Finally, there is not even a claim this school is licensed, and could be a fly-by-night operation. There's no truly independent verificaiton of existence. --Rob 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertisement/not verifiable/not notable. Can't believe this survived the first vote. Kafziel 03:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mind you, wasn't that during the whole crazy "All schools are, by the fact that a group of us say so, totally, utterly, extremely, Pokemon-level notable, and if you disagree with us we'll murder you in your sleep" phase? Delete as externally unverifiable and potential hoax. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is not verified, is self promotion, and fails WP:SCH to boot.Gateman1997 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was just going to nominate this myself... is not varafiable WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable article. Sycthos^Talk 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the existence of the school can be verified. WP:V trumps WP:N and WP:SCHOOL any day. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 09:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous reasoning. --Malthusian (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unverified vs. unverifiable. Possible hoax. Ifnord 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this can be considered unverifiable. The article states: "Genius Home Collegiate School is a website that claims to be for a school which opened in 2005 in the Mirpur-10 Senpara Parbota Area of Dhaka, Bangladesh.". If you go to the website linked, you can see for yourself that that is indeed exactly what it claims to be. Now, as to whether or not that claim is correct is open to question--however, the article does not make the claim that the website's claim is correct; it simply states that the website makes that claim. Kurt Weber 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article isn't about a school; it's about a website that claims to be for a school. There's a difference. Please get your facts straight. Kurt Weber 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In which case, wouldn't this then fall under the realm of the WP:WEB guidelines, which it would also appear to fail?. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Everything that exists is worthy of inclusion; everything for which verifiable information is present should have an article. It's clear that this website exists; it's also clear that verifiable information about the website is available (all you have to do is go to the website itself); therefore, it should have an article. Kurt Weber 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Would you then support putting all their claims about themselves back in, so long as it was still qualified with "They claim" (or to be more accurate, "someone claiming to be on the staff of this self-proclaimed school claims")? Because an article that does nothing but repeat the subject's claims about itself is called an 'advert'. --Malthusian (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I certainly would, and your last sentence is incorrect. It is only an advertisement if it is done with the purpose of promoting the subject--the key thing here being "purpose". Kurt Weber 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • No doubt they're accidentally promoting themselves. So we have an article, which once we've pared away the non-verifiable, simply repeats what's on a webpage -- meaning that the article is a webpage repeating another webpage. Congratulations, you've once again mistaken the map for the territory:
            • In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography - "On Exactitude in Science" by Jorge Luis Borges --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host_or_webspace_provider WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No one's claiming otherwise. Kurt Weber 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this falls under WP:WEB as they are claiming to be a school originally, someone modified it to the current wording. And even if it is falling under WP:WEB it still fails that as it's Alexa ranking is non-existant and it gets less then 5 Google hits. I could easily replicate their site and claim my bedroom is a school... but that doesn't mean that it is. Also I would take issue that "Everything that exists is worthy of inclusion". If that were the case my jockstrap would be worthy... which is obviously isn't in any credible encyclopedia.Gateman1997 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a school article, not a web site article. Let's keep in mind the original version. Now, a couple editors (including me) removed as much unverifiable information as was possible. This wasn't done to save the article, but to avoid wantonly/knowingly spreading misinformation. I'm frankly a little PO'd that my good-faith attempt to avoid lies being spread, has been twisted into attempts to keep this article. This was actually used to justify the last "no consensus (keep)" result. Editors should be able to remove unverified claims, without it causing bogus articles to be kept. Core policy of Wikipedia demands this article be deleted. --Rob 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually if we. were to be bold we could pretty much blank the article because none of it is verifiable.Gateman1997 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No-brainer. Kill it. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There may or may not be some pupils in rural Bangladesh happily unaware of this AFD, but in any case, their school is unsatisfactorily googleable.--Ezeu 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this smells like a promotional page for something that may not exist. Home school or something less than described? Who knows. David D. (Talk) 07:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable outside their own website. Stifle 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The rule is to keep verifiable articles about educational institutions, and unfortunately this subject does not pass that bar. Would support the recreation of this article if a verifiable source can be located at a later time. Silensor 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete After listing for substantial time, fails WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools delete due to the near-impossibility of covering from a WP:NPOV - either it'll be an advert for an unaccredited school or a kick in the teeth for the place. It's not like we need to keep its seat warm or anythign, let's wait until it's been around for a while and see if it gets accredited. Or closes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as last time --kingboyk 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. With due respect to all who have taken great pain to read the page or visited the school site and put their comments to keep or delete. I'll not put any request. However, I'd like to add that whatever was written in the school page was true - no less, no more. It's true that the school is not famous or very old. However, the school committee is trying to develop it as a low cost sustainable model for better education to the local cummunity. The school is not set to make big money. Besides academic activities, the school have successfully arranged several rounds of polio imunization and health check-ups for students and all the members of their families (all free of charge) and several fairs in its second year. This has been appreciated by all the people living in the community. In recognition to this, this school was placed in record by Prothom Alo, the most popular daily in Bangladesh, as one of the mentinable institutes of Mirpur, Dhaka (please see Prothom Alo [2], in Noksha, 25 July 2006). I'm really sorry if I have done a big upset to wikipedia. I'd rather suggest other renowned schools of Bangladesh to come forward and put information about their institutions. 09:07, 04 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "spring cleaning"

Non-encyclopedic. Andrew Levine 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, if this can be verified. Needs NPOV, new article Spring Cleaning (no quotes) and some general editing to conform to wikipedia standards. Jawz 03:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I totally agree with Jawz. - Tony 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless this gets cleaned up. Right now it's really not encyclopedic, and just defining what the phrase means might be more of a job for wiktionary anyway. --W.marsh 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep; it's in awful shape, but it has content that could be useful if better packaged.--ragesoss 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to new name per Jawz. Content is atrocious, but it's a legitimate entry. Dbtfz 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but needs drastic Cleanup and Rename to Spring cleaning. Sycthos^Talk 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing preventing anyone from creating Spring cleaning. I don't see what the need to keep the article with the title in quotations is, those are routinely deleted. --W.marsh 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:34Z
• Delete or transwiki to wiktionary without the quotes. This will never become an encyclopedia entry. Zunaid 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable custom, can be expanded to discuss range and origins. Kappa 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Spring cleaning and keep with (spring) cleanup tag -- Astrokey44|talk 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable annual event, per Jawz. Essexmutant 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Spring cleaning as per Astrokey44, then wikify, stubify and cleanup. —gorgan_almighty 14:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason given to delete a good article. -- JJay 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Spring cleaning. Has the potential to be an interesting article. Zagalejo 16:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Spring cleaning. A clearly notable term. JIP | Talk 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Spring cleaning, then enhance (as per Sycthos). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as redirected. Close AfD. Ifnord 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As there has been delete votes, a speedy keep is not possible. Stifle 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing more can really come of the article than a dicdef. I suspect once this article gets a good spring cleaning of its own, it will become more obvious that this is the case. Peyna 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Anti-Game Game (game)

Is this nonsense? Does this actually exist? Andrew Levine 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Searching it Google four different ways produces less than 40 hits each time. Not notable. Anti-keep. Delete. Jawz 03:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Something I posted on GameFAQs as a bit of a joke on their temporary fad obsession with The Game (game). An individual who saw the topic decided to create this. It's unnecessary, get rid of it. Delete. Shadowlynk 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable parody of The Game. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:16Z
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sycthos^Talk 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Incognito 05:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. —gorgan_almighty 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to The Game of Anti-Game Game (game). Oh...wait...I mean delete. -R. fiend 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and quickly, before someone comes up with The Anti-Anti Game Game. JIP | Talk 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above reasoning. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Game (game), causing a logical conflict and mutual annihilation. Too dangerous: Delete instead, per Shadowlynk. Barno 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No merge, no redirect. Ifnord 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete. I enjoy the complicated (anti-)logic, but only in small doses. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle 14:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks and per WP:NFT. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• While The Game (game) is relateively well-known, this one seems made up and not widely known at all. Unless verification emerges, then Delete. --W.marsh 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Here's my "verification" of it being complete and utter invented crap of my own that really doesn't need this page. Probably gonna disappear in a day or two, but for now it'll at least verify my story in the earlier bullet point. Seriously, this hasn't been deleted yet? Shadowlynk 07:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Why is this even up for debate anymore, just delete and spare us from this yet another dazzling example that fetid morass of retarded thought known as Internet "culture". --Agamemnon2 12:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Admrboltz (T | C) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwayna's kiss

nn move in online game. Possibly add a mention in the main Guild Wars article Hirudo 03:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If we merged one move into Guild Wars, we'd have to list them all. Think of the poor readers. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 03:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One central article for such skill information would be acceptable.--ragesoss 04:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:17Z
• Delete as vanity. Sycthos^Talk 05:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into one central article for such skill information. Kappa 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Way too little information to merge into anything. JIP | Talk 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as devoid of context. Tagged as such. Ifnord 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Flaming Angel

nn singer. Nearly all hits I could find are referring to the opera by that name instead. Hirudo 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, not listed on allmusic.com, no prominent google hits. Dbtfz 04:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:18Z
• Delete. NN. Cnwb 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tagges as nn-bio, tempted to delete it but in the end AfD is in process so I'll vote instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew L. McBride

J. Random Candidate is not notable. James Howard (talk/web) 03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; per nom. I also should have noted article was written by subject of article. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Removed "vote for me" language from the article. In general I'd like to see candidates included, but could not find anything on google. Many local papers have poor web presence, so this doesn't mean his campaign hasn't been covered, only that it's not online. I can't vote to keep without some evidence that he's legitimate. - Jaysus Chris 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2006 Maryland House of Delegates election, 31st District and add similar info on opponents. Also see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Mwalcoff. See WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. Stifle 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Charles Matthews 09:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Candidates for State Legislature are not generally notable. Also see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates TMS63112 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requiem (film)

Article (somewhat) about a movie yet to be released. Delete as not yet noteable. --InShaneee 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Transwiki dicdef if there's anything salvageable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:29Z
• Delete as unverifiable. Probably not notable. —gorgan_almighty 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless you are planning to AfD all of these too. I don't really see how this is different to any of the other upcoming films we have articles for. - N (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. IMDB indicates it's already been shown at a Bavarian film festival, has won an award, and is set for general release on March 2. Article should be expanded by someone who can read the German-language media reports, not deleted. Monicasdude 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly obvious that production is complete. Can claim notability.Bjones 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Film is complete, by notable director, about a notable incident, and will actually be released in less than two months (see [3]). Kusma (討論) 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think covering upcoming films is okay so long as we include only sourced speculation or details. This looks okay, although it would be good to know who's "announced" it. James James 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is verifiable enough for me [4]. Now if it were saying "rumor is this movie is being planned..." then yeah, crystal ball issues. But many "upcoming events" are based on announced facts, not backroom speculation, and this is one of those cases. Nice cleanup Nzd. --W.marsh 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. It'll definitely deserve an article when the film comes out, so deleting it now and readding it later on would be a bit silly. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable, what else can I say? --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiens Sans Frontiers

non notable, the only google hit is THIS ARTICLE, dead blog - 404 - blogcruft/spam Timecop 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• speedy Delete, per nom. Incognito 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Rohit Gupta as a previous version of the page shows that he is the founder of this blog but a anon was rather persistant from his profile... so perhaps it wasn't that notable after all..? Also, the FIRST google hit with "Chiens Sans Frontiers" (in english "Dogs without borders") is this article, just not the only one with that query :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I should also mention that one blog mentions that it was nominated for the "freedom blog" award - but I'm only able to get one blog hit for that mention... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A number of Google hits indicating the role of this blog in the aftermath of the tsunami — Doing More, Jan 5, 2005; Guardian Unlimited article, Jan 6, 2005; Blogging the Crisis, Jan 10, 2005; Without Borders nominated Chiens Sans Frontiers ( now deceased) for the Freedom Blog Award. —ERcheck @ 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Of course I saw those - but the problem is that they only really mentioned that the blog "played a part" in the thing - there is no way to expand the article from this now that it is dead and there is little varification in other places. Maybe it should be merged the tsunami page with just a one-line such as it played a part etc.? WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Hosterweis 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• merge with Blog-- Astrokey44|talk 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's notability was temporary. Edgar181
• Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and not notable due to external link no longer existing. —gorgan_almighty 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unnotable and moribund. Eusebeus 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as functionally unverifiable from reliable sources, and likely to remain so as apparently defunct. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete utter rubish. And no cookies for Splash for reinfesting wikipedia with this. --Doc ^ask? 11:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Stifle 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per JzG. Cptchipjew 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unnotable Aigis 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it existsDelete, no longer exists! Even the extreme inclusionists have no leg to stand on. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:18, Jan. 19, 2006
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Proto t c 12:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. *drew 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was conditional and slight merges indicate overall lack of notability; other keep comment indicates temporal notability, which shouldn't be the case for an encyclopedia article; only delete voter makes loads of sense => delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Fellows

Bio of non-notable. Though he is candidate for governor of California, Google News search has zero hits. Only a few Google hits - for sites listing candidates names. WP:NOT for self-promotion/advertising/campaigning. —ERcheck @ 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Slight merge to California gubernatorial election, 2006. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:23Z

• Probably not a good idea as all the other names in that article are links to other articles. —gorgan_almighty 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & Cleanup. If he's a candidate for Governor of California then he's notable, at least until the elections are over. Remove NN content (there is a lot) then stubify. —gorgan_almighty 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional merge. If this guy meets the signature or deposit requirements to get on the November ballot, he should have his own (cleaned-up) article. If he's running as a write-in, he deserves only a mention on California gubernatorial election, 2006. -- Mwalcoff 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Independent candidates for Governor of California need only 150 signatures or $3,500 to get on the ballot. Being able to do that does not make you worthy of an encyclopedia article. Peyna 03:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squirel

Mispelling of the word for Squirrel. Almost an exact copy of the Squirrel page, sans photographs. Includes one erroneous link to a picture of a squirrel monkey. Delete Atrian 04:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Squirrel. Sycthos^Talk 04:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Squirrel. Dbtfz 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Squirrel. Youngamerican 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect (or delete and redirect) to Squirrel. Thezevster (talk • contribs)'s only contribution is this copy-paste to a typo. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:28Z
• Redirect. Google returns lots of hits so it must be the correct spelling of Squirrel in some country. I see someone has already changed it to a #REDIRECT, but you need to remove the AfD notice in order for the redirect to work. —gorgan_almighty 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• redirect per above --Bachrach44 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete; page was already deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven, I'm just cleaning up this AfD. Peyna 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Bishil

Non notable. She's 17. She's appeared on one soap opera. Come on. Not notable in the least. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Couldn't this have been speedied? TheRingess 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, because the original version referred to notable roles, which is an obvious claim of notability. Disputed claims must go to AFD. --Rob 05:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable for now. — TheKMan^talk 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Dbtfz 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. I don't think age is relevant, but I agree that one or two unnamed uncredited soap opera appearances is nothign. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:25Z
• Delete. MAN SHE'S HOT!!!. Not notable though. :( —gorgan_almighty 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This is probably ad spam by the agency that employs her. Should probably keep an eye on the user who created the article. —gorgan_almighty 15:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything is possible, but one should be cautious about such a charge. The user you accused, tried, unsuccesfully to upload an image they took from imdb. Now, her agency has a good quality image of her, which they could easily have used, and would wish to use. They wouldn't need to take one from imdb (who have protection that causes the resulting image to be corrupt, see Image:Summer.gif). After all, its probably the agency that supplied imdb. If the agency "got it right" for imdb, they would get it right here. We can and should delete things that don't qualify, without ascribing motives. --Rob 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Closing admin, don't forget to delete the picture too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScriptCrawler

nn site, alexa rank 1,668,255. reads like an ad Hirudo 05:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable advertising. Sycthos^Talk 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:33Z
• Delete spam. --Bachrach44 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be Jenna

Delete - nn video game (if it even exists). Can't find any reference to it on the web. Dbtfz 05:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Move to BJAODN, then Delete. Sycthos^Talk 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable/non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:33Z
• Just copied this to BJAODN. Dbtfz 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. Sounds like an interesting idea, but it's not notable. Daniel Case 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly a hoax. JIP | Talk 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Incognito 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense made-up game. I wouldn't have sent it to BJAODN even because it wasn't very funny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

Delete, unless of course you include that homeless guy down the street with the tinfoil hat. The list tries to get around this by using the "notability" filter, but that's too open to interpretation in this case. Karmafist 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN, then Delete. Sycthos^Talk 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move which one? The list or the guy with the tinfoil hat? Karmafist 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, merge with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ (as has been tagged for a while), and remove the non-notable entries. The list of religious leaders who claim(ed) to be Jesus is significant (cult leaders and such). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:32Z
• Delete/Merge this nonsense - the entry about bill gates is not good and telling of this whole list ("no one has been able to verify this") WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Notability is not subject to abuse here; it's measurable in as much as whether or not the person has an article. If a person has an article, it's already been ruled the person is notable. The list will only reflect that; that is the purpose of the list, to be an index. Besides, this is no less encyclopedic than Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the list is to include only people with wikipedia articles, wouldn't a category be more appropriate? --Austrian 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Referenceing is v important here which you would not get with a category. --Salix alba (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Quarl. OhnoitsJamie 06:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Quarl. That's some nice article formatting! Grandmasterka 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above and submit to extreme verifiability scrutiny. Keep fancy formatting if possible. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles, get formatter to help out with styleguides and formatting elsewhere! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Quarl. Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Quarl. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; userfication complete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Winters

Delete. Unverifiable/hoax/non-notable. — TheKMan^talk 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• This article is verifiable through the website http://www.gonzofilms.net, which is ran by Michael Winters. Although the website appears unfinished, it is still under ownership by Michael Winters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.15.246 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
• See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gonzo Films. All links to that website lead to missing tripod pages. Can't verify any of the claims from that website. — TheKMan^talk 05:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• This article is verifiable through the website http://www.gonzofilms.net, which is ran by me, Michael Winters. But, again, I am an aspiring filmmaker. This is my page. It is 100% factual. The reason why the Gonzo Films site is unfinished is because I have not yet updated it since working on "Kingdom Animalia" almost every minute of my free time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Wait, what information are you speaking of? — TheKMan^talk 06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Nvm. Just keep my biographical article, okay? Plz :)

You might want to inform Network Solutions that they are flagrantly breaking the law you speak of. [5].

Oh, and Delete as non-notable filmmaker. OhnoitsJamie 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• TheKMan, they aren't breaking the law, you are since you have just posted all my personal information on this Wikipedia page. Now, please delete that Network Solutions link from your revision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs) 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  • I didn't add that link (but it's still publicly available information). — TheKMan^talk 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  I posted the link. There are no laws being broken here. Domain registration records are public information, period. Someone can just as easily put the domain name in the search box on Network Solutions front page and get the same result. (Here's a tip for you; remove you address or change it to a general one (remove street name, etc.) after you've registered a domain. As long as your registrar has your email, they don't care what's in that record. It's a fairly common practice. OhnoitsJamie 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• K, TheKMan. But, still keep my page? I mean, there's nothing objectable and I don't know what Ohnoitsjamie's problem is, but non-notable filmmaker? Who is he to decide this? And who cares if I'm not notable. Nothing on any "rules" page on Wikipedia said I had to be notable in my field to have a page.

  Comment We are all participating in the decision process right now. That's how Wikipedia works. OhnoitsJamie 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Actually, Wikipedia does have rules about notability. See WP:BIO and WP:Notability. OhnoitsJamie 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, Jamie, but yeah it's not going to be a fair discussion if I know the people against me say unfair comments like "Delete, non-notable filmmaker." That is rude and very, very unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs).

• Comment Non-notable doesn't equal "bad"; it just means non-notable. That choice of words is quite typical in "articles for deletion" discussions. OhnoitsJamie 07:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Later. I'm going to bed. I'll see your (Fair) decision in the morning. But yeah, I'm 18. If you're going by notability here, how much notability do you expect me to have amassed in the film industry in a mere 18 years? Do you expect me to have made a masterpiece like "Citizen Kane" at age 18? Hopefully, you are more lenient than that in choosing relevant article topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs).

DrinicommentOk, I see this is becoming ugly, so I encourage both of you to take a break. Some friendly reminders:

1. AFD is not a vote, the result isn't decided by the number of votes on each side. It's decided by arguments, so everyone state their case, let other people ocmment, and wait until the period closes. Attacking or criticizing other people's opinions isn't going to change the procedure nor it's likely to help each cause.
2. Entries aren't "owned", so it's not "my biography" or "your biography". Spikejonze, if you wrote an entry about yourself, please go and read Wikipedia:Autobiography to see if this entry fits, and if not, make the changes to improve it so it fits the criteria and you'll have a strong case about this.

And now a friendly warning: If I see anybody else attacking or namecalling (or other things mentioned on WP:NPA) I'll have to put some blocks her and there. So guys, play it cool . -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, possibly fails WP:NOR as no third-party verifiable sources are cited. Also fails WP:NOT a crystal ball. Zunaid 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. --Ezeu 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is not verified - Gonzo films is a personal website - as it says at Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Personal websites... are not acceptable as sources" -- Astrokey44|talk 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (and vote) - precedent suggests we could userfy this article, since Michael seems to be an editor on Wikipedia. BL kiss the lizard 11:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Spikejonze as per BL Lacertae. Michael seems to be new to Wikipedia so someone should probably do it for him. —gorgan_almighty 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Shouldnt he at least give his consent before that is done? --Ezeu 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think a speedy userfication is in order if User:Spikejonze wants it. — TheKMan^talk 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Hirudo 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, please do a speedy userfication. I am new to wikipedia, so if someone could do this for me, please do it. Thanks.

Page has been userfied to User:Spikejonze. Don't hesitate to ask questions of your fellow Wikipedians via their talk pages. Good luck with your filmmaking. OhnoitsJamie 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support userfication, now delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 14:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy G4 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wehatetech) Delete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WeHate Tech

Podcast whose homepage places 355,640 on Alexa. Non-notable. Daniel Case 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE: This was recreated after an earlier deletion. Ditto with Sweetcheeks. Daniel Case 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• UPDATE. Looks like they've been speedied. Daniel Case 05:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon's landing

Yet another non-notable podcast (Alexa rank: 1,297,463). Daniel Case 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of the hosts of this podcast, I take a bit of offense at it being called non-notable. It is currently ranked #79 out of nearly 12,000 podcasts on Podcast Alley. Last month it made it to #41. As to whether it is deleted or not, I don't particularly care. One of our listeners put the article up, and it doesn't seem to violate any of the 4 reasons for deletion listed in the Wikipedia deletion rules. It exists, it is verifiable, there is nothing currently in the article that shows any bias, and since it is released under Creative Commons, nothing about the podcast or any mention of it violates any copyright. I don't seem to recall "the opinion of one user of Wikipedia who finds the article irrelevant" being listed in the rules for deletion section. --Chuck Tinsley, Co-Host —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.115.252 (talk • contribs).

• Delete unless we really need articles about the top 100 podcasts from every podcast page. OhnoitsJamie 06:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB inclusion criteria. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites)#Criteria_for_web_content criteria. No external links or references which prove such criteria. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as podcruft. Stifle 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Whenever a podcast makes it big outside the podcast-o-sphere, it deserves a Wikipedia entry. Until then, back to the gutter with you. --Agamemnon2 12:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This article is meant to reserve a place for the fans of Dragon's Landing to tell others about the podcast. It is not written in promotional language and is formatted to wikipedia standards for the most part. Please do not delete this article simply because one user seems to enjoy censoring articles who's subject matter does not agree with his tastes. JellyRoll713 13:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please re-read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:VAIN. The absence of promotional language is good, but not sufficient in and of itself, since by your own admission the article was created to promote the podcast. In the case of vanity contributions, many editors cleave to the beliefs listed in WP:N.-Colin Kimbrell 14:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per OhnoitsJamie --Deville 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability. -Colin Kimbrell 14:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allun

No Google presence, when looking for any language information. Both a non-notable constructed language and looks like original research. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. Jawz 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Edgar181 13:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable constructed language. Sycthos^Talk 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Events

Delete because it seems too self promotional HiFiGuy

• Delete, not notable? Live Events is ambiguous encyclopedic title and this article doesn't help me figure out what this is besides a manga.....something?! .

HiFiGuy, Please Remember to sign your name when you vote with three or four tildes:) (I left this on your talk page as well.) Jawz 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what four tildes mean! HiFiGuy 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The lack of context nudges it toward nonsense. OhnoitsJamie 06:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be promoting eigoMANGA without giving context or reason for notability.  (aeropagitica)  06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense -- Astrokey44|talk 10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. There were much more live events in 2004 of more importance. Sycthos^Talk 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a confused mess, misleading title, and advertizing. Stifle 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of videos played on MTV Jams

Delete An enormous list without much encyclopedic value Allstar86 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP HIGHLY USEFULL (vote by User:207.200.116.13) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like listcruft rather than a useful collation of material.  (aeropagitica)  06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indisriminate collection of information. Zunaid 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. feydey 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Huge unwikified list, possibly cut-and-paste from somewhere, as it's hard to imagine anyone bothering to research this and type it all out. No encyclopedic value. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. tregoweth 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This article is 85KB long, far more than the maximum standard of 32KB. Even if this article was not to be deleted, it would take a long time to wikify. Sycthos^Talk 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I feel sorry for whoever made this, but I've never seen a more unmaintainable list. Grandmasterka 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a list of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Gad-zooks! Delete! As per Grandmasterka! --Agamemnon2 12:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knock on Wood (webcomic)

Delete: Not notable enough: see WP:WEB Grandfather Clock 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. An average of 65 views per month and only a year old. Best to leave this article in Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By TWC's listings Penny Arcade gets less than 5k views per month. I'm not saying the proportions aren't right (I have no idea if they are) but a meaningful comparison to other websites requires an increase by an order of magnitude or two. Nifboy 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sjakkalle. Stifle 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy Metals

Unencyclopedically trivial POV/OR speculation about metal in fantasy games. Not even factual (obsidian is, of course, a real substance). Delete. MCB 06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Incoherent musings, useless for research.  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Grandmasterka 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft Incognito 02:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fictional chemical substance, which covers exactly this topic. (And which I think would be better placed at one of its redirects, Fictional material, but that's another topic.) -- Jake 07:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libyan Arab Airways Flight 388

Orphaned AfD nomination. Patent hoax; no references to any such event appear in any accessible source. MCB 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is a complete hoax; total nonsense. Speedy? 07:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it appears to be fictional. - Axver 08:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot find any info that this shoot-down actually existed. I was able to find a source pointing to a 1973 shootdown of a Libyan 727 over Sinai killing 108 people, but that was on February 21 1973 and Sinai is not anywhere you'd fly over when going between Libya and Algeria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified must be hoax. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified, hoax. No BJAODN. --Terence Ong 15:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the iBook of the Revolution 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Holy Father

Apparently created as part of an ongoing dispute over Holy Father (talk · history · watch) which isshould be a redirect to Pope ever since this AfD discussion closed. Ought to redirect to God the Father but violates WP:NAME, and will probably just contain a POV argument about the impropriety of the Papal title. If it ever contains useful information on the history of the title, I would support a Merge to Pope, otherwise Delete TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father
I would like to nominate the article Holy Father for undeletion review or at least I would like a stub to be made for the article for Holy Father. The rcc's pope is only "Holy Father" to at least some rcc members, but not to everyone. Redirecting automatically to a their pope is not NPOV and more would agree if more knew about what was going on here. The article was doing fine for some months before TCC/Csernica blindside afd'd and had support from "other" people that didn't have much to do with the article. TCC/Csernica could have discussed about the page instead of afd'ing.

I would like the article to be protected from being redirected exclusively to their pope. I would think some people would like to know the history of the original use and the rcc title. --jeolmeun 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You want WP:DRV. This is about your other article. This kind of confusion is one reason we don't put "The" in article title. I'm also de-linking your section title; it made for a very confusing entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 17 TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What article title would you suggest, if not this? I would rather have Holy Father back and someone can add a link to rcc's pope instead of redirecting. I would like your feedback also at the deletion review. --jeolmeun 08:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this as a non-obvious search term (useless redirect), and a non-article. Comment left at deletion review. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. --Terence Ong 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Make it into a disambiguation page discussing the history and use of the title. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there is no reason that the article Holy Father cannot cover all of this, since we already have an article about the Pope. Peyna 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Holy Father as long as Holy Father stays as a disambiguation page or reverted to the full article. --jeolmeun 11:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forex Brokers

Advertising spam, unencyclopædic  (aeropagitica)  07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. -^demon 07:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, and most likely a copyvio from their website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable advertising. Sycthos^Talk 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. spam Incognito 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words of islamic origin

Makes no sense / bad faith. The word "Turkey", for example, has roots older than Islam. We do have pages listing English words of unusual origin by language group; see Lists of etymologies. Author has repeatedly vandalized that page along with many articles linked from it, and is probably the same person as the anon who has vandalized those pages dozens of times before. I don't know what the agenda is, but delete. Melchoir 07:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because "Islamic" isn't a language, it's a religion/culture that has people of many languages. It'd be like having List of English words of Taoist origin or List of English words of Hinduism origin. Perhaps there are Islamic terms that became the basis of English words, but I'm not sure this is the best way to deal with that.--T. Anthony 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per t.anthony. 3 unverified, unreferenced examples doesnt make much of a list -- Astrokey44|talk 10:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - But expand to replace existing article (Which is terrible). There are a lot of words of islamic, rather than just Arabic/Farsi/Turkic etc. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What, pray tell, are some of these Islamic words without a country? --Calton | Talk 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Article was created by:

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet or impersonator of Enviroknot. Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence. See block log

--Westwells 11:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, there's no linguistic status that can be associated with Islamic. Malaysia is an islamic country; does that mean Malay words in English (like amok) should be included? Undefinable, unverifiable. Also, I'm amused to note that the template above included by Westwells has placed the AFD log pages into the suspected sockpuppets category. Chick Bowen 15:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've gotten rid of the categories, but the template body doesn't do any harm. Melchoir 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete nonsense listcruft per Anthony, Chick Bowen, and nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete linguistic nonsense. List of English words of Arabic origin and suchforth are fine and make sense. Morwen - Talk 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above ... existing list is more than adequate to this purpose as "Islamic" and "Arabic" are pretty much one and the same for linguistic purposes (Are there any Islamic terms not of Arabic origin? I don't think so). Daniel Case 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are plenty, first one that comes to mind is mihrab. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Chick Bowen. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morwen. David | Talk 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per T. Anthony et al. — RJH 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, linguistic nonsense as someone above said. Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Linguistically suspect, to put it mildly. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as rather tiresome. Opinionated too, and a list that appears to have been created solely for the purpose of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Incognito 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Islam is not a language --BadSeed 10:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --CltFn 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If You Go Away

This is not an encyclopedia article but song lyrics, see Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry for guidelines regarding articles on songs and poems. Might be a copyvio even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've removed the lyrics and am attempting to rescue the article. I'm in the process of editing it right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm done (for now) with the expansion. It's well past stub length and is definitely a notable song, with many versions that have been chart hits for several highly notable artists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by User:Starblind. JIP | Talk 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Starblind. Jdcooper 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. Sycthos^Talk 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Doc 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the rewrite Starblind! The reason for nominating this is now moot. I suggest that we speedy keep this now (nomination withdrawn and no votes to delete). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• KeepGareth E Kegg 13:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Andrew Lenahan (speedy deletion criterion ). howcheng {chat} 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcasts/We Hate tech

Spam for a nn podcast. Google search returns less than 1000 results [6]. ^demon 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wehatetech and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeHate Tech. feydey 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Like it matters, this will be ripped without a vote. But there are over 10,000 results if you use wehatetech for the search. Xerves 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Protect from recreation as well. This user continues to recreate this article under different variations of the name and using specious reasoning as he does above (Alexa matters for websites, not Google), despite previous deletion. As a result s/he has, IMO, waived any good faith he might have once been entitled to, and if s/he continues serious consideration ought to be given to blocking him. Daniel Case 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedied by me. Exact recreation of previously deleted material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Card Random

Page describes an individual card in a card game, with no apparent wider notability. (Also includes an attempted disambiguation for a Christian Rock Band with the same name, but no Wikipedia page exists for them.) --McGeddon 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What needs to be known about this card at this time appears to already be contained in the article about the game (Fluxx). The band, from my brief squizz, appears to be WP:MUSIC-failing anyway. If the band becomes notable, they can move in at a later date. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and group info also. feydey 08:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Fluxx --TimPope 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Fluxx. The game is notable, the card isn't. Stifle 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Incognito 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Fluxx and then delete this, since it is not a likely search term. Peyna 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because it goes beyond just being a set of rules to play a card game. Ruby 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Er, Ruby? I think you got redirected. The original article is here [7]. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete after merging a bit, since as stated above this is an unlikely search term. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• It is currently a redirect to Fluxx - it appears to have been merged a bit so I think we should leave as redirect per the GFDL. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetOutOfJailFree.org

Does not meet WP:WEB. 7 matches on google, no traffic data from Alexa. The kicker: The article itself describes it as a new site that doesn't work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Cute idea. Delete, because it is non-notable as of yet (seeing as the planned website doesn't function, per article), and I've got a bad feeling that this is going to be one of those sites that either flops or makes headlines. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please allow the page to remain for 30 days while the Wiki Software is ported. The site does function--it simply has little content at this time. Although the site may not have many matches on Google the matches it does have are ranked very high. In fact, when searching for GetOutOfJailFree the site is mentioned in the second result on the first of eight pages of results. I do not understand the statement about a "bad feeling." Yes, it may flop but we here at GetOutOfJailFree do hope that the site does make headlines. In fact, the article does NOT state that this is a "new site." This site is not new--it was started in September of 2004. Thank you for your consideration.- User:DanKilo
  • A note, if the site has been around that long, I would expect more websites to link to it. Also, Alexa would have traffic rankings for it (unless no alexa users had ever visited it, in which case it does not meet notability guidelines). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish you luck with your website, and this isn't ment to be an attack on your page. All this means is that we don't consider the important enough (yet) to be listed here. However, when your page starts to attract mass-media attention, feel free to re-list it with citations to news articals and whatnot. (Signed: J.Smith) 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB. Cannot be encyclopedic until the site becomes established and this looks some way off. Is there a Wiki listings site that you can submit this kind of thing to? - N (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN per WP:WEB and as avert/possible vanity (Signed: J.Smith) 19:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity website that contains traces of Libertarianism propaganda. Sycthos^Talk 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Incognito 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Would not this site belong in the List of wikis and therefore wouldn't it be reasonable for there to be an article about the site in the Encyclopedia? CapitanCook is considered defunct and it is listed. It just made sense to me to write an article about the site before listing it in the List of wikis. Thanks, User:DanKilo
• Delete. CapitanCook had a lot more to it in its day than this thing has now. Having once been notable and now no longer existing is very different from never being notable at all. Peyna 04:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stella dawson

Probable hoax. Zero google matches for "Stella dawson" in relation to the comic book company named, the comic book itself, or any other reasonable search. No reference to 'Fern-eater' found in relation to comics either. Data suggests that it's non a wikipedia appropriate article, or it's a complete fabrication. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as possible hoax, non-notable, comiccruft, etc. Stifle 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, likely hoax. -- Dragonfiend 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Stella was a ligitmate comic book. I know because I own it

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q2-O

Pure original research: "There is a physical field, which was not discovered yet by physics.". Made up, "copyrighted", etc. feydey 08:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Some kid's pet pseudo-physics theory. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyrighted original research. --Ezeu 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 10:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio and OR, not good enough to be called a hoax. From the dated-2003 article: "later will be finished". That was proven false; change to "later will be deleted". Barno 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Holy Father" (Roman Catholic Church Title)

Pope adequately covers this subject. This I believe is created to contrast the already AfDed and which is now under DRV article, Holy Father / Ezeu 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. MCB 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as violating WP:POINT. Stifle 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Incognito 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. You people are too quick to join in with the herd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laptopbomber (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 January 2006.
• Do not delete pope does not mention the origins and controversies of the title. --jeolmeun 11:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dangerfield

Article for a fictional character on a new show hosted online. Not notable and encyclopedic. feydey 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Uucp 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, probably intended for self-promotion.-Colin Kimbrell 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted advertising --M@thwiz2020 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Gate Casino

Blatant promotion. feydey 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I like the way it starts - "Gold Gate Casino is yet another online casino..." - Delete as advertising, spam, and the like. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freed Men Tenants

A relatively new system of beliefs. So new in fact that Google has not heard of them. Original research. -- RHaworth 09:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some random person trying to start their own cult via Wikipedia. Delete until he achieves 'success' in promoting his new faith the right way. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Jesus—and the New Testament –is still chronicled but updated to point out the fact that his miracles were, in fact, modern science (i.e.: water into wine via condensed powder)" LOL this article is complete rubbish!! —gorgan_almighty 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Does he mean "Tenets"? Lame hoax, not encyclopedic. Delete. Barno 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Hopefully the Tenets will be linked to later tonightm possibly tomorrow. It actually emerged as a joke as a way of making fun of someone. I'll edit that in. Keep it up because it's pseudo-legit but a lot of this is just garbage. The "Tenets" are written on notebook paper and basically got endorsed by some peoples parents and speech coaches. Keep it up for now, but change the stupider stuff.
• Delete. "It actually emerged as a joke as a way of making fun of someone." I think that says it all. MCB 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Incognito 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. Peyna 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brulines

Blatant advertising for a non-notable software company serving the licensed victuallers (pub landlord) trade in the UK. -- RHaworth 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 15:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as commercial ad spam. -Colin Kimbrell 14:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedy redirected' . -Doc ^ask? 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie swanson

There's already a Bonnie Swanson page that has capitalised her last name, thus this page is redundant Dekuu 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect. --Ezeu 09:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Just Redirect. Edgar181 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• It was nominated to be speedy deleted for lack of content, but the creator brought it here. It is redirected now. --Ezeu 13:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porplemontage Studios

Delete, as per WP:WEB. Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Grandfather Clock 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also a redlink farm which is liable to encourage people to create more useless articles. Stifle 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Gah, I should have checked about how notable a page should be before creating the page. I have no trouble with a deletion.. --YesIAmAnIdiot 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unfairly put up for deletion. This is discriminitory, you can't say that some Flash related sites can have pages, and others cannot. --PoultryMan
  • This is not discriminatory. As per the Wikipedia notability guidelines for websites, Porplemontage Studios is simply not as notable as is required for an article to be written on it, nor does the article have the content required to be important enough for Wikipedia. (Also, be sure to sign your responses with four tildes.) --Grandfather Clock 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It's obvious that the site is not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia page. All the cartoon and comic pages should be deleted, too. If we ever do get popular enough for a Wikipedia page it would be smarter to keep everything in one place instead of having many pages who's notability could be disputed. --Steve (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, come back later when people know who you are. Also, page creator acknowledges its non-notability. Peyna 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Amazin

Tagged for speedy, does not appear to be a speedy candidate; said to be "real" (per http://www.christinamilian.org/) but that is still real as in crystal ball. Since it's not been released yet it's kind of hard to know whether it will be significant. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as crystal ball until at least release. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not yet released. Peyna 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the album's first single goes to radio in 2 weeks. Why delete the page since it will only be added soon enough. Timeaftertimecl 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep: Nomination withdrawn and nobody argues for deletion. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-the-knot

Does not meet any of the three criteria at WP:WEB. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Could also be considered advertizing per the soapbox section of WP:NOT *Delete. -Halidecyphon 09:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :Changing my vote to no vote per SciAm award just added to the article. It now could be seen as satisfying WP:WEB, although personally I do not believe the spirit of that guidline is to copy every tech magazine's annual "best of the web" to wikipedia. - Halidecyphon 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've researched this site better now and it's clear I was hasty and in the wrong. I'd like to change my vote to keep and withdraw my nomination. Sorry everyone for wasting your time. -Halidecyphon 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a fairly well know and long running mathematical website which has a useful focus for educational mathematics. Its referenced from about 30 wikipedia pages, it has 250,000 google hits (search for cut-the-knot.com not .org). It won a Scientific American Web Award in 2003. --Salix alba 11:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Over 100 articles link there. Edgar181 12:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Salix alba and Edgar181. I fully agree with Halidecyphon that we should not "copy every tech magazine's annual "best of the web" to wikipedia", but sometimes stuff gets selected for a good reason, and sometimes nobody's documented importance in other ways and such an award is the first verifiable distinction that gets added. Barno 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A well-known and respected educational website, very frequently linked to from Wikipedia articles. Once upon a time someone misguidedly decided to consider those many links to be spam and started systematically deleting them, to the detriment of Wikipedia, until some of us stepped in and pointed out his error. Michael Hardy 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, keep. Dysprosia 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. If it doesn't satisfy WP:WEB, that means that WP:WEB is wrong. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to qualify my comment a bit. I think my conclusion that WP:WEB would be wrong if Cut-the-knot didn't satisfy it, is incorrect; the proper conclusion is that WP:WEB does not apply in this case. As a guideline, WP:WEB need not apply in all cases. Furthermore, I agree there is a problem of "webcruft" and I see Halidecyphon's nomination as an commendable effort to get rid of it. The nomination may have been a mistake in this particular instance but that is not so easy to determine for an outsider. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per all comments above. See in particular Jitse's comment. and the what links here for his page. linas 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly support Wikipedia's many external links to cut-the-knot, mentioned above. But does it necessarily follow that we need an article about the site itself? —Blotwell 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• no vote I got a whiff of the current activity through the good services of Oleg the gatekeeper. I thank every one for their involvement and vote. I wish to add my two cents and apologize in advance if the result appears worth a nickel. First, with a deep appreciation for Michael's effort, I still do not care for the article. Neither do I plan on editing it in any way. Second, I think, you fellows have to decide whether the category of Educational sites belongs in an encyclopdia or not. It may be of interest to consider the difference between an "encyclopedia" and an "online encyclopedia." If the category is present then I would think that my site is as educational as a next one. Third, the web awards, traditionally made prominently available to the visitors are of no great value. A group of SciAm editors is not a Nobel prize committee, of course, but they can be as misguided as the latter. Thus I would not place a great score on their award. Perhaps, MERLOT is a little different. It's a volunteer organization and I assume there was a chance for a broad participation as is the case in the wikipedia voting. Fourth, while I did not write the cut-the-knot article, I added quite a few links to my site. I do not know whether anybody else did. Thus the number of links from wikipedia to my site may not be a trustworthy criterion for site evaluation. The suitability of the links may. I am rather proud that I had no difficulty supplying a great quantity of good quality links. Fifth, google became an unruly behemoth. They dropped cut-the-knot.org from their indices on January 6, I believe, the reason for which I may only surmise. The idiots left all the entries for cut-the-knot.com, which is a (secondary) domain parked on top of .org. Alexa's index of .com is in the 500,000s, that of the (primary) .org was in the 50,000s. On an online forum hosted by google somebody suggested that their maneuver was due to the fact that there was a 302 (temporary) redirection from one site to the other, not the expected 301, which means "permanent". The trouble is that the redirection is from .com to .org, and not the other way round. You may want to know why I have this arrangement. In the beginning it was a plain .com site. When it began breaking the bandwidth limit and the penalty gew excessive (there was a month when the site's upkeep cost me $400), I made a copy on a different server, dubbed it cut-the-knot.org and would switch to it before incurring unsustainable penalties at cut-the-knot.com. My efforts notwistanding, the site was evicted from its shared server, at which point I simply parked it on top of the existing .org. It was so long ago, that most of the links to the site are via .org, some are still to .com. As you see, google's behavior is just a smack under the belt. Well, I am sorry. It looks like a dime's worth - just do not know to whom. Thank you all again. Alexander Bogomolny

Alexander, I'm sorry, I stupidly didn't go to the page with the list of awards. This site is clearly notable (and fun, may I add!)-Halidecyphon 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• comment What I don't care for in the article is that it's (currently) too short. Michael Hardy 02:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Definitely qualifies under notability. Surprised that anyone even considered nominating this article. Keep up the good work, Alexander !Gandalf61 09:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election

Tagged for speedy, but no criterion stated or evident. Since the inclusion of failed candidates for office is itself contentious, a list of failed candidates in one election (when other articles on that election exist, which are much broader in scope) might well be considered unnecessary duplication. Me? I'm just thje janitor :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Communist Party of Canada - Marxist-Leninist. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are several "list pages" already, and Wikipedia precedent is to accept them (we had a long discussion about this). More names will be added to this page in the future. CJCurrie 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same reasons as CJCurrie. --GrantNeufeld 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: (currently) empty, even filled will be non notable (generally those elected are notable). The fact that there is other cruft in WP should not be seen as excuse to keep this garbage inside. Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The candidates may be non-notable on their own, but the information is still relevant. We already have several pages like this, the result of lengthy discussions. CJCurrie 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Expand or delete. I like the ideas of party-list articles for elections, as they allow us to get in information about individual candidates who probably don't merit their own articles. However, I think one line about one person is pretty much a joke. -- Mwalcoff 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The page will be expanded, in time. CJCurrie 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC
• keep the page is under construction. There were 60-some CPC-ML canadidates that year. Homey 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A candidate for a national office is notable, IMO, regardless of the party. Karmafist 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if that candidate receives 60 votes out of many thousands of voters? I'm of two minds about this particle article, but I don't think Wikipedia really needs, say, every Freak Power Party candidate for Congress or every Monster Raving Looney Party candidate for Parliament, even in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If there is sufficient interest to create such pages, I don't see their proliferation as a problem. CJCurrie 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • When they're barely verifiable and often simply a promotion or vanity for the sub-noteworthy party in question? It can be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • In those instances, yes. But if verifiability and vanity issues can be taken care of, I don't see how list pages can be a problem. CJCurrie 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could become a good list of people representing the Marxist-Leninist voice in Canadian politics, could be a useful sub-page of Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). --maclean25 06:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... but only if expanded. A list with just one candidate is kinda pointless. Individual names might not each warrant articles, but a list of such candidates would be interesting... but please actually make the list, not just the title. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - can and should be expanded - max rspct leave a message 15:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superstreng

Originally tagged for speedy A7, but this is not a group, band, person or whatever. It is, however, a podcast of no apparent importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 12:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think I'm going to have to modify User:RasputinAXP/FFINN to include podcasts and garage bands, but then it'd be PCGBAFFANN and that's getting a little too long for a personal policy page, isn't it? RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 12:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• SuperDelete - non-notable, podcruft, useless advertising, whatever -- Femmina 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• speedy delete this mess. non-notable, one-liner article about something nobody cares about. --Timecop 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Incognito 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable trash. Cptchipjew 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable podcast (can you say redundant?) --Hosterweis 00:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete podcruft of the highest order. Stifle 14:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn podcast who cares Aigis
• Delete podcruft indeed. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:13, Jan. 19, 2006
• Delete this foolishness. NONCENSORED Popeye 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A terribly small article on a non-notable podcast. Spam. Viscid 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn podcast. *drew 05:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soopermuse

Tagged for CSD A7, but notability is asserted, albeit tenuously. Seems to fail WP:CORP and WP:WEB so bringing to AfD. Have asked the user if he wants it userfied, which is IMO the best option. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Absolute rubbish. Neologisms, non-notable website... sigh. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails tests. Essexmutant 11:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Rubbish", per Blu Aardvark, sums it up nicely. PJM 12:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BALLS. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 12:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster (Lost)

Recommend Speedy Deletion as this article is original research into a minor element of the Lost television series. The element (not even a character) is already covered in the main Lost article as well as the Lost episode summary pages. Rillian 11:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 12:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above (no relevant speedy criterion) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary article. All info already included in episode and character pages. Danflave 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Lost-cruft jumped the shark a while back... --DDG 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, or Merge any sections not included. May be valid for a full article in the future when its purpose is understood more. Essexmutant 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree that it's "original research", but it is redundant and unnecessary, and adds nothing to Lost lore. --PKtm 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Original Research is speculating the cloud of smoke is "the unseen creature" that killed the pilot (there's no way to know that); in asserting that "Locke came face to face with the creature" (again, unknowable); in saying it "attacks him for unknown reasons...using what appeared to be some sort of appendage"; and in stating that it makes noises like "moaning", "machine-like" and "growls." This is pure interpretation of whatever the smoke cloud may be, and is not (as yet) deserving of a separate Wikipedia article. —LeFlyman 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Some have suggested "merge" for this material, however, it's not been revealed as yet just what the "smoke cloud" is, and whatever we might say about it would be speculative in nature. There is already a note about its existence in the Lost (TV series)#Fan speculation section-- where previously the theory it was a dinosaur was dismissed-- which is the only place I can think of that it would belong (for the time being.) —LeFlyman 22:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's far too early in the series for such an article to be written. Any article on the "security system" would have to be full of OR at this point, and this will probably remain so until very near the end of the series (assuming, of course, it's not another MacGuffin like the numbers). This article should be removed at this time, regardless of whether such an article will exist at some later date in a few years. Baryonyx 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and policy on fancruft. --M@thwiz2020 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the parts that aren't speculation with Lost_(TV_Series)#Story_elements. The monster is a large enough presence in the series to deserve at least a small mention in the main article. The "numbers" have a paragraph there, and the monsther should as well.-Colin Kimbrell 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge non-speculative elements into main Lost article. The "monster" is still a pretty important part of the show, like the Hatch. Doesn't deserve a whole article, but definitley a big mention.-68.34.76.34 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Story elements, PER cOLIN Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was E Pluribus Anthony disqualifies a merge, so no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS AFD IS A METRIC OF CONSENSUS NOW AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO GAUGE CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chief of operations

According to its history I created this page, but I have no memory of doing so. Reading it now I don’t think its notable enough. Philip Stevens 12:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see the usefulness of an article about a fictional job title / rank. Mention it in Star Trek, if it's so notable. PJM 12:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment While of some note, this shouldn't be in the main article (which is already long) but in subarticles; see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Move/retitle or redirect. I'm sure such an article can be expanded to describe this fictional posting, also held by Data and Harry Kim (though both are referred to slightly differently). As such, it should be moved/retitled to chief operations officer (Star Trek). Moreover (if this is unworkable), I wonder if the article should be redirected to an actual managerial posting of chief operating officer for which there's an abundance of text and various redirects (e.g., chief operations officer). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek. Essexmutant 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't a rank per se but a position aboard 'Starfleet units': compare with actual positions of commanding officer, executive officer, et al. As well, there's a meaty article that deals with those fictional ranks. That's why I've suggested the move above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. fancruft Incognito 06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I would say to merge per above. However, Philip Stevens is the only contributor to this page and can request its deletion by tagging it with {{db-author}}. Stifle 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Slut

Tagged as speedy as a protologism, which is, alas, not a speedy criterion. Bringing it here instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Deli nk 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry 'bout that. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Muchness 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable nonsense --Bachrach44 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Incognito 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it's not in widespread use.-Colin Kimbrell 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Arbustoo 04:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ^ask? 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sefa Denizoğlu

Pure vanity page Ben W Bell 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Deli nk
• Speedy delete - nn bio / CSD A7. --Muchness 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - nn bio, also POV. Essexmutant 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Expression Company

Reason: Non-notable company created by grammar school children. Delete. Deli nk 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edgar181 13:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Even though I commend the kids for starting up a "company" where nearly everyone is a director. Plus, I'm sure they really do need new covers for their cell phones. :) PJM 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. More appropiate as a section on the schools web site than an article in an encylopedia (also probably very hard to keep up to date). MartinRe 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikerosion

The article title is a protologism -- that is, a word that has recently been invented and has not even gained enough linguistic currency to be considered a neologism. The article is also a POV personal essay, and covers much of the same ground as Criticism of Wikipedia. It had been turned into a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, but we generally try to avoid letting Wikipedia be used as a method to cultivate the usage of protologisms and neologisms. So I nominate it here for AFD. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody needs a 'blog. And a few whacks over the head until they develop a less academic style of writing. And to have their article deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, OR/POV. --Muchness 14:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article subject is indeed a protologism, and the article contents are the personal opinions and analyses of two Wikipedia editors (possibly one and the same), being published directly in Wikipedia. The article is unverifiable and original research. See Talk:Lemnian language#Translation to see what spawned it. Ironically, the article text decries the fact that many things available on Internet (e.g. personal web pages, web logs, and Usenet postings) are not considered to be reliable sources, but doesn't actually cite any sources itself at all. Delete. Uncle G 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV from someone who sounds extremely bitter about not getting their way in an edit war and figures it's all Wikipeida's fault. Plus they can't even spell "bureaucracy" correctly. Daniel Case 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Worl, be fair. It's a difficult word. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic personal POV essay; belongs in User space, if at all. MCB 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It appears to be hopelessly POV. I'm not so sure I'd vote to delete it from project space though. Stifle 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. I nomited ths on RfD, while it still was a redirect. —Ruud 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• ...an average community of memes endowed only with average intelligence... Umm, people are not memes. I'm no guru of information theory, but I know that much. --Agamemnon2 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps he meant "mimes". Oh, and Delete for both of the reasons cited in the nom (POV and protologism).-Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I spiced it up a little but the main body is still rather boring. Ashibaka tock 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agencyfaqs

Advertising article for a non-notable web site. A few quick web searches does nothing to enhance my impression of this site's notability. —Cleared as filed. 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Non-notable ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Incognito 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Seeing the name correctly capitalized and exclamation-pointed on every occurrence makes me suspicious. Stifle 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punters' Paradise

Non notable forum. originally tagged for speedy deletion as spam, but this is more than just spam, imo. Francs2000 13:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Contains useful information for anyone who considers the intellectual/investment (rather than just the visceral) aspect to betting. Linked and referred to in/by The Racing Post, BackAndLay among others. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.144.78 (talk • contribs).

• Speedy delete has beeen speedy deleted before as spam. --Bachrach44 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not spam, but not much more useful. PJM 15:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Good stuff on betting theory and statistics but not so strong on football. You pays your money....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Addabbiss (talk • contribs).
• Delete per PJM. Not a speedy delete, "spam" is not a speedy deletion criterion. Stifle 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally listed it as "CSD A7: Unremarkable group". Didn't mention anything about spam. — TheKMan^talk 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not really spam, but borderline in terms of adding value. On balance, as gambling, the web and free discussion are intertwined, probably deserves to survive as the stub it currently is. Doesn't deserve anything other than brief coverage, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.170.112 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tierney Weighting System

A personally devised system of rating football teams. Original research. Morwen - Talk 13:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research by non-notable individual. Qwghlm 13:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nomination. Mariano(t/c) 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not request speedy deletion unless an article satisfies one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Being original research is not one of those criteria. Uncle G 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, WP:NOR. --CopperMurdoch 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. One merge "voter" provides no rationale. The other's rationale makes no sense, because the article provides no information other than raw data (i.e. when it's held, how many people attend), so how can it provide an insight into the community? And last but not least, because AfD is a debate and not a vote...Saberwyn wins. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bankstown Christmas Carols

A carol singing event, flagged for speedy as "lacks importance" - not a CSD criterion. Bringing to AfD instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Bankstown. PJM 15:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost every 'major' suburb in Sydney (Bankstown, Parramatta, Hornsby, etc) and possibly Australia, has some form of "Christmas Carols" or "Carols by Candlelight" event. All of these events attract a handful-thousand people every year. There is nothing here, or could potentially be here, that really warrants an article, or a merge to any other article. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm going to elaborate on my reasons why this info is pretty pointless in the grand scheme of the Bankstown article, and an encyclopedia in general. Let's take another example of a time when a small few-thousand people get together to celebrate: Fourth of July in the United States.

Now, from where I stand, a merge here would be equevilant to picking a single article on a random American township, and then specifically saying that they have a celebration on the Fourth of July. Unless I'm highly mistaken, and I may be, most places in the United States put together some kind of shin-ding to celebrate whatever it is.

Bankstown is not made unique or different from the status quo by running christmas carols in this format, no more than Randomville, United State (population 18,000) would be made unique or different by announcing to the world that they have a Fourth of July event.

I still say delete, as per above, but would happily support a couple of lines being added to the Carols by Candlelight article - something along the lines of "This format has been replicated multiple times by the various local councils in Australia, who run their own, smaller events. These are in a similar format and style to, but not directly linked, to the larger events held in the capital cities.", but fancier. -- Saberwyn

• Very weak merge though I am somewhat swayed by what Saberwyn has pointed out above. -- Francs2000 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - have changed my mind -- Francs2000 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Bankstown. Not enough here to stand on its own, but knowledge of shared experiences can provide insight into the character of a community. -Colin Kimbrell 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the event is somehow highly significant to that area. (and per: Saberwyn, we don't have Springfield Independence Day Celebration, why have this article at all?) Peyna 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BEML

Tagged as speedy {{db|no establishment of notability, advertising}} but that's not a WP:CSD criterion so bringing it here. Article as written is poor quality spam but company may meet WP:CORP in which case perhaps some kind soul will help out in the interests of systemic bias. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as advert, currently unverifiable. Stifle 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 61 Google news hits for "BEML"[8] (plus some more for the whole name[9]). According to this link, they are the second-largest Asian manufacturer of earthmoving equipment. -Colin Kimbrell 15:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the article as best I can, and I think it's a workable stub now. Maybe someone who knows more about finance than I do can build from here. -Colin Kimbrell 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten - a shoo-in, in fact, even without taking systemic bias into account. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is one of Asia's largest company of earth-moving equipment. This article should not be deleted because it one of Asia's top equipment companies. -Effer 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Effer and JzG --kingboyk 13:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RockAbilly.US

This article was originally created as an objective synopsis, but now I ask for its deletion. An anonymous user has posted many comments, most of those being slanderous lies. This article is not the proper forum for people with personal vendettas writing false, damaging opinions, wasting the time of users who have to delete such bias. Idigworms 13:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep no different to many articles, just needs more people to watch the page for vandalism. (but its not really many comments - 3 or 4 according to the history - Im assuming this is the type of thing you mean: [10] ) The group gets 20k hits on google so it seems well known enough to keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete i dunno, who knows for sure that more people will watch this page for vandalism? if they arent obligated to, then more vandalisms will happen if the person who wrote them is believed, he said he would keep writing: [11]. this should be treated with as much care as the infamous john siegenthaler, sr. page, but only problem is, more people know about his history and what is and isnt true about him.... .with this music groups comparitive low profile, and since they doont have a nat'l platform (USA TODAY) to defend themselves, how will people know what is true and what is slander. with that i say delete. Ruinsdomino 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's not verifiable it doesn't belong in Wikipedia and will usually be very quickly deleted. I bothered to do a little research and could not find anything to back up some of the claims that were added to the article, so I removed them. Peyna 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as no valid reason to delete. This nomination is an abuse of the AfD process. If people are violating the NPOV policy use the dispute resolution procedure, i.e. WP:RFC, WP:RFM, WP:RFAR. Stifle 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently one of the page's contributors was fed up with some vandalism, but such is the way of Wikipedia. Remove the vandalism, if necessary, notify people that need to be notified, but they appear to be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion [12] Peyna 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Meyer

Non-notable website owner. The Hobo incident might be worthy of a mention on Wikipedia, but this bio is not needed. Searching for "Cody Meyer" with either RootCore or Hobo gives us absolutely nothing, so he doesn't seem to be notable in his association with the website or the incident. - N (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-bio. Also all unverifiable. Peyna 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galilei Consulting

Tagged as db-contact per WP:CSD but is more than just an external link or contact attelpt. It is, on the other hand, very remiscent of a certain spiced meat product from the Hormel foods company. Perhaps it meets WP:CORP, and then again perhaps it doesn't. I'm just the janitor. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete' per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. Incidentally, Wikipedia is fortunate to have janitors like JzG. PJM 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was the one who speedied it. Still believe it to be spam. --^demon 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. advert Incognito 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellerock entertainment

Eh just seems like advertising to me. None of these sites have an Alexa ranking under 12,000... only a few are under 100,000. Wouldn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. But it's not nearly clear-cut enough for a speedy delete. W.marsh 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Operates some of the better known casinos and Prima Poker skins. Article isn't very good, however, and it should be 'Belle Rock Entertainment' (3 words). --kingboyk 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert and linkspam. Stifle 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. PJM 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam Incognito 05:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtualgumshoe.com

• Delete. It's an advertisement. Speedy delete? Uucp 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No ads on Wikipedia. Captain Jackson 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Essexmutant 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. It's funny how almost all ad spam articles look identical at first glance. —gorgan_almighty 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete spam --Bachrach44 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete spam. --Fresh

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XAT-ATx

This was accidentally posted at meta and transwiki'd here by a well-intentioned meta-user. However, I don't think the band meets WP:MUSIC if they only had a few shows, even if those few were somewhat well received in the local press. Chick Bowen 14:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as {{nn-band}} (tagged) Stifle 16:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ^ask? 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Dorsey

Delete. Vanity Uucp 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. Should not be in AFD. Tagged. PJM 15:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucien Salandiak

Can anyone confirm this singer's existence? No real Google hits, and the 'official' website is hand-made junk (those CD covers look totally fake), although I haven't attempted to listen to the songs linked on the page since I'm in a public place without headphones at the moment. Hun which links to the page should also be removed. Osgoodelawyer 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He is indeed a singer who entered the charts in 2004. Just typing Gone Before It Happens Hun refers to official release dates, but his albums weren't released. I can't confirm the Unisong thingy (although I believe looking at their site that many people enter for each country). The official Beth fanclub site refers to their duet (called Ineluctable). Thaliafan

• Unsigned comment by User:Thaliafan 13:01, January 17, 2006 Dragoonmac 23:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you sign your entry, please? I'm not convinced. Everything that I can find using your search terms seems to be on user-editable sites, or else the links don't work. The pictures of the guy also do not seem to match with his reported age. In addition, a search for "Lucien Salandiak" on Google gets exactly three results; two from Wikipedia, and one which is a copy of a Wikipedia entry, plus he does not show up on discogs.com as either Hun or Lucien Salandiak. I can hardly believe that there would be zero proper results for a search for his name on the web. Osgoodelawyer 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Can't find on AMG, 648 hits for the search User:Thalafian suggested. Most of which were on a strange combination of shady UK DVD sites and Cheap Lyrics Sites. Dragoonmac 23:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I typed in Luciak (like the site), and I have found some fan sites for him (for example, www.angelfire.com/gundam/luciak/). Thaliafan

I bought his single in 2004. therefore, i confirm that he is real. The song was called Gone before it Happens but on the CD, it said that his site was hunweb.com, nothing to do with luciak. Benidict Wong

Sure you did, 'Benedict Wong'. Care to point out a website where it is available for purchase? Osgoodelawyer 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as functionally unverifiable. Stifle 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that I saw the single last year in Southampton I think. The writing on the front reminded me of Madonna's Hollywood. It was £2.99 in a bargain bin in Wallworths. Limelolly 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (nominator's vote). Do you mean Woolworths, Limelolly? How do you account for there being no documented evidence to back up your claims? The whole world just accidentally forgot to put this in writing? Osgoodelawyer 14:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; no need to transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catullus 15, Catullus 16, Catullus 17, Catullus 21, Catullus 22, Catullus 25

already on Wikisource.No other link to the articles Melaen 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Wikipedia is not the place for source documentation. The English Wikipedia is not the place for articles written in a foreign language. —gorgan_almighty 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Stong keep and transwiki. The information about the texts could probably be combined into one article in WP. Then, the quoted texts needs to be moved to wikisource, since their notability is not in question. I am pretty sure this is the Latin wikisource, but this may be another language.--Esprit15d 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I took off the tranlation tags, since translation of works is not appropriate for WP.--Esprit15d 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Note the links to the text already contained on Wikisource by the WS Template. Please do not transwiki what already exists or put latin text on the english wikisource. If there are English translations you would like to move please be sure they are not copyright violations. Published before 1923 is a good rule of thumb, if in doubt don't transwiki--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Birgitte, was that note directed at me? Anyway, I'm in total agreement.--Esprit15d 14:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No I'm sorry if it came across that way I am just trying insert similar comments wherever I find these sorts of disscusions. We have a large backlog of Transwiki materials at Wikisource and a lot of them are unverifiable copyright (especially translations) or non-english [13]. And it is hard to contact the WP editors doing the transwikis as they don't sign up for accounts. So I am just trying inform editors to Transwiki responsibly as we don't want copyright material sititng in the backlog for too long.

• Transwiki and delete. Stifle 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource. --Revolución (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Central Internet Avenue

Spammity spam. Esprit15d 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete creative idea; also adspam, incorrect title. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• speeedy delete spam. --Bachrach44 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as ad spam. This idea is so pathetic it'll probably catch on and make loads of money!! —gorgan_almighty 16:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duran Duran Duran

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it was tagged db-band, but isn't a speedy candidate. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Album reviewed at Pitchfork Media [14], and the webpage shows the album being featured rather unflatteringly in Vice Magazine. Close enough to WP:MUSIC for me. --badlydrawnjeff 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 16:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

duran duran duran is an established member of the breakcore community. the deletion of this article would be to do harm to the preexisting breakcore article. please keep in mind that breakcore as a genre is underground, and therefor, most media does not keep up with it- it is a self-contained subculture. Notsleeping 09:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• If it's underground, why should Wikipedia, a mainstream encyclopedia, bother to cover it? --Agamemnon2 13:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Because even underground acts can meet WP:MUSIC, even with WP:MUSIC's numerous failings. --badlydrawnjeff 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Definite keep What kinda BS is this? Only mainstream music should be covered by Wikipedia? I hope this isn't a policy of WP 'cause that would make all the work I've put in the WP the last year obsolete. This article should not be deleted. Duran Duran Duran is an important artist in Breakcore and if you delete this you might as well delete the whole breakcore article and why not the comple electronic music part of the WP. psi36 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, media coverage. Kappa 08:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Moore and the Distance

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it was tagged db-band, but isn't a speedy candidate. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Geoff Moore. Looks like the band is doing a national tour of various religious venues according to their website. I don't know how worthwhile their record label is in the Christian Music biz, though. All info *could* be worthwhile in the Geoff Moore article, but I don't know if that's the best move. --badlydrawnjeff 14:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think merge is a good option. I'm pretty familiar with the artist and the band, so I can work with the article later. Thief12 11:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pivot stickfigure animitator

Delete as non-notable program and advertising. --InShaneee 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Author too incompetent even to provide a link to his website. -- RHaworth 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Author appears somewhat poor at spelling and linking. Stifle 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Enough with those damn merges that don't make sense. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schulz-Prager Controversy

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was not notable, not worthy of wikipedia. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the articles for each person. The controversy article itself has nothing to make it worthy of a separate article.

• Delete as unencyclopedic and something that's virtually certain not to be entered into a search box. Stifle 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not worth even putting in the main entrys for the respective individuals. Brimba 17:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Barno's reason to merge doesn't wash; I've read half a dozen full-fledged books on the browser wars and none of them even touches on this. Besides, this wouldn't fit in the article, like at least 2/3rds of all merges from AfD that either throw the size of the article devoted to trivial matters out of whack or cover something all but tangentially related to the article. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seineew era sreenigne epacsten

Not an Internet meme. A very obscure catch-phrase, on par with (or below) "The magic words are squeamish ossifrage" or "You are not expected to understand this." There's nothing to say about it except "one Microsoft engineer put it in a DLL once," so it's not encyclopedic. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic — maybe even a speedy delete.

• Delete (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this bit of trivia into browser wars. Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a strange comment found in program source code is very non-notable. As a computer programmer myself I have written much stranger comments. JIP | Talk 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into browser wars. This was a widely discussed bit of trivia that was often used to characterize the tone of the Microsoft Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator battle, which led to one of the biggest and most noted government antitrust actions ever. Barno 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would consider All your base are belong to us as the baseline for inclusion of nonsense phrases. This doesn't pass it. Stifle 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NO CONSENSUS NOW AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. ANYONE CITING THIS AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER SHOULD BE TWHACKED ABOUT WITH A CLUESTICK. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All or None

dicdef Melaen 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Stifle 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable type of security order. Kappa 08:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASTPP Voip Billing

advertising Melaen 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Not 100% certain it's advertising, but it appears non-notable. — RJH 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Incognito 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert, probable copyvio too. Stifle 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ^ask? 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School

Delete - I am the author of said article and have decided to pull my work. Drmike 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1). howcheng {chat} 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis Phase I

Atlantis comes from another galaxy, yeah... Melaen 16:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ^ask? 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRUV

Delete I am the author of this artecle and no longer wish for it to be used. Drmike 16:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No valid reason given to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aylandria

no google reference found Melaen 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — appears to be game-related, although I could find nothing notable mentioned about Darkwind. C.f. [15], [16] Also related to this page is Cullen (Character in fantasy lore), which is vague about it's origin. — RJH 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If this had some type of context regarding which fantasy world it fit in it probably could be merged with another article. Although, it is very compelling that I didn't see a single non WP reference to it at Google. Hmmmmm...--Esprit15d 16:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Powers

no reference found Melaen 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

maybe merge to Arthur (TV series) --Melaen 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Article just trashes person in question --Drmike 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sub-character in the "Arthur" the aardvaark universe, and he is already discusssed there.--Esprit15d 16:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Assault Traders

Delete I am the original author of said page and no longer wish to have this article listed. Only changes in history log are with external links and catagories. Drmike 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Do you have a valid reason why it should be deleted? Thanks. — RJH 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I gave one. I no longer wish to have my work used here. If you wish to have an article on AAT, feel free to write your own. Program is also not notable and only has a small fanbase. --Drmike 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep — I don't believe that being the author of an article is a valid reason for an AfD nomination. It should only be based on the content. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thanks. :) — RJH 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People come and go, but we can't delete what they've done when they decide to leave. And by contributing, an author automatically agrees to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, so one can't argue use without permission. So I see no reason to delete. The page looks pretty good too. --Esprit15d 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People can't request their work to be deleted because they feel like it. According to CSD G7 the page can be speedy deleted "provided the page was (...) mistakenly created". This is not the case here. Punkmorten 17:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• It was mistakenly created. I have found too many places on the net where my work is being used without credit. I thought you folks respected copyright. My mistake. --Drmike 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• We respect copyright, but all Wikipedia contributions are licensed under GFDL, to which you agreed to by submitting said content in the first place. I'm going to vote Delete on non-notability, though. --Agamemnon2 13:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia isn't responsible for the actions of other sites. You should have read the warnings. Golfcam 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Esprit15d and Golfcam, but rewrite to wikify and to remove Drmike's direct phrasing, fix misspelling "accumilated", and expand to demonstrate notability. (Delete if notability can't be shown.) I don't see any POV material surviving that needs to be deleted. Barno 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Stifle 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, no content. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrot jam

already on wikibooks Melaen 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. With jam, or jelly, or carrots.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger E. Moore

Delete I am the author of said article and no longer wish to have my work ripped off by others. Only changes made to the artecle have been minor and with categories. Drmike 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Ripped off? Care to explain? -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At the bottom of every page it states : "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." And, under each editing box, it says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." By contributing, the editor has agreed to these terms. So, yes, he should stop contributing to WP (as is his right), but what he has already contributed is already under free liscence.--Esprit15d 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People can't request their work to be deleted because they feel like it. According to CSD G7 the page can be speedy deleted "provided the page was (...) mistakenly created". This is not the case here. Punkmorten 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Esprit15d. WP:CSD G7 does allow for speedying if:

Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created."

but I hardly see that this can be claimed as "mistakenly created" when the original author has taken the trouble to make cleanup edits, then add information and a picture after some four months! Tonywalton  | Talk 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• It was mistakenly created. I have found too many places on the net where my work is being used without credit. I thought you folks respected copyright. My mistake. --Drmike 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're not getting credit, they're in violation of the GFDL. Report them. Night Gyr 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Drmike should have read the disclaimer. Also, who feels the need to be credited for a five line Wikipedia entry? Osgoodelawyer 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I agree that Drmike can't just have his contributions removed because he no longer likes that they're here, I'm not sure that the subject of the article is really noteable enough for an entry. Just having worked on some RPGs doesn't really make you noteable NoIdeaNick 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC). Seems I was a little hasty here. He certainly has a fair number of Google results. I'm still not sure that he's really noteable enough, but I think it's probably better to keep an article when there's some doubt. I change my vote to Abstain. NoIdeaNick 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. You don't WP:OWN articles you create. Moore sounds like a notable bloke, and thus the article won't be deleted just because its author (or even Moore himself) asks to. JIP | Talk 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not because of the author's request, but because Roger Moore is not-notable. Refer to this line "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Captain Jackson 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A Google search for "Roger E. Moore discovered roleplaying games in the late 1970s while writing gaming articles" returns 15 results, including one from Wizards of the Coast, which is quite similar. Either you copied it from this page, or this page copied it from you. If the first case, it is a copyvio. If it is the second, they are not specifying the source as, in example, Answers.com entry. -- ReyBrujo 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Esprit15d and JIP, assuming no copyvio. MCB 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't sound very notable. Being a past member of SFWA is not really enough to be notable. In fact there are many many current members who I don't think would be notable enough. The other stuff sounds minor. Also, even if it's not policy, if the creator/autobiographer doesn't want it I think that matters. If this person is important enough another person can create an article on him when/if that becomes obvious.--T. Anthony 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments about article ownership. He is notable as the editor of two well-read magazines and a RPG designer so I see no valid reason to get rid of this. Keresaspa 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination makes no sense. Gazpacho 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up, both because writers don't own articles and because Roger Moore is a notable RPG author. A partial bibliography can be found here.[17] and he was a longtime editor of Dragon Magazine, probably the most notable RPG magazine.--ThreeAnswers 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keeping. Morwen - Talk 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brae

nonsense dicdef Melaen 16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsalvageable.--Esprit15d 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to Keep, per changes.--Esprit15d 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: An earlier version which stated that Brae is a town on Shetland was reverted as vandalism. However, Brae is a town on Shetland [18]. If deleted this should be created anew as a geo-stub. Punkmorten 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now expanded into a respectable geostub about the Shetland town. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Finlay McWalter.--Mais oui! 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Valid geo-stub. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Good job! MCB 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the new version -- Francs2000 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nice geostub by Finlay McWalter Cactus.man ✍ 08:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Downloads

all this info is already on List of Google services and tools Hirudo 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant, and spam.--Esprit15d 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Sycthos^Talk 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Stifle 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30Gigs.com

Delete. Not relevant. This is an advertisement for the company. Fresh 16:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable company. -- Egil 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to Abstain because I cannot really tell if it is notable enough. The entry bears the scent of spam, though. -- Egil 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Incognito 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Doc029 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anselmo Heidrich

geography professor: no claim of notability Melaen 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable vanity. Google test specifies 651 results. Sycthos^Talk 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speedy if possible, WP:BIO. Stifle 09:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No published books that I can find, and only one cite on Google Scholar. He does appear to write a column here and here, but I can't determine the notability of that one way or the other, since I don't speak Spanish and don't trust machine translations. -Colin Kimbrell 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-telligence

Term as defined appears to be a neologism invented by two people, one of whom is the author. One Google hit on "Inter-telligence" though "intertelligence" does appear to be a trademarked term used by a Canadian marketing company to mean something completely different. Neville Langley (one of the co-inventors of the neologism) may or may not be the author of film notes on Pulp Fiction per Google; without context it's not possible to tell who the other author may be and whether either is notable in a WP sense. Delete as unverifiable neologism and/or OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom --Esprit15d 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Sycthos^Talk 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense Incognito 06:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was honestly, why the hell would this fit in the Opera article? It's a delete, plain and simple. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WIR

Not notable abbreviation, hard to justify an entry for it (Neologism?) -- Egil 17:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Could be included in the article internet slang.--Esprit15d 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Opera (web browser). Stifle 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd leave it alone as it is. Or if that's impossible, at least Merge it to Opera (web browser). Anonymous. 19 January 2006.
• Add to internet slang or Opera page
• This is not in any case open for deletion. May be merged into "Internet slang" instead (Opera Browser is definitely not the right place to put it; the term itself hasn't got anything to do with the Browser, except that it is its official release date), but redirections have to be kept intact. Grey 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• I say keep it as it is.
• I'd add to internet slang, and maybe add a link from the Opera (web browser) page to it Ant 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd keep it as it - I only managed to figure out what it meant because someone in the forums linked to the Wikipedia page
• I say leave it (since RSN has its own page), or add it to internet slang and redirect WIR to the part on Internet Slang, so people looking for the article don't just get a blank page. Of course, link to it on the Opera page. -- Louis C. 18:45, 20 January 2006 (EST)
• keep it as it is, thanks.
• While the origin of the abbreviation was from Opera development (and most commonly used among Opera users), it isn't limited to it.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care of living organisms

it has been transwikied Melaen 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Gazpacho 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. Tim Pierce 05:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arisia

Tagged for speedy by User:86.1.111.124, but asserts notability. With some justification: a convention over 25 years old with upwards of 2000 attending. Tempted to just remove the speedy tag, but in the end someone wants it deleted so let's let the community decide. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, convention over 25 15 years old with upwards of 2000 attending. Kappa 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Listed as a notable event by [[19]], which is (in its field) a well-known, well-respected magazine with general bookstore distribution. Monicasdude 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Per the actual article, Arisia's "first year of existence was 1989". Did previous voters RTFA or just read the nomination? Barno 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, I read the article but I didn't do the math, LOL. Kappa 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, 16-year-running annual convention of 2000 isn't generally very notable, but is notable in its field per Locus magazine and Monicasdude. I think SF fandom and its conventions are just barely enough of a widespread field (rather than just a fringe niche) that long-running cons like Arisia squeeze within the "notable in its field" part of the importance criteria. Barno 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google search shows various mentions of this convention, but most relevant hits in the first few pages are niche websites or fan activity. Did the Boston Globe ever do an article on Arisia, especially one that discussed community tradition rather than holding it up as "look at what the silly nuts in their Darth Vader costumes are doing"? Such a citation would help the article and the Keep votes. Barno 23:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Barno. I can confirm that Arisia is well-known in sf fandom outside the Boston area; it's not just a local phenomenon. MCB 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was not verified, so delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kr

this is an article worth of Wookieepedia Melaen 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

the article doesn't make clear if the battle is fact or fiction --Melaen 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a major fictional battle, no reason given for deletion. Kappa 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being fictional, all the more reason to questions its notability. It has none. -- Egil 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (if verified) into some appropriate Star Wars battles list or article, per WP:FICT and whatever the Star Wars project's current standards are (excluding where fanatics might change standards to overrule WP:Importance). Article does not establish context; I had to see "The Milleniun Falcon" {sic} "was able to land on Kr" and names "Luke" and Leia" to understand that the very bottom of the page was right to include "Category: Star Wars battles". Reads like fanfic or fan synopsis rather than encyclopedic content; needs editing if kept. Could someone verify whether this battle is canon, and whether it's critical or minor in the actual movies? If minor, merge to the List of Minor Star Wars Battles. Barno 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified and not encyclopedia worthty. Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Transwiki merge. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a fan site. Sycthos^Talk 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fan synopsis of the main battle in The Joiner King, a Star Wars novel. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. fancruft Incognito 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as swcruft. Sorry. Stifle 09:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Joiner King as this is a major battle in that novel. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if verified. Snargle 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad heterosexual

Original research Endomion 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- No references to use of the term; it's an apparent neologism not in common use. -- MatthewDBA 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism, no evidence that it is encyclopedic yet (if ever). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable neologism. Sycthos^Talk 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. incog 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research. —ERcheck @ 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G4). howcheng {chat} 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We.hate.tech

This has been deleted and speedy deleted several times before, all under different names. (The author is most likely trying to evade people's watchlists. 1 2 3 4, however it has some claims of notability in this verion, so I'm going the slow route. (Also I can't see the older deleted versions not being an admin, so I don't know if there are some differences between the versions). Bachrach44 17:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's still the same. Speedied. howcheng {chat} 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naughton's Hotel

Non-notable bar. Mikeblas 17:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• delete non-notable --TimPope 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable location. Sycthos^Talk 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Nach0king 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was sigh...no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS IS NO CONSENSUS NOW. IF IN THE FUTURE CONSENSUS IS OBTAINED TO MERGE, REDIRECT OR WHATEVER, THEN DO IT. THIS AFD CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED TO BACK UP SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Non Notable film, added by pov pusher. Less than 12 Unique Google hits, including some Blogs with enlighting titles, such as "Jihad Watch" and "dhimmi watch" (From the same makers as Jihad Watch, mind) also "news" sites, such as "world net daily" and "Feeds Farm".. and some encyclopedia called "Wikipedia"! Irishpunktom\^talk 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Pusher? Look who is talking. For your information JihadWatch , Dhimmiwatch and World Net Daily and other such websites are simply sources of information on current events deserving of public attention.--CltFn 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As nominator. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Wikipedia NPOV policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?--CltFn 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion because the movie is not notable or famous. Would you please comment on how NPOV is relevant?--Esprit15d 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well , the wikipedia NPOV policy actually states that all POVs should be presented, this being a far cry from the belief of some editors that anything that is controversial should not be presented under the guise of being POV. Its not me saying this , just read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?. So in a nutshell let all voices be heard dude.--CltFn 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's not why this AfD was brought up. The movie is, according to the description, not notable. He, I believed, called you a POV-pusher, however, which might be where you got the idea that this has got to do with the NPOV policy. I generally disagree with Irishpunktom's statement that the movie is not notable (barely), but NPOV this article is not. Which means it warrants a clean-up, not outright deletion. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I was answering Esprits request for comment.--CltFn 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Esprit15d asked what NPOV has got to do with this AfD. I'd like to know, myself -- the issue of contention right now is that the article references something that is "Non Notable", to use Irishpunktom's words. Why bring up NPOV anyway? Saying that this article should be kept as per Wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't going to save this article, because someone can just come up and say, "Okay, so it's a point of view. That doesn't mean that all points of view should be given equal validity in Wikipedia." — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 06:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not notable. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems the movie has recieved some media attention. Also the article seems to be NPOV & does provide the reader with some genuine information. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. It's had some media attention, so it's no longer not notable. It's going to need some serious cleanup to keep it NPOV, but that's assuming this article survives this AfD. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've given it some thought, and frankly, if it's only being seriously reported by two news agencies since its release, and has only been released once and not been distributed, it's really not notable. Come back when there's a DVD or something. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while its notablity is borderline, I doubt anyone can find an editor who could NPOV this. --BadSeed 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I keep thinking about that. I mean, it has Google pages referencing it -- but most are from similar sources -- maybe half a dozen unique sources, tops. It has two Google News entries around the time I'm posting this... and I keep thinking: where's the conversation? Where's the interest? Does this thing really deserve a page by itself? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The only news sites referring to it that I fund where from WND, and considering several of the "stars" are contributors to WND, this fails any concieveable notion of notability. Thus far, this film has been shown once and has not been distributed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a guideline somewhere saying "Will anyone remember/care about this in 10 years time? If not it's not notable." I don't think having some google hits is realy relevant, it's not exactly hard to put something up on the internet. --BadSeed 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable POV magnet. Stifle 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although the article describes the point of view of the film, the article itself doesn't express any particular point of view. Wiki's NPOV rule is meant to prevent articles from being written with a particular point of view. The NPOV rule does not preclude having articles about subjects that represent or possess a particular point of view. As for it being a non-notable film, there are hundreds of wiki articles on films, TV shows, comics books, etc, that aren't particularly notable. The film exists, thus it has as much right to be written up in a Wiki article as any other film. Simply the fact that it was premiered at the American Film Renaissance Festival in Hollywood makes it notable. Its not just some home movie of unknown people. Its obvious that the person wishing to delete this article simply finds the film offensive. This consideration for deletion is nothing more than an attempt at suppressing information that some party dislikes. Take a look at IrishPunkTom's user page - it clearly states that he is a member of some group called the Muslim Guild. Obviously, he would dislike this subject matter. Nortonew 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem with this issue is it's considered not notable, not POV. Let's not just automatically assume that the AfD was made because the initialAfD poster was a member of the Muslim Guild and he would automatically offended by this movie. Assume good faith, folks. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I googled it and got 159 hits from a wide variety of sources. For something that's not notable, there sure are a lot of people talking about it.Nortonew 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what held me up at first as well -- it had a fairly significant amount of links in Google, so I voted for keep. But Google News only uncovers two news links to it, and from what I can see, it has only been shown in one particular film festival, and there's no talk for getting it distributed. That kind of clinched it for me, so I changed my recommendation to delete. I do note, however, that the film festival that it appeared in, the American Film Renaissance, doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. That, IMO, is more notable than this film, and should be added. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Try going to Category:Documentary films and start entering the titles into Google's news search. You'll find that most of the documentary films in Wikipedia score zero hits on the news search.Nortonew 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If the article remains, it definitely needs some NPOV work. Right now it sounds like an advertisement for the film, not an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The most promotional thing I see in the article is that it claims the movie is "unflinching" and "sober", those terms are definitely debatable and should be removed from the description. The rest of it seems like nothing more than a description of the film's contents in a fairly mundane fashion. If there have been any Islamic groups, (or other groups), that have issued statements condemning or criticizing the film, it would be appropriate to add a section in the article documenting those statements.Nortonew 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator--Bob 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Attempt at censorship by Muslim editor: Nominator is a POV-pusher himself from previous experience, this is an attempt by him to censor criticism of Islam - He is Muslim himself and a member of the POV-pushing guild "WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild", the counterpart to WikiProject Islam which dedicates itself to NPOV coverage. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. *Very* obscure film. It'd be one thing if it were a well-known or influential book, but it's pretty clearly not, and to say that this is about censorship is patently ridiculous. --Improv 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that saying this is about censorship is at all ridiculous. If one compares the obscurity of this film to all the other documentaries at Category:Documentary films, this film is probably actually more notable than many of them. A lot of them get fewer hits on Google and didn't get showings at film festivals. Also, there is good motivation for this film to be censored. Its really close to being a hate film aimed at Muslims, (maybe beyond just being close actually). It claims to contain information that people need to know about Islam, but it documents massacres committed by Muslims against people of other religions over a thousand years ago. Those incidents are not exactly pertinent in todays world, unless you are trying to just scare people and stir up negative feelings about Islam. If this film had been aimed at Jews or Catholics, I would be willing to bet it would have been a Jew or Catholic nominating it for deletion. Sorry, but assuming the best intentions in this case is simply burying your head in the sand. Nortonew 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, this is embarrassing. I'm beginning to see your point at this rate, and my opinion's wavering... again. Damn, I'm a Swing voter. This bites. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Screening at a major film festival is sufficient for me. Durova 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure film appears to be a biased look at islam rather than a documentary on islamofacisim. --128.2.225.185 03:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 6 edits at time of vote. gren グレン ^? 06:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was deleted on a 6 to 3 vote and it has confused me very much. I don't particularly care if we have a policy that keeps or deletes non-notable books that are critical of religion... we just need to have criterion set so that we don't get huge amounts of variation. That book was more popular on Amazon than The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book) with every other sign showing that it was just as important. Wikipedia is not paper but along with that Wikipedia should not be systemically biased. So, that is my major worry in all of this. I have historically voted keep on this type of thing but I am worried when it seems to come to different notability standards on books critical of different religions. gren グレン ^? 06:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guard (Bionicle)

Delete The article is too short to be useful and the information is covered elsewhere. The only things that link to it are the category listing and someone's "untagged stubs" list. I'd rather not clutter up the category listing with unnecessary articles. Drakhan 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Bionicle --TimPope 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or weak merge to Matoran. Please kids, don't dump the sub-sub-sub-articles on the main page in a merge - try and find somewhere more appropriate. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Saberwyn. As with all of the (many) long-dormant Bionicle stuff, there doesn't seem to be interest in expanding these beyond stubs or even de-orphaning them, so a merge seems good to me. --W.marsh 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as bioniclecruft. Stifle 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Matoran, per Saberwyn.-Colin Kimbrell 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Minor Mortal Kombat characters. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inferno Scorpion

From speedy as "nonsense", but appears real (although not notable). Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• A Mortal Kombat thing. Not notable if real (I haven't cared to check that part). Merge (if verified) to the MK article's Characters section. Barno 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Mortal Kombat. Sycthos^Talk 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to MK.--nixie 03:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Mortal Kombat (or ideally whatever MK game he's from). Stifle 09:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry about the speedy; I was too hasty. --Phronima 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as attack page. r3m0t ^talk 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] District Six Council

Delete. Repeated attempts by this user to insert this nonsensical information into District Six has been reverted by multiple editors. Now the user has created an article for it. dewet|™ 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete This is just nasty and not at all funny. I've proposed it for speedy as an attack page. Obina 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)