Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< January 26 January 28 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 very short articles with no context. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De Appel Curatorial Training Program; De Appel

Non-notable subject; article doesn't assert... anything, really. If it is a notable subject then the article can be developed in the Sandbox before being posted to the WP proper.  (aeropagitica)  23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible as non-notable, possibly as non-notable group which classifies as speedy. SYCTHOStalk 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily Draeco 00:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing special. -- Eddie 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete it can be speedily deleted as no content, but not as non-notable group --M@thwiz2020 02:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete speedy as no content, not as non-notable group --M@thwiz2020 02:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteLee S. Svoboda tɑk 02:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Sarah Ewart 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete half a stub. A third of a stub. Ruby 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as unencyclopaedic substubs. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nn-group and lack of content. Not even a sub-stub. - Pureblade | Θ 18:18, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WinSrev

Self-promotion. Site down when tried to access. Google hits bb developer discusions/promotion. —ERcheck @ 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Self-promotion/ad for "we hope to have ...". See WP:NOT - soapbox/#3 advertising. —ERcheck @ 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ER check. Also, it is ranked #1,422,080 in Alexa. SYCTHOStalk 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Something that has been around for "one year" (which was really 9 months) should do better than a mere 100,000 wep pages. Self-promotion Kareeser|Talk! 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --M@thwiz2020 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because "WinSrev might not be popular now but we hope that WinSrev will become more popular" Ruby 02:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 11:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete still in beta. Hmmm, I can see that a non-notable software speedy criterion might have some merit here... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable software. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:05Z
  • Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 01:09 2006-01-28
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:13, 30 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. Ifnord 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lally Katz

Non notable author. She had one play performed at the NY Fringe 2 years ago. The other play mentioned was not performed at the NY Fringe according to their archieves - see talk page. The writer of a single play performed 7 times in a small venue is not notable per WP:BIO. Delete Obina 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete agree with nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A Google search gave a number of references for this indie playwright. Added references that I found on NY Fringe Festival 2004. Removed 2003 references (unverified from Fringe, though reference found elsewhere). Write-up in Australian papers seems to establish notability. Article still a stub ... —ERcheck @ 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ERcheck --James S. 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and expand --M@thwiz2020 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because she is an "International smash at just 26" Ruby 02:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, she seems definitely legitimate to me as an independent playwright, impressive article in Aussie papers, agree with ERcheck, sorry nom. -- Samir Grover 09:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Award-winning," "number of awards" needs more backing up. Marskell 10:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looks notable. --Terence Ong 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep may not be well known at this point but has been getting enough attention to be written up in a major Australian paper (or am I wrong about The Age, I'm in the US but my perception is it's a not insignificant publication). Mark K. Bilbo 12:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a great result shows the process works! (though it is a shame that AFD acheived more in 12 hours than months of tags did). Anyway, particular thanks to ERcheck for finding the sources and improving the article. This new article is a clear Keep .Obina 13:52, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coventry License Bureau

As far as I can guess from the article, this is just one of many county DMV bureaus offering county-clerk type services. Unremarkable, somewhat of an ad, and perhaps vanity since the Deputy Registrar and the article's creator are both named Tom. Draeco 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Ecclesiates 1:2. Vanity, thy name is NOT Wikipedia. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 00:19, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SESAME

Non notable club in a single University. Not even worth merging since there seem to be 50 larger clubs at Evergreen state. Delete. Obina 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. *drew 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Drew. Ruby 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Judging by the article, the club seems pretty interesting, but I'll have to take the nominator's word for the club's relative minority. In Merka, there seems to be universities pretty much everywhere. If this were a club in the University of Helsinki it'd be more notable because it is Helsinki's largest and most famous university. JIP | Talk 14:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Drew. --Aaron 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nn. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable student club. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:11Z
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:15, 30 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. SYCTHOStalk 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArtRocker

Delete as non-notable journal. Alexa ranks the home page as #648,519, per [1]. Feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong. SYCTHOStalk 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep (nomination withdrew) with expansion and redirect from Artrocker. The 600,000s are high? I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. SYCTHOStalk 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the 600,000s are actually pretty high up for Alexa rankings. I edited the article a little. Look at the web site -- they have a lot of activity there. As a bi-weekly ditributed by Borders, they probably have a circulation in excess of 200,000 -- way over the notability threshold. They sell ads for £1000 per page, but don't list their circ. --James S. 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 600,000's means we would have to nearly double the size of the Wikipedia to accomodate all the website articles. And "probably" 200,000 units doesn't work in an encyclopedia, give us hard numbers. Ruby 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep As per James S. IronDuke 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Thorri 10:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please give a reason. Turnstep 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Too bad circulation data isn't available, but aside, agree on notability criteria being met based on distribution/web activity. -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 11:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per research and facts establishing notability by Nrcprm2026. Turnstep 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a newspaper more than a website. (Quite surprising the alexa rank is that low, though.) If kept it should be moved to Artrocker. Flowerparty■ 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete my own site has an Alexa ranking around 350,000, but I see no need for an encyclopedia entry about it--nor this. Ergot 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to be more of a print magazine than a website, so Alexa rating shouldn't be the primary factor here. Gets a lot of Google hits and seems notable enough. Snurks T C 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Snurks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:14Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artifact (computer game)

Delete as non-notable computer game. SYCTHOStalk 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete does not assert notability. Ruby 02:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if this is deleted, its entry at artifact should be deleted as well to avoid recreation. -- Kjkolb 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also have a look at nl:Artifact. JIP | Talk 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. See list of notability claims at http://www.samugames.com/about.html — Hillel 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (software) are still in the proposal stage. Game titles of historical interest, or obsolete software, may have a lower threshold for inclusion than that of software where conflicts of interest exist (i.e., the software in question is still for sale.) In any case I'd suggest orphaning this AfD until the guideline is solidified. No vote. -Ikkyu2 04:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no content / linkspam / no assertion of notability. Radiant_>|< 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn incog 03:25, 31 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/redir 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avanc

Merge as vanity on its own, but closely related to The Scar. SYCTHOStalk 00:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete if merging is not possible. SYCTHOStalk 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Ruby 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Take anything related to The Scar over there then leave as redirect to Addanc where the term is specifically mentioned as an alternative form of the word. Keresaspa 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable fancruft. mikka (t) 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Ifnord 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stella K Abraham High School for Girls

No evidence that this is a renowned educational institute. External links only lead to own page and basic stats. Google: 170 unique hits. Needs evidence of academic merit, notable alumni etc. to become encyclopedic. Otherwise Delete. Deiz 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, let's try to avoid bias against less academically meritorious schools. This is an important part of Jewish education in Nassau County and not really a suitable merge candidate since it's independent and not a substub. Kappa 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • PS I should mention I created this article. Kappa 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Simple matter of notability and academic merit is crucial in this case... By all means expand the article if it meets the criteria, if it doesn't then as an experienced Wiki user you know the deal... --Deiz 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded to meet WP:SCH proposal. Otherwise merge it.Gateman1997 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent start to the article by Kappa who deserves our thanks and praise. -- JJay 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You give Kappa all the thanks and praise you like.. rework has potential but still needs more to clear the bar of notability. An alumni section featuring people with their own legit bio pages on the site would help... also echo what Rebel says below. --Deiz 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Your complaints go well beyond the school guidelines here. And if you had any legitimate concerns, you should have posted them first to the article talk page. Starting with an AfD nom is unnecessarily confrontational. -- JJay 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suddenly we have an article! Add a link that verifies the controversy thing and we're getting somewhere. A few more nuggets of info and it might even resemble an encyclopedia entry. Better wikipedia articles through confrontation? You bet... --Deiz 03:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't really see an AfD from a user who, looking at his contributions, obviously has not been through the rounds in the overall school AfD controversy as "confrontational." Please WP:Assume Good Faith. I'd also encourage Deiz not to use what I'll assuming is a tongue-in-cheek way of speaking here, as, in my experience, it hasn't played very well in this highly contested and touchy subject. Let's all keep it calm. -Rebelguys2 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I consider all AfDs to be confrontational, barring the most egregious examples, if other avenues (i.e. templates and talk page) have not been tried first. For topics that are in any way valid, AfD should be a last resort. -- JJay 03:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was clarifying my post when you made your last edit, and don't want to replace it now that you've responded...I've went ahead and struck it. I don't really see an AfD from a user who, looking at his contributions, obviously has not been through the rounds in the overall school AfD controversy, as "confrontational." Please WP:Assume Good Faith. Don't take your disagreements with his vote as grounds for accusing his opinions of being ilegitimate ("And if you had any legitimate concerns..."); there has certainly been much past debate, but please do not bite the newcomers. I'd also encourage Deiz not to use here what I'm assuming to be a tongue-in-cheek way of speaking, though this encouragement is hardly policy. In my experience, however, sarcasm does not play well online, and is certainly going to raise eyebrows in this highly contested and touchy subject. Let's all keep it calm. -Rebelguys2 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to further clarify, the last thing I ever want to do is bite newcomers and I have no idea if that is applicable to this nom. I was responding to a direct comment addressed to me. However, while the nomination would seem to be perfectly legimate based on the voting, I continue to feel that AfD (not just schools but any topic) is rarely the best approach. -- JJay 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the main issue still falls back to, *cringe*, the "bar of notability," of which there's no definitive consensus. "And if you had any legitimate concerns" (i.e., his concerns of notability) is what came off as hostile to me, though I know you're civil and a good faith user. Don't worry about it. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • An attitude like "Better wikipedia articles through confrontation?" is why I do my very best to avoid making improvements to articles as a response to AFDs. Deliberately using a confrontationalal method to force other wikipedians to do your bidding is not a way to build a healthy community. Kappa 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. If, in all likelihood, kept, it's likely fine as it is; do not expand with transient and non-notable information for the sake of expansion. -Rebelguys2 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN per Rebelguys2. — Scm83x talk 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. *drew 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry Kappa, this is no different from the Catholic high school I voted to zap the other day. Ruby 02:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I always vote to keep well-written school articles, in hopes that their students will be more motivated to contribute. --James S. 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, blatantly passes WP:SCH. And high schools are inherently notable, anyway, unless the rules have been changed again. - Randwicked Alex B 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of verifiable information. --Allen 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice article. Merchbow 05:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. High schools are always notable, and this one is more interesting than most. Grandmasterka 06:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear past precedent on high schools, and this is a pretty good article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep as compromise. Marskell 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all high schools WP:SCH. Jcuk 11:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:SCH and, aside, seems notable as a high school -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:SCH and well beyond. --Rob 12:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and verified; expansion is needed, not deletion. Turnstep 15:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCH. --Aaron 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCH and the arguments above. Snurks T C 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge, redirect, delete, and move per Marskell, but I believe in pluralism rather than duality. :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To Kappa, JJay & Rebel, much love... to all the others who have voted, the page looked a damn sight different when I made the nomination and was struggling to pass the "3 original sentences" test on WP:SCH. Look at it now... ++Deiz 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey much love to you too. Does that mean you are changing your vote to keep now? -- JJay 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for you JJay (and all those Jewish chicks who need their education in Nassau county) my vote is now Keep ++Deiz 15:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. the school has been involved in some controversies, and a few victories as well.Blnguyen 07:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is perfectly fine, and as more students hear about it, they will continue to add to it Amazins490 17:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 06:20, 31 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 REDIRECTED to ham and cheese sandwich, for reasons that should be obvious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ham and cheese

Nonsense, irrelevant. Draeco 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Total nonsense --Deiz 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, slight inclination towards BJAODN as patent nonsense. SYCTHOStalk 00:50, 27 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 (4 clear delete votes, 9 clear keep votes, 8 clear merge votes, 2 partial delete votes and 2 partial keep votes) into one article. --Gareth Hughes 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Thing, Good Thing, Right Thing, Wrong Thing

Delete or redirect to thing. --Revolución (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, speedy if possible, while opposing redirects as patent nonsense Wikipedia is WP:NOT a usage guide. SYCTHOStalk 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously - these are articles about specific phrases in common use. (Sycthos: They're certainly not patent nonsense or speedy deletion candidiates - please don't bandy those phrases around carelessly.) — sjorford (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, reworded. SYCTHOStalk 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this is recognized in academic linguistics circles as a unique form. What's next, Take It Easy, Chill Out (as distinct from "chill out"), and No Problem (as distinct from "no problem")? --Interiot 01:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Right Thing and Wrong Thing--Doc ask? 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect Bad Thing and Good Thing to 1066 and All That--Doc ask? 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I linked to Right Thing just a few days ago -- on one hand they are jargon file usage, but on the other hand they go into detail far more than just usage information so I think they're properly encyclopedic. --James S. 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I've never heard of this and no credible evidence is given that its usage is widespread. Just because a word or phrase is occasionally capitalized for emphasis, does not bring it new meaning. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Phrases in widespread use. Reference to the 1066 and All That book is encyclopedic material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep—at least Good Thing and Bad Thing. Redirecting to a disambiguation page for the word "thing" is ridiculous—these are phrases. I note that recent edits to Good Thing in particular seem to have made it less encyclopedic than it used to be, perhaps some of the deleted material should be brought back. Why was no rationale given for the deletion nomination? --TreyHarris 09:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeping these would be a Good Thing. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I'd possibly support a merge. Notable concepts, and there's more to the article than the dictionary definitions. Robin Johnson 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deleting these would be a Bad Thing. Also I find it strange that the nominator just says "delete or redirect" without ever specifying why. I could start a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States of America and just say "delete" with the same logic. JIP | Talk 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge them all into Good Thing. They're all essentially variations of each other, and the phrases are, together, probably notable enough for a single article. -- Plutor 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly merge & redirect to 1066 and all that (one of my favourite books). Anyone who uses these phrases as capitalised knows where they come from, and anyone else has missed the joke. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I use them capitalised, and didn't know where they'd come from. I'm sorry to have missed a joke, but I think the concepts are notable outside of the book. Robin Johnson 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Then other sources should be able to be cited, no? --Interiot 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be surprised if they couldn't. (And if it turned out they couldn't, I wouldn't defend the articles.) The Jargon File/Hacker's Dictionary springs to mind, if that counts. (If it doesn't count as a decent source in itself, it may well give some pointers to places that do.) Robin Johnson 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as I've seen them in use in many contexts, and they are certainly each worthy of an article. Now if I can just get the "Good Thing" song by FYC out of my head... Turnstep 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The FYC example is just a phrase that's repeated in the chorous, without any humor, and without particular emphasis (in that it seems to be more of a stand-in for "girl" than anything). The point is not to pick out any memorable chorous line, the point is to explain how These Four Phrases are notable in and of themselves, beyond what normal emphasis/italics or hints of irony can do to any phrase. --Interiot 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My second sentence about FYC was a semi-joke, not related to the first sentence. I've seen them used in non-FYC contexts: they are certainly no longer tightly tied to 1066. Turnstep 18:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge them all as per plutor. is there really anything to say about "good thing" that wont also be said about "bad thing"? stupid to have stubs on each when you could have one decent non-stub article about the "xxx-thing" phenomenon. Zzzzz 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (and redirect) per Plutor. Cultural literacy means that you see the reference and get the joke. The information is worth keeping. Smerdis of Tlön 21:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Good Thing and Bad Thing. Merge Right Thing and Wrong Thing. David | Talk 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all; strong opinion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:18Z
  • Merge per plutor Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all to Good Thing; anything that can be said about one of these phrases can usefully applied to all of them, in terms of both usage and cultural origins. - squibix 02:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. One could write paragraphs about Martha Stewart's and her company's usage of the term "Good Thing". The term is at the top of every one of her magazines. To my knowledge, she and her company have never used any of the other terms. --TreyHarris 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as separate, linked articles. Any attempt to merge into a single article with redirects raises difficulty choosing which to make the main article. Merging to thing misses the whole point. Merging to 1066 and all that or other original source misses other connotations. As another user already stated, deletion would be a Bad Thing. On no account simply delete. RayGates 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Right Thing and Wrong Thing. --Avochelm 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, particularly Good Thing. This is a phrase in widespread if not exactly common use, and carries connotations of weight beyond the immediately obvious, by reference to 1066 and all that. In 1066 and all that, a Good Thing is something of historical importance that is regarded favourably - with a clear bias. If something is referred to as a Good Thing, it conveys a humourous implication of bias on the part of the author.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context Watcher, C-Log

Delete as advertisements for non-notable products. SYCTHOStalk 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sycthos. Ruby 02:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Smells like spam to me (and "I don't like Spam!"). Mark K. Bilbo 13:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nn ad. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable software. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:19Z
  • Delete, nn rubbish. incog 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its aim is to make it easy for corporations to stalk individuals and sell detailed statistics about their habits -- Femmina 12:54, 31 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinalife

Ad with only one true Google hit -- the homepage. Draeco 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Draeco. SYCTHOStalk 00:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup to comform to WP:NPOV. It's notable enough, with 73,700 Googles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There's only 39,700 hits in my area. Also, there are many organizations with the name "Chinalife." I don't think "BESTDEAL.ORG TRAVEL SITE - Travel Agent" or "China Life Blog: Food and Drink" would help much. Few relevant Google hits. Finally, www.chinalifeweb.com only gets an Alexa ranking of 3,080,163. SYCTHOStalk 01:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. *drew 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. Ruby 02:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Kareeser|Talk! 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement/spam. timecop 12:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising only, worthless, unexpandable -- Femmina 12:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reads like a press release. I mean "With an infused knowledge of the East?" Please. Mark K. Bilbo 13:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. The article basically reads "Hello, we're a company, here's a link to our site." JIP | Talk 14:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per ad. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable online vendor. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:20Z
  • Delete advertisement Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:19, 30 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantica

Speedy delete as non-notable band. SYCTHOStalk 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Ruby 02:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:25, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queenie (Artist)

Speedy delete as non-notable singer-songwriter. SYCTHOStalk 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Delete or Speedy musician with only self-published work. Website in question has no Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vanity. *drew 01:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn artist. Ruby 02:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Per above ComputerJoe 08:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. Heck, I know an artist (read: person who draws stuff) named Queenie who's important enough to be invited to a fairly big convention, and I don't know how much she'd deserve an article just yet. Confusing Manifestation 12:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and probably speedy (looks like vanity). My favorite part: "chose to remain independent." Uh huh. Why, I turn down multimillion dollar screenwriting offers from Spielberg all the time so my writing can remain pure and unadulerated! Mark K. Bilbo 13:13, 27 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 del/redirect. mikka (t) 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squier P-Bass Special 5

Delete Advertisement of product Bugturd 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, delete.Bjones 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bugturd. SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup. Does read like an ad, but could easily be cleaned up at least into a nice stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. *drew 01:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Squier, unless notable, then expand. Kareeser|Talk! 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I like bass guitar the same as the next gal, but there's already an article for that. Ruby 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, quite likely a copyvio. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice blatant copyvio; see here Ergot 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per ad, copyvio spam. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. --Thunk 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or redirect. Copyvio indeed - right off Fender's website - but probably not bad faith; there are plenty of articles on specific guitar models such as Fender Stratocaster and Gibson Les Paul. Suggest redirecting to Squier per Kareeser if no one steps up to do the merge. -Ikkyu2 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Squier per Ikkyu2. General families of models would be notable, but individual models generally wouldn't be, with the possible exception of a very few signature models like the Clapton and SRV Strats. Haikupoet 03:45, 28 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flashlight Fights

NN vanity, bereft of a single true Google hit. Draeco 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as non-notable club. SYCTHOStalk 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done research on a group I have spectated on for years. I thought it was interesting enough to put onto Wikipedia because they are warriors. Inspired to fight their problems away instead of breaking the law. Noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illcalculated (talk • contribs).

  • Delete as above. Ashibaka tock 07:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but as admitted original research. Could be something seriously significant but we still have to wait for verifiable sources. Mark K. Bilbo 13:16, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Show

NN song vanity, not even a band. Moreover, WP:NOT a place for source material, like song lyrics. Draeco 01:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Draeco. SYCTHOStalk 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Draeco. *drew 01:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only content is lyrics. Ruby 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can lyrics not be placed in song stubs? Please advise. Newbie here. Makisupa69 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See WP:L&P for a good outline of what not to do with lyrics and poetry content. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Draeco. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:21Z
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. Stifle 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not send copyright violations to wikisource, this obviously to new to be public domain. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Amerigo 05:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:19, 30 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 along with images. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Zone

This page refers to an Egyptian Metal webboard with approx. 1000 pageviews. Clearly not notable. Powers 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. SYCTHOStalk 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even more scarce on Google and Alexa. Draeco 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn board. *drew 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Draeco and nom. Ruby 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this article is deleted, the two images used in this article should also be removed. Powers 13:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete patent non-notable web forum. 40 members. I wish for expansion of WP:CSD so that this kind of article could be speedy-deleted when no notability is asserted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:22Z
  • Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly does not have a great enough presence on the internet to be notable. Somewhat beside the point, this article was also clearly written by a five-year-old's pet cat. User: Klestrob44.
Comment. More likely an Egyptian with an intermediate grasp of English. Powers 15:06, 31 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 del. mikka (t) 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yart

Delete as neologism. SYCTHOStalk 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'm undecided on this one. I got 350 Google results for "yart yard art" (yart has a few other obscure meanings as well, so I had to specify somehow). That seems low, but the subject matter of the article is at least minimally notable. Perhaps move it to Yard art with a redirect from Yart? Unless the same idea exists under a different title already... Powers 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yard art is called....landscaping. Ruby 02:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sort of. They seem to be referring to such things as plastic flamingos and plywood cutouts of fat women's derrierres. Not what I'd call landscaping. =) Powers 02:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I personally have not heard of it, but I can say with confidence that it probably wouldn't catch on much. Kareeser|Talk! 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per Powers ComputerJoe 08:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. And one that apparently means a dozen different things (including "yet another religious thread"). I'm also very suspicious that a Google search for "yart" pops up a sponsored link at the top of the page which appears to be the primary user of "yart" to meant "yard art." Mark K. Bilbo 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe Yart is something made up in school by a Yoot. Ruby 15:26, 27 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 Nomination was withdrawn. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're Gonna Get It!

Delete as vanity album. SYCTHOStalk 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep (nomination withdrew) with expansion. At the time of nomination, I only saw an unorganized track list ([2]) and assumed it was vanity. SYCTHOStalk 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes I think this is a track list for an album...? Draeco 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand -- This Tom Petty album hit #23 in 1978. I don't think it's a vanity addition. --Allen 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand -- I'm partial to album articles. More information should be added, such as history or events, if applicable. IMO, of course Kareeser|Talk! 02:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You young whippersnappers never heard of Tom Petty? Ruby 02:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Obviously not =) Kareeser|Talk! 02:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its not Vanity, its Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers.--Ezeu 02:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep notable group, notable album.--Alhutch 04:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, even *I've* heard of Tom Petty... Grandmasterka 06:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleting this would be petty and heartbreaking. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose that User:JZG be deleted and moved to BJAODN! --kingboyk 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand' - otherwise Tom won't come around here no more. --Aaron 15:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very strange nomination. --kingboyk 20:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Comment struck out about nomination as per Sycthos' comments at withdrawal. --kingboyk 21:19, 27 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. HappyCamper 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuyomayam

Speedy delete as blatant copyright infringement per [3] and self-promotion. SYCTHOStalk 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn npov copyvio Draeco 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. *drew 01:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if an article is a copyvio, it is unnecessary to nominate it for deletion. Just tag it as a copyvio and list it on copyright problems. In the unlikely event it survives deletion there, it can be brought to AfD. -- Kjkolb 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if not copyvio, the article pretty much admits it's vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 13:28, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yvette Burton

Speedy delete as biography of a non-notable person. SYCTHOStalk 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Draeco 01:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I wrote the article before I'd been informed of the notability policy, so agree it should be deleted. Slideyfoot 09:33, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Dean Abbatt

NN artist and copyvio to boot. Draeco 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if an article is a copyvio, it is unnecessary to nominate it for deletion. Just tag it as a copyvio and list it on copyright problems. In the unlikely event it survives deletion there, it can be brought to AfD. -- Kjkolb 04:00, 27 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 del mikka (t) 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zin-Azshari

Merge and redirect to Night elf. SYCTHOStalk 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete if this is not possible as fancruft. SYCTHOStalk 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as gamecruft. *drew 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because you have to click on two links to find out its gamecruft. Ruby 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to avoid recreation of fancruft article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:27Z
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn; redirect to Azshara. mikka (t) 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paperwavium

Neologism, no Google hits. —Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and a dicdef even if it's established. Draeco 01:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax like "Administratium" Ruby 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as the AfD for paperwaving. This was created shortly after the AfD went up for Paperwaving by the same person that started that article. Peyna 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verifiable, non-notable, mild vandalism, likely hoax, and dicdef anyway. --Lockley 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Actual quote: "Paperwavium is the substantiation by funding of obviously and indirectly or directly verifiable phenomena, which could otherwise be ascertained by a quick read of the established literature." Read that slowly and tell me that it doesn't say "paperwavium is the funding of things that exist but could be looked up in a manual if they weren't funded." WTF? Ergot 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I read it as "using grant money to verify things that everyone already knows about"--in other words, wasting funding to tell you things that should be obvious. NO? rodii
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zirconium Propionate

Delete does not contain substantive material and appears to have been created to promote the company linked to products ChemGardener 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep after the rewrite ChemGardener 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blanket advertising. *drew 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep after the rewrite. *drew 11:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after fix. Ruby 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it around and maybe someone will improve it someday. Also, the IP who created it didn't do it as spam; check their contributions >50 edits, only a few chemicals. --James S. 02:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yesterday I suggested we keep a different article around to see what happens, and nearly tripped over all the crystal balls that were tossed at me. Ruby 03:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You were sadly misinterpreted yesterday. Everyone thought you meant wait and see if the subject took off, not the article. Or something. - squibix 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I tried to clean it up and expand it a little, but there's not much information about it online. -- Kjkolb 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I'd ditch the external link to the manufacturer. -HiFiGuy 07:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've tidied & corrected & removed the link. Its OK as a stub I think. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Decent rewrite. Move to Zirconium propionate, maybe? Sam Vimes 11:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Rename per Sam Vimes. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:30Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -Greg Asche (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo DS Heavy

Google search suggests this is not a real product; no version of the page has been coherent. Allen 01:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pitiful attempt of a message board to make a sad joke.

  • Delete Dumb joke article. All it contains is a link to Tubgirl.
  • Delete The only content is a link. Ruby 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. No content besides an external link is a CSD. Plus it's a link to Tubgirl. Powers 02:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — for nonsense! (Besides, the linked-to picture is disgusting) Kareeser|Talk! 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:29, 27 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 (probably speedy candidate in the first place). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gingell

Delete page appears to have been created to promote the web link it contains ChemGardener 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per ChemGardener. Not notable. —ERcheck @ 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn surname article. Ruby 02:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement for a surname. JIP | Talk 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable surname. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:31Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] brian d foy

Non-notable bio. CDThieme 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Um ... says who? That's nonsense. He's a very well-known figure in significant communities. He also satisfies the requirement "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." (His most recent book sold 13,000 copies last quarter alone.) Go away KTHX. Pudgenet 02:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio, he helped to tweak a computer book that has Randal L. Schwartz as the original sole author. I'm sure in the annals of the Earth he will be duly enshrined. Ruby 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea what you are talking about. He wrote about a quarter of the new, and completely revised, edition. Plus he has been published multiple times in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more (TPJ was 10,000). Plus, he is writing a third or more of Intermediate Perl (which will surely have a circulation of well over 5,000), and the new edition of Mastering Perl (ditto). What's the point of having notability guidelines if you're just going to ignore them? Pudgenet 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes we gotta think outside the box. Ruby 03:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And your thinking is, what? You hold a personal grudge? Or something less substantive? Pudgenet 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize BTW for being a bit blunt and abrasive. I have a massive head cold and am irritable, and this is just annoying. Pudgenet 03:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His publications seem to be notable enough, if 5000+ audience is the relevant criterion. Skud 04:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The main thing that makes it for him is being chief editor of The Perl Review. 27,000 Google hits for that publication. Durova 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable person in open-source software communities, has been published half a dozen times in Dr. Dobbs Journal [[4]] (audited circulation 120,000), he has contributed significantly to the Perl programming language. Google reports 86,000 hits on the quoted phrase "brian d foy" and he is listed as author on two books in amazon. (As a disclaimer, I have written an article for the Perl Review [[5]], the quarterly journal edited by brian.) DAllen\talk 05:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. brian is definitely a notable leader, author, speaker, and contributor to the Perl community. His efforts as a founder for Perl Mongers user groups led to the creation of a global user group community (175+ active user groups, ~780,000 matches in google for site:pm.org) Stennie 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not only for all the reasons listed above, but also because brian's contribution to the Perl community is steadily increasing. --alessio 08:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep For all reasons listed above, seems like brian is a rather significant contributor to Perl. I think he meets notability guidelines. -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 10:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep O'Reilly author and notable editor. And stuff. Note: this is not a Geogre's Law failure. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bdfoy is one of the top 20 names in the Perl community. Chris Dolan 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as easily meeting our notability guidelines. Please do some research before bringing things to AfD. Turnstep 16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. matt.
  • Keep meets WP:BIO - Liberatore(T) 17:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:35Z
  • Strong keep meets WP:BIO Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets notability guidelines Thomas 21:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep bdfoy is a very good author regarding Perl - [[6]]
  • Keep: sufficent notability established. Jonathunder 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: sufficiently notable. de vogon 19:56 29 januari 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: sufficiently notable. lanta 20:35 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 speedy delete. SYCTHOStalk 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Team

listing was incorrect. Fixing now. (I'm not a bot! =)) (Original listing by Bugturd) Kareeser|Talk! 02:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete--Vanity/Non-notable Bugturd 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NFT. Powers 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because "Gold team contains less than 15 members but is always growing but at a slow rate." Ruby 02:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Brim 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline hoax. Marskell 10:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, stupid. Uucp 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:36Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete mikka (t) 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Spires

If she was the girlfriend of Pink Floyd, is that notable? Kareeser|Talk! 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak chance that she might be notable if a verifiable source is provided along with more detail as to why she might be notable. Bugturd 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bike (song) indicates that song was written for her. Google contains several references to her as a girlfriend of a band member. That doesn't mean she's notable, of course. Unless she's done something else of note, then any information about her belongs in the Pink Floyd article. Powers 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Powers. —ERcheck @ 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sid Barrett Ruby 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Being in a relationship with a notable person is not notability. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Humorous aside: Otherwise we'd have to call this Groupiepedia (Groupiedia?) Daniel Case 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The hard drive has not yet been built that is big enough to hold List of people who have been f*cked by members of Motley Crue -- GWO
  • Delete or merge with Syd Barrett, although I think it would actually make the Narrett article shorter, there is so little information in here. It's almost a speedy "empty" candidate. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is speedy, because there's no assertion of notability either as far as I am concerned. Worthless article as it stands (speaking as a Floyd fan, too). Delete. --kingboyk 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep * if anything else, it will be this article that makes me come back to wikipedia. Rasmuffin 21:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge without Redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:40Z
    • After a merge, a redirect is technically required to preserve page history, per GFDL. Stifle 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Stifle 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joe 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 03:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army tanks

Non-notable video game. —ERcheck @ 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, indeed. Only one relevant hit on Google. I'd be surprised if any editor on Wikipedia (aside from the author) had ever played it. Powers 02:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — It looks very similar to Advance Wars... but it also seems NN... a sequel for a 1999 game? Kind of overdue... Kareeser|Talk! 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like an old Amiga game or something. Ruby 02:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable game. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:41Z
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. incog 03:18, 31 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 along with logo image. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHR Global

Pure advertising. No links to any other Wikipedia pages. Aaron 02:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete ad. Ruby 03:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and let the company's shareholders know someone is wasting their time and money on pointless exercises like this. Daniel Case 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Non-notable, that I could see... also advert. Kareeser|Talk! 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, ads.Blnguyen 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Admins please note that User:61.246.21.230 blanked my nomination statement above and changed it to a sentence implying I was in favor of voting Keep (see diff). Thanks to Adrian Lamo for noticing this, reverting and warning the user in question. --Aaron 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. incog 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Razor Gator

Delete Another ad Bugturd 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Advertisement Kareeser|Talk! 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unique product, and claims notable jingo. Ruby 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — The Razor Gator has a copyright of 2006 on its website, which (as I don't interpret copyrights well) is rather new. I thought there were lots of disposable razors around... Not disputing the vote, simply pointing that out =) Kareeser|Talk! 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's common practice to simply put the current year as the copyright on a website. Now something with a copyright of 2001 might indicate the website has not been updated in 5 years... Turnstep 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may be a worthy article to be written about this product, but this isn't it. --Aaron 03:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep entirely notable. -- Xizer 12:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I see that Xiser's user page is an ad for the product in question; see User:Xizer
  • Delete as I'm not seeing notability here. Turnstep 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is notable? Not to me. --Thunk 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hirudo 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Bill 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Catamorphism 08:59, 30 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. (G4 and G7). Mindmatrix 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mustangworld

Vanity website, NN, in my opinion Kareeser|Talk! 03:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There might be a Mustangworld.com, but its doubtful that it belongs here. Bugturd 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have a 96 GT but with an Alexa rank of 87,742 this is outside of my comfort range. Ruby 03:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, forum has around 5.2 million posts and a little over 31,000 members. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Never mind. I created the entry and would like it deleted. The plans I have for it are definitly outside of wikipedia's policy. Please delete the entry. --LES_eSaba 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the creator good-spiritedly admits that, essentially, it shouldn't have been created in the first place, so no point having the article until someone wants to create a 'proper' one. Robin Johnson 14:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Request to delete on page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:53, 27 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 del mikka (t) 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta Phi Beta 1957

This one is a toughie. It reads like a notable fraternity, but there is no list of notable alumni. Just... stuff. Kareeser|Talk! 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable frat. Ruby 03:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A couple thousand Google hits [7]. A service fraternity is different from a social club fraternity: the main purpose of this type of group is to do charitable work in the community. Nine chapters in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic makes it sufficiently large and stable. What makes this a weak keep instead of a regular keep is the lack of citations. Durova 05:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - Most of those Google hits are for American universities -- in fact, I haven't found one yet that mentioned Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. Zeta Phi Beta in the US is apparently a sorority but the Google results seem to indicate it has male and female members both (this may be due to confusion between ZPhB and Phi Beta Sigma). It's a little confusing, but either way, I don't think the results are representative of the specific fraternity in question. I'm voting Weak Delete because I can't see any notability here. If the article adds some cited charitable work on a scale larger than "Car Wash" and "Candy Sale", then maybe. Otherwise, its only remote claim to notability is longevity. Powers 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: If the result is "keep", can we get the name changed to something else? We'll need to distinguish it from the US sorority somehow, and the date of founding doesn't seem the best way to do it. Powers 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I had a hard time fighting down my bias against all "fraternities"/"sororities" everywhere but the last section ("contact us") makes it read like a vanity article. JIP | Talk 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Guys this is my first time making a internet page. I really dont now what exactly you want but just to clear things up. We are a Latin Faternity in a Little Island called Puerto Rico. In PR all fraternities are recuired to do things both charitable and social. All PR fratrnities and sororities are diffrent from the states yet we are recognized by the our and your goverment. When we were founded in 1957 the technology wasn't so advanced nor was the comunication and when we registerd the name Zeta Phi Beta at the time the goverment was required to look in PR registry only to see if anyone else had the name. Since no one else had it they registered it. Later we found out that Zeta Phi Beta was a Black sorority in the US. Years ago we met and decided that it was no ones fault and we could both keep the name since all was done acording to the law. i went to NY and met 2 sisters and they were more than happy to meet me and we hit it off pretty well. About our charities; all the money we get from selling candy, washing cars, etc... we donate to diffrent organizations for example: Cancer, Red Cross, Batterd Wifes, Youth in Trouble, Schools, Children of CREA (children of parents who are in prison), etc... One experience i personally had was my mother and Grandmother needed blood for diffrent operations, since i can't donate blood cuz of a tatoo i got when i was a frechman all my brother got togther and helped me out. Currently we have a few brothers who are making a websites so i can't give you one but as the "vanity" article reads; you can cantact me to clarify any doubts. you can alo contact the universities listed so they can varify any info. Currently the Politechnic Univ. and UPR - Mayaguez and Bayamon Campuses have Profesors that are fratbrothers. I really don't now what proof you need but i'm shure we can come up with something. Zetaphibetapr
  • Comment — The reason that I listed Zeta Phi Beta 1957 up on the AFD is simply because the fraternity seems non-notable. While your frat donates to respectable charities, we respect that, but it still does no't make your fraternity notable. Perhaps if there were notable alumni who had been a part of the fraternity, but even then it may be stretching it a little bit. Kareeser|Talk! 06:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as utterly non-notable fraternity. If every random frat had an article on WP the we're be Fratpedia. Stifle 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: seems like a notable fraternity in Puerto Rico. Would like to see some numbers of members and alumni though. Calwatch 06:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Of corse we aren't notable in the states but in PR we are very respected by the community and other fraternities here. Personally i didn't find in the rules established by WikipediA that all fraternities added had to be known by people of the US or been established ther either. I do believe this website is a Free Encyclopedia and can be seen by all around the world and everyone who becomes affiliated with the site can add infromation cuz that is what this is about, contributing information. I could mencion a few names of some important frats but it's more than obviouse that none of you are going to know who the mayor of Carolina is, the singer Julio Cesar Sanabria, Rufino the owner of The New West, Antonio Rios the Head Manager of the Human Resorces Depatment of AEELA, Pujols the director of the Surveying Department of the Politecnic Univ of PR, the list is endless. To us a notable fratbrother isn't someone who is on TV, plays sports, etc... It's someone who through hard work and dedication has made a name of himself by growing profesionally. We've been around now for 49 years i think that makes a huge diffrence in comparison to other frats that only last a few years and then never hear from them again. Zetaphibetapr 04:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You only get one vote. You may express comments about the article as much as you like but saying "Keep" two times won't count as two keep votes. JIP | Talk 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. mikka (t) 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulling

Delete dicdef and/or neologism Ruby 03:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete dicdef. mikka (t) 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete (speedied). No useful content. Friday (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party trick

I can think of a bunch of definitions for "party trick," but this one had never occurred to me. In any event, it's not notable. Daniel Case 03:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete — I believe that I observed the deletion of this page from the "Recent Changes" page not more than an hour ago... Kareeser|Talk! 03:53, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doomtrain

Unverifiable, looks like a neologism/hoax. please note: Before you instinctively vote to transwiki, verify that this is in fact true. Wiktionary doesn't want hoaxes any more than we do. Bachrach44 03:51, 27 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. This is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't need more time to decide, and it looks like leaving it open will only cause more unproductive discussion. Friday (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rasmuffin Productions

Page created to promote someone's animation website. As often happens, makes its own best argument for non-notability: "It is currently the home to only three flash cartoons, but the creator is expanding the site." Daniel Case 03:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB creator on talk page all but admits its self promotion... which wikipedia is not. --W.marsh 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly not a significant website, to quote the author "it is currently home to only three flash cartoons --SeanMcG 04:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete can't argue with the article. Ruby 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Article is special User:WebGeek 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    • User:WebGeek does not exist, previous post by 71.199.6.186 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Soooo special! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SeanMcG -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Sockpuppeting is one thing. Pitiful attempts at sockpuppeting are worse. Powers 14:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Fails WP:WEB by a mile. No Alexa rank. One of the lamer sockpuppeting attempts in recent memory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*Strong delete. I've stricken the above "keep" vote for fraudulent signing. This article is only special in a short bus kind of way. --Aaron 15:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Upgrading my vote per Rasmuffin's antics below. --Aaron 18:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jerks!!! All Jerks!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.173.159.62 (talk • contribs) 13:06, January 27, 2006.

Definition of Jerk: An ignorant wikipedia admin who pokes fun at persons with mental disabilities. As quoted by Aaron: "This article is only special in a short bus kind of way." This is not the level of professionalism one would expect from an organization of the magnitude of wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasmuffin (talk • contribs) 13:21, January 27, 2006.

Don't any of you admins have lives? I mean, do you just sit around all day dissing on people's articles or something? Get a real job! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasmuffin (talk • contribs) 13:22, January 27, 2006.

  • Comment. Since Rasmuffin and 206.173.159.62 couldn't be bothered to sign their comments (and I'm being generous in presuming they're two separate people), I've helpfully done so for them. In addition, due to their childishness, I've changed my vote above to Speedy Delete. --Aaron 18:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to above: Rasmuffin's further "arguments" for keeping the article, from its talk page:
4. I love Rasmuffin productions
5. I will be so mad if anyone takes this article off!!!óŰøöTemplate:Ő
6. You'll feel bad when the site is making tons of money and they give you no donations.
7. W.Marsh should be nice and let it stay. He will be my favorite person if he does!
BJAODN or not? Daniel Case 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a particularly fascinating use of diacritical marks. It may just cause me to rethink this entire AfD! Or not. --Aaron 20:23, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlute

Dicdef of a neologism. TheAmelianator (talk • contribs) has inserted this made-up word in a dozen different articles, but this is the only article he has created. —Caesura(t) 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Darn those naughty schoolboys! They've struck again! Zarquon 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 04:49, 27 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson Manufacturing

Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. About 700 Google hits and little of it seems to be outside coverage that would establish notability. Company's own website doesn't provide more than pictures of sales/support staff. Daniel Case 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no relation ... this company makes dies. Daniel Case 20:04, 27 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. Shanel 21:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Kidding!

Not notable. Reads like an ad. Delete.Jwissick(t)(c) 04:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note. No alexa ranking. [8] Jwissick(t)(c) 07:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn ad Ruby 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising, get rid of it.--Alhutch 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Looks like a legit organization. Google search yields lots of results, has chapters world-wide. --Wtwilson3 05:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, ad.Blnguyen 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Wtwilson3. I get 14,000 googles for "no kidding" childfree, and given the relative rarity of the word "childfree" outside that movement, I'd say most of those refer to this group. bikeable (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. --Bduke 07:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn organisation. Eusebeus 11:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep organization with worldwide branches. This was the first major organization for childfree people in Canada and the US. Joyous | Talk 12:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as per Wtwilson3 and Bikeable. Powers 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "This was edited by the group's founder and its official spokespeople". The very last people who should be writing this article. Delete, and maybe start from scratch. -R. fiend 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup this moderately notable organization of whiners. - squibix 02:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite and reorganize. --Dogbreathcanada 07:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand and clean up Ikh (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Wtwilson3. --Ardenn 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration for handhelds

Blatant advert for software. Producers website has alexa rank of 64,630. Google search for "Inspiration for handhelds" shows 15,200 results, but only 40 (?!) are unique.

  • This was created by MBSaddoris (talk • contribs). By a strange coincidence, this [9] lists Mary Beth Saddoris as a marketing specialist at Inspiration Software, the maker of this product. By an even stranger coincidence, all of MBSaddoris' edits have been either to create and update Inspiration products, or toi link them into other articles. What a small world. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam/nn. --kingboyk 20:59, 27 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 to keep. I see 5 delete to 3 keep. Plus, many of the early deletes were placed before the party leader info came to light. --Celestianpower háblame 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Oddy

Non-notable Canadian politician. A minor candidate who has never been elected. Delete Atrian 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 05:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete getting a lot of these Canadian politicians with under 1000 votes articles. Ruby 06:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn. I've added his info to Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. --GrantNeufeld 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor, and beaten, candidate in an election. To be fair he did get over 2000 votes in the most recent election (2004), so not a total whitewash. Sliggy 12:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirects are harmless; I suggest doing so, to Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, since he was already thoughtfully merged by GrantNeufeld. Ikkyu2 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Dogbreathcanada 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - he is notable because he came out strongly against Harris and the federal Green's because, he says, they walked away from the Global Green Charter. It got a fair amount of national press and was one of the first such comments about the federal greens. And, he was the leader of the provincial green party.... WayeMason 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Which provincial party was he leader of, and when? If this is documented somewhere, that would be sufficient notability for me to change my delete to a keep. --GrantNeufeld 07:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems he was the interim leader of the Nova Scotia Green Party, starting late 2005, and has since resigned. [10] [11]. --Rob 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Change: Keep. With the added info of his party leadership (albeit for a very minor party), I'm changing from delete to keep. I've updated the article with additional information. —GrantNeufeld 09:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mainly because there's been some national level press coverage that's included him. Though he's not the principal of such coverage (usually somebody else is), sufficient info on him is available for a decent article.--Rob 09:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 14:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheikh Shady Suleiman

Non-notable youth worker. Delete.Blnguyen 05:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arguably a speedy per CSD A1. Marskell 11:04, 27 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. Shanel 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samina Yasmeen

This appears to be non-notable academic. What makes her stand out amongst other foreign affairs lecurers??.Blnguyen 05:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if she has published widely where's the bibliography? Ruby 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, but no vote: A bibliography is here. It doesn't look remarkable, but "Samina Yasmeen" gets 268 hits on Google Books[12], with 15 more for "Yasmeen, Samina"[13]. u p p l a n d 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uppland's book search. Kappa 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Has respectable academic publication history (I'm partial to academics too, they shouldn't have a higher notability standard than local indy bands and porn actors). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:03, 28 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 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsha Gail Kriss

Non-notable Canadian politician. Has never been elected. Delete Atrian 05:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn, possible vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio, terribly written. Ruby 06:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utter vanity. Grandmasterka 09:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn, vanity. --GrantNeufeld 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete preposterous vanity. Sliggy 17:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utter vanity. --Dogbreathcanada 21:36, 31 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. Babajobu 11:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Situational Reality

Delete No google searches for this term return with the definition listed. Also, no pages link to this article. sigmafactor 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism. Ruby 06:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ruby Zzzzz 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NFT. Ikkyu2 17:31, 31 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 Mew (Pokémon). Deathphoenix 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mew Glitch

Wikipedia is not a FAQ repository! Melchoir 05:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What did you consider FAQ? Cabby2 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Any article I would expect to find at gamefaqs.com, I do not expect to see on Wikipedia. Melchoir 02:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a game easter egg repository. Ruby 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by game easter egg? Cabby2 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It means a hidden feature that allows you to do something outside of the normal flow of the game. In this case the easter egg is a bug. Ruby 02:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Ashibaka tock 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this article can be saved by merging the article (or some of its contents) with another article, please do so. Cabby2 02:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please suggest a target, if you want to merge. Melchoir 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • How about merging it with the article about Mew (pokemon) Cabby2 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mew (Pokémon) is fine with me. Melchoir 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Merge into Mew (Pokémon). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this article is chosen to be merged, can someone fix section 2 of it so that it is more organized? Cabby2 00:09, 30 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 history-merged with the backup copy (User:Dabljuh/My Circumcision) of this POV fork, with the resulting cross-namespace redirects deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:00, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Circumcision/Dabljuhs version

Forked article in main article namespace. -- Curps 06:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So... am I supposed to move it to my own space, like this: Dabljuh/Circumcision/Dabljuhs_version? It started out as a kind of sandbox to allow constructive editing of the Circumcision article as a whole, without every tiny change being immediately reverted by POV warriors. Since most of the article is now in the main article, I don't think it is really necessary anymore. What's interesting however is that you didn't AfD Circumcision/Old_version as well, despite both of them almost always being linked to at the same time for comparison. Dabljuh 08:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per Curps. Ruby 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move' to User:Dabljuh/Circumcision or somesuch. "Old version" wasn't as important to AfD because its name implies that it was consensus building version. Yours is exclusively yours. User specific versions don't belong in the article space whereas community rewrites and old versions arguably do for a period of time. gren グレン ? 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're an idiot. Seriously. A consensus version? vs MY version? Don't talk about things that you don't know the first thing about. I've done a 'rewrite' in the main space to invite other users to help overhauling the article, a community effort so to speak, and the old version wasn't as much a consensus version as it was a POV piece forced to stay in place by a small troupe of POV pushers. The current mainspace version is a slightly edited variant of my version, should give you an Idea about what version is POV.
    • Anyhow, I don't see much sense in keeping either version around, the Old version can be viewed in the main article's history, and my version makes up 90% of the main article now. Dabljuh 11:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy or Speedy this POV fork. Tomertalk 22:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move POV fork. I see that Dabljuh has created User:Dabljuh/My Circumcision with a copy of the article. Could an admin fix this so that the page history is preserved? Jakew 13:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It could just be moved to a different name in my userspace. I made that backup so not everything is lost when some hyperactive admin does something dumb too early. Dabljuh 21:23, 31 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 added to BJAODN & delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Least Favored Nation

Delete. No sources cited, unencyclopedic, irrelevant content and subject. Created by a user with (then) only a few days' worth of editing on the site. --TJive 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It saide humurous!!!Blnguyen 06:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, unverifiable, neologism, take your pick. - Randwicked Alex B 09:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism at best. Mark K. Bilbo 13:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR verging nonsense. Robin Johnson 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I laughed until I stopped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Axis of evil Ruby 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stilly stub; not creative enough to qualify for a humor defense (if such a defense even existed). --Aaron 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODNize it. --み使い Mitsukai 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but put it in BJAODN first Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Essexmutant 09:11, 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 Speedily deleted by BorgQueen as an attack page. - Bobet 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Maltese

Delete. Seems to be some kids joking around? Can't really tell. No previous version of the "article" has had any substantial content. Detritus. EEMeltonIV 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A6: the article has no purpose but to disparage its subject. Tagged as such. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. -HiFiGuy 07:26, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 19:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Spelman Prentice

NN bio. Article makes no claims to importance other than being a great-grandson of the Rockefellers. It definitely doesn't mention what he actually does or what he has contributed, so isn't encyclopedic. Randwicked Alex B 06:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 06:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Aaron 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 16:18, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 19:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelman Prentice

Father of Peter Spelman Prentice, grandson of John Rockefeller. Article similarly makes no claims at all to notability. Randwicked Alex B 06:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So speedy delete as nn-bio. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
A speedy deletion might be contested because this article is not new and someone might think being the relative of someone famous is notable in itself. I want to see if there's any debate. - Randwicked Alex B 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. I don't see being a mere relative of someone famous to be notable in itself. Wikipedia is not Burke's Peerage. --Aaron 16:10, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area code 704

Unencyclopedic. I suggest either deletion or redirection to Charlotte metropolitan area. Melchoir 06:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry was reviewed before it was complete, information has been added Kardous 07:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nom says keep. Holy crap, there's a whole series of these things? Never mind, I withdraw the nomination. Melchoir 07:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was surprised when I found them, too. People feel strongly about some things, like schools, highways, railway stations and, apparently, area codes. Let's just hope no one nominates a school designed by Frank Lloyd Wright that has its own area code and zip code, was formerly a railway station, and is located at the intersection of four highways is nominated for deletion. -- Kjkolb 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Heh. I confess to being geeky enough area codes do interest me. And, actually, there is an argument to be made that the subject is encyclopedic. There's actually an astounding amount time, effort, planning, and technology behind the scenes to make the system work so that it does seem like a trivial subject. And I could see some kid (like I did) wondering why we have a 212 on the East Coast, a 213 on the West, and a 214 in Texas and ending up doing a paper on NANP (which I couldn't have done as there was no easy reference at the time as to what on Earth was going on with those silly numbers <G>). Mark K. Bilbo 14:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a precedent has been set for area code articles. Until a decision is made to delete all area code articles. Crunch 14:19, 27 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 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earlwood Wanderers

A non-notable suburban football(soccer) team. Delete.Blnguyen 06:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, NN amateur club in a local district sub-league [14]. - Randwicked Alex B 07:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Randwicked. Forbsey 09:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 16:19, 27 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. Babajobu 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] l0de Radio Hour

Less notable than your average blog. Also unverifiable, on cursory inspection. Most likely just an attempt at trolling.

  • Delete. Nominator. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn webcast. Ruby 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Comment Delete as per quote from l0de himself. I take no responsiblity for this quote whatsoever. If you have any questions, he says to contact him via email at webmaster at instantlobotomy dot com. Jmax- 17:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
<snip>:
  • Comment censorship is wrong. <l0de> "Remove this article from your laughable excuse for a website or I will kill you all, and your families. And yes, this is a sincere death threat, you fucking faggots." <l0de> Love, <l0de> l0de.
What has l0de's quote got to do with it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:00, Jan. 27, 2006
  • Merge - with GNAA. l0de was forced to stop producing the show for some time due to a set of unfortunate circumstances and no, this is not a joke. We all knew in advance that someone would have nominated this page and so I declare your attempt at trolling us a failure. -- Femmina 18:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge? LRH has nothing to do with our organization. Why should it be merged? --dj28 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh yea, and delete as per l0de's request. --dj28 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge with GNAA article, the context which makes it most relevant, even if it's not a GNAA project per se. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
LRH has absolutely nothing to do with GNAA. Merging LRH with GNAA would make about as much sense as merging Ford with GNAA. It has no context there. GNAA is reserved for GNAA only. --dj28 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Was Henry Ford a member of the GNAA? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No. l0de's show has nothing to do with the GNAA other than a couple of GNAA members listening in. l0de himself has stated on several occasions that his show is not a GNAA effort, but rather his alone. GNAA does not compose his entire audience. If it's merged with GNAA, it will be deleted on sight due to irrelevance. --dj28 13:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. More BS. This was previously nominated, but kept after the trolls descended on it. They'll likely be back. -R. fiend 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Here it comes another failed attempt at trolling. Please consider joining the GNAA and learn to troll properly. -- Femmina 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a troll, I'm a rotten bastard and an obnoxious asshole; please learn the difference. And learn to use basic punctuation, while you're at it. -R. fiend 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
They let people like you admin wikipedia now? Wow this place sinks to a new low. Of course, considering they ley the likes of David Gerard and Curps admin, I'm not too surprised. --timecop 04:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been dropped out from school at 16 and never had enough money to pay for an english teacher so you'll have to tolerate my bad punctuation, spelling, whatever. -- Femmina 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You have a training program? I thought you might recruit the pros. Or is it like the League of Shadows in Batman Begins where they select people who are good and make them better? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"The GNAA is really a bunch of animu faggots. Especially timecop." -- Femmina 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete GNAA too. Non-notable both. - squibix 02:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per l0de's orders GaryNigel 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn incog 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't care what you do with it. No vote. Ikkyu2 17:32, 31 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 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satantine

blatant spam for non notable book by non notable author.DeleteTheRingess 07:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)}

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't belong here. --Lockley 08:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. I can't find info on it anywhere. Forbsey 09:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't assert any notability, or even mention who wrote the damn book. This is blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 15:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe this article is the book. Ruby 16:40, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Job for a cowboy

Was deleted a few months ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Job for a cowboy. Seems to be still not notable, despite the one released album. Not sure if this is a "speedy" candidate, as notability has changed since August 2005. Austrian

  • Delete Fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Forbsey 09:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. Ruby 16:41, 27 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 nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Nancy ('Cos It Already Is) (UK Single)

nn single. Doesn't even include the date; I could not find guidelines on singles in Wikipedia, can anyone point me to them? JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the year seems to be 2001, and Yorn's probably well enough known for it to be a keep. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad to hear that; next question, do you know how I can find some of the information listed in that page? e.g. a national singles chart(UK, in this case, I assume)? JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, UK_Top_40 is our article on this, but it's not immediatly obvious to me how I should check if this single is on the list... But, in any case, there's no need to delete this at this point; nomination withdrawn, i.e. speedy keep JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move/merge with just the song title. There's no reason we can't have the different tracklistings on one page, a la some of the R.E.M. singles. Pete Yorn is a notable musician. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 27 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 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elesta

The article makes it sound like a character from Warcraft, but as far as I can tell it's actually a player's character, which makes this Vanity and Not Notable in the least. Randwicked Alex B 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete failed notability saving throw. --James S. 09:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete or Speedy. Yes, it's a player character if they can duel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable fictional character. Wow, a vanity page for your own name is one thing, but a vanity page for your WoW character? Wow. Powers 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Warcruft. Ruby 16:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
L to the OL. - Randwicked Alex B
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged. There have been serious complaints to Wikipedia about the unsourced statements in this article, so for the time being I have redirected it to the eBaum's World article and will be merging in verifiable information from the controversy article. This may take some time; help appreciated. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EBaum's World controversies

Appears to be a long rant criticizing a specific website. An analysis of EBaum's World indicates that this page was created specifically because of concerns that criticism was overwhelming the rest of the article and violating neutrality; i.e. it was a POV fork. Furthermore, this website simply isn't notable enough to deserve two separate pages. "Criticism of" articles are possibly a necessary evil when dealing with huge, widely-criticized entities like Wal-Mart or Microsoft. But run-of-the-mill websites? No. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge back into the main article. - Randwicked Alex B 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Randwicked -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, because the controversy does exist, in spades, and eBaum's World is not a run-of-the-mill website. That would almost be like calling McDonald's a "local diner". Do not merge. The article as it was before was made up predominantly of eBaum's World criticism, so much that it deserves to be separated into its own entry. --Antrophica 10:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been on the Internet since 1995 and have never *heard* of this website before seeing this article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment But many others have. --Antrophica 04:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep, preferrably Keep. This made reading the original artical's much better, and I doubt something almost getting its own TV show 'ordinary'. Hell, it'll be more fuel to the fire, and then we'll really need this page. Kobayen 14:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into EBaum's World then delete. Ifnord 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Even if entirely cut & pasted back into the main article, the main wouldn't be so long as to justify breaking this section out as a subarticle. Kaisershatner 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be a shame to lose any of the text, but merging it in its entirety would severely imbalance the main article. I think the main article could do with a longer summary, though. --Malthusian (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Last_Malthusian —the preceding unsigned comment is by Where (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Last_Malthusian 68.196.180.250 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Last_Malthusian. --Aaron 19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into EBaum's World then delete. TITROTU 2:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You must be taking the piss. Strong Keep. - Ferret 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No personal attacks, please -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • "You must be taking the piss" is not a personal attack. It is a slightly stronger wording of "You are wrong". If we can't say 'You are wrong', Wikipedia is dead, and if we can't use strong wording now and again, the dispute resolution process will be flooded with spurious 'offences' and Wikipedia is equally dead. --Malthusian (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I'm an ignorant American and have never in my life heard that phrase before. With the word piss being a one of the "dirty seven," I made an assumption. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merge back to EBaum's World. Not sufficiently notable for an article of it's own (and it's not as though the parent article is too long). Def keep the info though. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious POV fork, Merge back into EBaum's world. Can keep redirect to avoid work of merging histories. Protect redirect if necessary to prevent re-creation. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete You could fill half the internet with complaints and rants about EBaum. Making a random selection of those rants and complaints into a Wikipedia article, or a merged part of an article, doesn't make sense. The artidcle about EBaum's World covers the facts, and there's no need for this "controversies" article.KarlBunker 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into EBaum's World. The "controversies" article does refer to real-life legal issues, not just childish spats on Internet content. Controversies and legal issues are contained throughout the Microsoft and Google entries, so there's no reason why these issues can't be contained in the main article. --Tokachu 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Last Malthusian is correct. Unfortunately due to Ebaum's policies there's simply far more negative information available about eBaum's World than positive. The information in this article is accurate, but if the main article consists of over half information regarding the controversies, it will be considered a violation of NPOV. Better to link to the controversy section on the main article and have it all available here, while maintaining a balance in the main article. --71.137.147.161 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a worse violation of neutrality to have an article that contains only negative information. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ridiculous. This was already argued over at the talk page for the main article. NPOV doesn't mean balancing the good and the bad. It's presenting all of the facts without resorting to opinion. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that there is no positive information is clearly the fault of the subject and not the editors. 'NPOV' stands for Neutral Point Of View, not No Point Of View. --Malthusian (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand why there's any objection to a merge. If it's neutral to have some kind of "balance" of information in the main article, fine. If it's neutral to have criticism predominate, fine. But this can and should all be done in the main article. It sounds from what I read above that this article was broken off precisely to sidestep reaching consensus on neutrality, by letting each of two sets of editors go their separate ways. That's a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If this is about two sets of editors going their separate ways, where's Praise for EBaum's World? Tell me when that link turns blue and I'll create Praise for being massaged with a cheese grater. --Malthusian (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this argument. Is every bad point on Hitler backed by a good one? Is Hitler POV? Rsynnott 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Oh my God, are you serious? User:Crotalus_horridus where's the check from eBaum's World? eBaum's World is infamous. You should lose AfD privs for this nonsense. Agree as per User:Last_Malthusian that the main article for eBaum's World could do with a longer summary. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it civil, please. —rodii 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't devaluate WP:CIVIL by citing it where no-one could possibly take offence at a comment in good faith. --Malthusian (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry Rodii, on second reading I think you were justified there. --Malthusian (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Malthusian. —rodii 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. important issues concerning a website. Ebaum's World has made serious conflicts with Viacom --143.200.225.101 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: While some of the sections are essentially fully written by me, they are accurate and sources are cited. Especially with eBaum's recent foray into television, it is worthwhile for Wikipedia to maintain a factually correct entry on this topic for interpretation by a wider audience. Bilious 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge: eBaumsworld is a widely controversial topic on the internet. Particularly on large internet media sites such as YTMND, SA, Newgrounds and even 4chan. The community of these websites and their forums have taken a general consensus of mild despisal of eBaum's practices since eBaums conducted their first DDoS attacks on SA and even mildly before. When the flash animation : eBaums world dot com appeared on newgrounds on Nov. 6th 2005 the controversy really flew off. Much of the content being hosted on eBaums was seen as stolen and posted up by the forum members of eBaums, which was then considered by the consensus of eBaums as freely available and held a philosophy of a copyright free internet, where the content could be taken, profited from and used on any website in the internet. Particularly eBaums. This article is incredibly important to the understanding of how much eBaums is despised by a large portion of the internet population. To say that their despisal is inexistant is wholly untrue. This article is incredibly important whether it be seperate or merged with the original, since I hold a stance against eBaums I won't edit the controversies page, but I do however think that it's incredibly important that this page exists.--Mofomojo 10:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete eBaum stuff is just a fad... I doubt it will last. Jwissick(t)(c) 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A fad that has lasted for two years on end, at least, I might add. --Antrophica 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep description of a major recent cultural phenomenon. Main article would be unwieldy in a merge. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could use some work, but I can see that it's important enough to stay. Dan 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into eBaum's World. Valuable information, but it doesn't quite warrant its own article. It'd beef up the eBaum article too. ShadowMan1od 05:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NPOV criteria not to have controversies take up most of the article. Calwatch 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back to eBaum's World. There would seem to be a bit of an attempt at a cover-up going on there currently. Rsynnott 11:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. 88.107.223.90 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article could do with a better introduction though. RicDod 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. Doesn't need its own. Dbinder 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because the controversy is real and deserving of its own article. 209.51.77.64 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Forum-cruft/webcruft/cruftcruft. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. Why in the hell was it ever split off from the orginal? That's just silly talk --DariusMDeV 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it was cluttering up the main Ebaums page but the controversies are worth documenting. - Achristl 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cos its interesting, informative, reasonably well-written but instead cite more sources of where information is coming. -- Paxomen 02:57, 30 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 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hustler Indoor Cricket Club

Another amateur suburban sporting club with no claim to importance. Pity, it would be a good article if it wasn't completely NN and mostly unverifiable. Randwicked Alex B 10:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Incredibly well-written, looks good, formatted well. Better than a lot of other WP articles. Too bad it's completely non-notable. My compliments and regrets to the author. Powers 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn nostalgia/nonsense.Blnguyen 07:12, 30 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. Ifnord 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS

This reads like an FAQ of sorts. I am not sure what to do with it (move, delete, merge) which is why I am putting it on AfD. However, as it stands it is unencyclopedic. There is nothing that shows how we judge what is a "common misconception". gren グレン ? 10:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic guide, content is already covered in relvant articles.--nixie 11:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm not crazy about the article, but it has stuff that is not covered in the HIV or AIDS articles (not transmitted by mosquitos, not cured by having sex with virgins), and the articles would probably be too long if they did. It should be cleaned up and possibly renamed to be more encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 12:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Crunch 14:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extensively sourced, well-researched. Important information that is too long to go in the HIV or AIDS articles. Powers 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Important, useful, and historically interesting. If there's not enough about why these misconceptions exist then be bold and add it. The fact it reads like an FAQ is fine by me as this is a topic that doesn't lend itself well to a non-sectioned article. 23skidoo 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article was renamed by consensus from AIDS_myths_and_urban_legends to this current heading. Content is not covered in other articles such as mosquitoes and virgin cleansing. Also, the article has already survived a previous Deletion vote. --Bob 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Encyclopedic content, needs to be brought in line with WP style. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But here's the problem. What makes common misconceptions encyclopedic? I am not saying that the information is not worthwhile somewhere but what is the judge of what is a common misconception? How do we make this encyclopedic. Think of an article like Common misconceptions about Islam... it's just not an encyclopedic tone coming from that angle. The way it is discussed now makes this an FAQ. How can we make it an encyclopedia article with flowing prose and not a question by question basis? gren グレン ? 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There are ways to assess how common misconceptions are: one looks at the literature created by health educators, who document misconceptions in order to figure out how to combat them. Similarly the misconceptions are important because of their role in public health. I don't like the way the article is organised at present, but I don't think the article is a POV magnet in the way that a "Common misconceptions about (religion)" would be. There is a small WikiProject, WP:AIDS, that might be able to help with how to fit this article in with existing coverage. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is currently not done on a question by question basis, but on a misconception by misconception basis. --Bob 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, actually, the only thing that is probably missing is a source of the fact that these misconceptions are actually believed by someone, that is, the result of a survey. It could also benefits from changing headers from level 2 to level 3. - Liberatore(T) 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Could use better sourcing but the subject is well expressed, important, and highly encyclopedic. This is the sort of article that can actually save lives. Durova 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Highly noteworthy topic. The fact that it lends itself to a topic-by-topic analysis rather than "flowing prose" doesn't render it non-encyclopedic, nor does the fact that no one has drawn a bright line between common and uncommon misconceptions. Doctor Whom 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the misconception is notable, and it is documentable as a misconception (that is, it is clear that it is wrong), then it is definitely capable of being both encyclopedic and NPOV. Which is not to say that such an article would be easy to police (i.e. I can just imagine the pain that Common misconceptions about evolution would be.. there are common misconceptions about evolution -- orthogenesis, for example -- but the place would be a trolling ground) but there's no reason it wouldn't be incompatible with our guidelines, I don't think. --Fastfission 04:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic FAQ/list. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very important topic, definitely encyclopedic.
  • Delete. Ambi 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move sourced AIDS reappraisal claim rebuttals (sections 12 through 24) into AIDS reappraisal#Mainstream Rebuttal. The Rod 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is useful in that it adds to the truth about AIDS by exposing falsehoods. That's encyclopedic enough for me. Atrian 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - plenty of reasons above, all of which I agree with. Essexmutant 09:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unencylopaedic why? Is this so different from the innumerable "List of..." articles? --Nephtes 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is the perfect place for this sort of important, factual, well researched information. Dan, the CowMan 00:08, 31 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 by Petaholmes as nonsense+csd a7. - Bobet 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robertian Studios

Not notable and nothing verifiable in this article. -- Longhair 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair 10:20, 27 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. Not quite unanimous, but I notice that the author has apologized for creating it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:14, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Asset Management Game

Article about a non-notable piece of software which was almost certainly added by the author/programmer himself. Probably a newbie who isn't fully aware that Wikipedia isn't for advertising or vanity. Caravaca 10:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Powers 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep asserts it is the first of its type. Ruby 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that I did write about something which I built. Apologies. Yzerfontein 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jahbulon

For the corresponding request for deletion of the article about the word from Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Jahbulon.
For a history of this article's wiktionary transfer talk, see Talk:Jahbulon#26_Jan_2006

Delete. Non-notable, unverifed, does not meet the criteria for either Wikipedia or Wiktionary, and does not belong on either of them. See Talk:Jahbulon#26_Jan_2006 and the rest of the talk page for more arguments. WegianWarrior 10:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MSJapan 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: I think it would be good to explain the problems specifically with this article as well. The speech is a WP:V problem, and possible copyvio (the author is still alive and writing for Freemasonry Today), and on top of that, it is out of context in this article. The speculative etymology (second section) is by its nature speculative and not fact. Thus it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The third section is quotations, which are also speculative in nature, as these are guesses on word origins from individuals not trained in linguistics. So what's left to have an article on? MSJapan 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverified and unverifiable. Blueboar 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The claim that Freemasons use the word "Jahbulon" or "Jabulon" as the name of a deity, and discussions about its possible etymology, seem to be attested outside of Wikipedia; Google searches confirm this. Being referred to in Black Athena by Martin Bernal suggests notability, even if that work is mostly bunk. Ideas cannot be copyrighted; a brief quote from a living individual does not turn an article into a copyvio, even if it be copied verbatim. An accuracy dispute is not grounds for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but a "pure fantasy" claim is. & if you actually "cleaned up", you would be left with nothing more than a dictionary entry. Period.Grye 10:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This discusion and the corresponding discussion in Wictionary, and the information in the article, are likely being clouded by disinformation inserted by Freemasons who want their secrets to stay secret. 81.159.229.195 07:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Clean out unverifiable material, but the fact that conspiracy buffs and antimasonists discuss the subject incessantly make it noteworthy, even if they're off the wall. I can see people coming to WP to verify the claims made by the conspiracy theorists and their ilk... Tomertalk 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Tom's idea that people will come to WP to varify the claims made by conspiracy theorists is that their claim is unverifyable. Blueboar 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not "the problem" with my idea, that's the whole point of my idea. Tomertalk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait a sec. So you want us to leave this on here to verify a claim, when we don't even have any facts to support the claim in the first place? I must be missing something.MSJapan 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & note that it was always, & remains, a wiktionary entry, & a very poor & invalid one at that. Grye 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Sure, it needs a cleanup. But the fact that it raises so many hackles makes it appear notable IMHO. Ifnord 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digitaltam

Non-notable site, the article itself states that they only have 100 members. Akamad 10:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, I was going to speedy it (A7, nn group) but when I saw the AfD I decided not to. gren グレン ? 10:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy--nixie 10:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Don't think it qualifies under A7. Zunaid 13:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn forum. Ruby 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Obli (Talk) 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:22, 30 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 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyriki

Relatively new wiki, does not meet WP:WEB, delete.--nixie 11:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Not notable, yet. - Longhair 11:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't submit the original lyriki entry, but, that being said, I concur it doesn't fit wikipedia's guidelines at current. Perhaps a delete for now would be best. Hopefully, it will as one other user said here, obtain notable status sometime in the future and can be re-added. --Nanenj 15:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and author. Ruby 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 20:29, 27 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 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India- Tips for selection, purchase and maintaining a house( Best for People in Pune)

Delete. Not a 'db-nonsense' as somebody else said, but blatantly unencyclopedic. Page title says it all: WP:NOT a how-to guide. Lukas (T.|@) 11:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 11:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Zunaid 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 14:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a How-To. JIP | Talk 15:02, 27 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 to T. Coleman du Pont. u p p l a n d 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coleman Thomas du Pont

Duplicate page under incorrect name. All information has been incorporated into the article under the correct name, T. Coleman du Pont stilltim 11:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have been bold and redirected Coleman Thomas du Pont to T. Coleman du Pont. That's all that's needed (and if you have incorporated information to the other page, GFDL requires it). I think this discussion can be closed, but if anyone objects, you can re-open it. u p p l a n d 16:56, 27 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. Punkmorten 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen

plagurised from: http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/Wilhelm-R%25C3%25B6ntgen.wikipedia Pkazazes 11:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Huh? Speedy keep. That alleged source page is a Wikipedia mirror! Lukas (T.|@) 12:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, not in bad faith, just error. It cannot be from a Wikipedia mirror, but checking the history and content, I don't believe this is a copyvio from anywhere else, either. -- Kjkolb 12:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep! Per Lukas & Kjkolb. --Lockley 15:43, 27 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. Also I have chosen create a protected redirect to Dark Ages as a plausible search term. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:01, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Darkage

Was tagged for speedy as nn-band, but I don't think it quite fits as there is a reasonably large discography, so bringing it here instead. Janitorial only, no vote at this point. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Seven of the keep votes here have been entered unsigned by five anons and this is the only contributions for all five of them. Looks suspiciously like sockpuppetry. Two of the anons have clearly voted twice.
  • Speedy Delete article asserts the only distribution is two tracks floating around in the music underground. Ruby 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep author of preceeding comment appears to have misread article, which actually asserts in discography that five (5) albums have been realeased, rather than just two tracks as suggesed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.172.79 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2006.
  • Delete as unverifiable. I could not find any proof of existence of this band beside the linked web site at the bottom of the article, and a search for the band's last album get nothing [15]. It's also quite strange that the article does not mention the members' names, but that would not be a ground for deletion. - Liberatore(T) 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep band known in Australian metal underground, and considered seminal. Currently only Wikipedia representative of psychedelic doom style. Current writer possesses three separate original releases, and has sighted three original posters for Australian live performances —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.172.79 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2006.
  • Strong Delete: I nominated this for speedy. Even the article says they've never released a proper album. The article practically asserts its own non-notability:
...much of Darkage's recorded canon consists of wholly impovised work, or jam sessions.
A limited number of demo tapes and CDs have been released. In addition, a number of rehearsal and jam session recordings exist, but are difficult to obtain
The clincher for me, as Liberatore stated, is that there are zero mentions of them anywhere on the internet. I can't even prove that they ever existed. Meeting WP:BAND seems unreachable after that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh I forgot the beauty of the final line regarding the discography: "The preceding list is probably not exhaustive. The total Darkage corpus is almost certainly larger." I.e., the writer of the article can't even verify anything about them. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepBand certainly exists and has following. This group has been referred to in respectable Australian print media. Article claims band formed 13 years ago, this is an unlikely claim for a vanity article. Also the sited band website is active. Band also Referenced on a few independent music websites. Also lack of information by author does not constitute falsity or informational worthlessness of article. Article should be retained to allow more details to be added or corrections to be made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.20 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2006.
    • Comment: Put simply, I have found no way to even find if they've recorded a single original song or if they've ever played even at a bar somewhere. If someone can show me where that information exists and the band then appears noteworthy according to WP:BAND, I'll happily change my vote. I've successfully nominated bands for deletion that have had working home pages (this band's is apparently under construction and shows no info) and even small fan sites and a clear verifiable underground following. This band appears to have none of those so how can we justify deleting them while not deleting this one? I have friends and relatives with substantially more verifiability than this band. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I checked the external webstite mentioned it it doesto contain information, including an active email address. This site claims to be in the process of re-development, not construction. Wiki article also cites this website as an "unofficial Website" suggesting that this site has been built by people outside the band, and that it does probably have a cult/fan following. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.36.15 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep the following quotations that were sited above in defense of the delete claim seem to reflect the predudice of author and do not materially support their non-notability argument:
...much of Darkage's recorded canon consists of wholly impovised work, or jam sessions.

This same argument could be made for hundreds of important artists from Miles Davis to Hawkwind to Hendrix. Most Jazz musicicians would have bios removed from Wikipedia if this method of performance was used ans an index of non-notability

A limited number of demo tapes and CDs have been released. In addition, a number of rehearsal and jam session recordings exist, but are difficult to obtain

This quote merely states that with any active recording musical group today, demos and CD's have been released, and that, as would be expected "rehearsal and jam session" recordings exist but are "difficult to obtain". This merely hints at the collectabilty of these recordings which the author probably should have described as "bootlegs" for clarity. Rarity of material, or limited pressings once again have nothing to do with supporting a claim for non-notability" in themselves, as even the Beatles, for example, could fit the above criterea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.20 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2006.

    • The prejudice you refer to is based on the fact that there's no mention of any legitimate full-length releases. Therefore, the references to "rehearsal and jam session" recordings sound like a poor attempt at asserting notability. As you said, every artist has rehearsal and jam session recordings - only you never hear about them because their legitimate work makes that unnecessary. If you removed the rehearsal and jam session recordings from this article - since they're not present for other musicians - you'd have almost nothing. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-band Zzzzz 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • KeepWhat does the above author mean by "legitimate"? The use of this term is unclarified. There is no evidence in the article in question that suggests that the band's canon is either released illegaly, or that it is performed and recorded by a group other thatn themselves. These would be the only senses in which "illegitimate" could make any sense. Furthermore, this author seems to show evidence of some ignorance regarding the nature of bootleg recordings. These are in fact, HIGHLY collectable, revealing the artists in a "purer" and not "over-produced" form. Official releases do not diminish their collectability; in fact widespread commercial success and can often enhance public desire to obtain these recordings. It is suggested that the above author utilise the search function in a music related peer-to-peer network to research this phenomenon for him or herself. Finally, an article writer that was engaging in a "poor attempt" to assert verifibility would surely not mention these kinds of recordings - as is evidenced by the above commenter's reaction and attitude towards them. I presume the original writer included them because of their value to fans of the band and bootleg collectors. FInally, as mentioned above, this band seems to be a rare representative of a style of music that would be largely or wholly lost by Wikipedia if the article in question was prematurely deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.36.15 (talk • contribs) .
  • IMPORTANT NOTE: Two anons on this Afd have each voted Keep twice! And it's both of their only contributions to Wikipedia so it may just be the same guy with FOUR keeps? Just so everyone is aware. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Looks fine, band appears on external sites and in printed material. Also Google searches can be problematic due to conflation with a popular computer game of same name and frequent mispelling of the groups name (eg. by spelling as two words rather than one) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.249.158 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom and due to sockpuppetry. Stifle 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete having looked around it does appear that they have "a following" (as most bands do, however minor), but I can't find evidence of them meeting WP:NMG which means that many claims about them are functionally unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, as they seem to be unsigned, are not listed on either [www.doom-metal.com] or [www.metal-archives.com] (and bands that have been listed on those sites have been deleted before!), and despite being a doom metal fan, I never heard of this band. They were mentioned in a previous incarnation of the article on doom metal three times, and the three mentions were all contributed by the same guy who initially wrote the article on Darkage. Looks like vanity to me. Someone here claimed that they were cited on websites and in print press, but such a claim should at least be backed up with references... Moreover, the claim 'only Wikipedia representative of psychedelic doom style' by one of the anons here is nonsense: Electric Wizard are a well-known band (by doom metal standards, at least) playing this style. Joost 11:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Keep - above comment re: Electric Wizard is NOT factual; a perusal of this band's article will reveal that the term "psychedelic doom" is not used once, and furthermore that the even more general designation of "psychedelic" does NOT appear at all on the page. An examination of Wikipedia indicates that "psychedelic doom" is essentially associated with Darkage. A general check on the internet (with sensible search keywords) will predominantly direct browsers to this band. Users who are ignorant about the history and current state of Heavy Metal, and of music in general, will obviously tend to fail to use appropriate keywords when ustilising search engines to validate this (and similar) articles on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.11 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep As stated frequently above (even by those voting to delete) this band has a following, especially in Australia / New Zealand. Perhaps the influence of this band is somewhat regional, but it would be inappropriate to judge the value of Wikipedia articles with a pro USA / European bias - this is surely against the universal ethos of Wikipedia. I personaly doubt that the article in question would be attracting as much pro-delete commentary if the artists in question were American; Print media is obviously more difficult to obtain and reference in isolated and lower population regions such as Australia. (The USA has approximatly 1000% the population of Australia for example, and New zealand is even samller). It seems unfair and discriminatory that users in smaller countries are deprived of information that is important to them, and that therefore, by extension, ought to be seen as valuable by the wider global community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.11 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete votes becomes strong delete with the presence of so many puppets. Looks like Sesame Street in here. Band is non-notable. Ifnord 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Seven of the keep votes here have been entered unsigned by five anons and this is the only contributions for all five of them. Looks suspiciously like sockpuppetry. Two of the anons have clearly voted twice.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:20, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Crotchduster

Was tagged for nn-band, but they are on allmusic so I don't think that applies. That said, despite the allmusic listing, I don't think they are actually notable - but what do I know? Bringing it here instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment In order to be speedied, it is not necessary for the subject to be proven "non-notable". All that is necessary is an absence of any assertion of notability. Such as this case. jmd 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Plenty of Google hits; you can buy their album from Amazon.com; record label seems legit enough. The fact that their drummer is a dog is a bit off-putting, but it is a parody band. I was going to vote Keep but after reading WP:Music], unless one of their songs or their album has charted, they're not notable until their second album gets published. Still, they seem fairly well-known considering. I would say merge with Capharnaum (band) if that article ever gets created -- maybe together they're notable enough. Powers 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, released an album on legit record label. Kappa 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 07:23, 30 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 listed on WP:CP instead. — sjorford (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master of the house

Was tagged as speedy for copyvio, but outside the 48-hour limit. The lyrics of les mis are still copyright, as far as I know, so transwiki to Wikisource is not justified. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:27, 27 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 an implied speedy keep by User:Morwen [16]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:28, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Chantelle Houghton

Created by an external participant in the Bogdanov Affair, non-notable radio presenter from England Westwolds 12:28, 27 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. – ABCDe✉ 14:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless Helot

Delete nn band. They recorded one demo tape and then disbanded. A Google on "Wireless Helot" yields only two hits, neither to do with bands. --Bruce1ee 12:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete by CSD A7. Demo tapes (whatever the number) do not be make a band notable. Schutz 13:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I was almost going to suggest "merge with Necrobutcher", but in fact I will list this article for deletion too. Schutz 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: A single demo tape is not sufficient assertion of notability. --Durin 14:11, 27 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. It's been transwiki'd. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:16, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Link (P3X-289)

Was nominated for speedy as "Ridiculously specific information regarding minor plot element used once and never seen again" which is not a CSD criterion (would that it were!) so bringing it here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:00, 27 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. Deathphoenix 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Under the Jaguar Sun

Can't quite make heads or tails of this. Seems to fail WP:NOR as it is no more than a book review. Author signed the initial article with his name and academic qualifications, which I've subsequently removed. Delete Zunaid 13:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we still BJAODN the current revision? Pretty please? [Makes Bambi eyes]--The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Monicasdude. Isn't there a template for {nonencyclopedic tone}? Senator, you're no Kadee Strickland... Kaisershatner 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. This article needs total improvement. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is original research but happy to review if it gets cleaned up. I've seen far too many articles kept as "needing cleanup" tht never happens. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I cannot agree more with brenneman here, please see my rant...er...comment here about my take on this issue. Would people voting "keep and rewrite" please consider whether they'd want to change their votes to "delete or rewrite"? Just a thought ;) Zunaid 08:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No. Because deletion means the article disappears, keeping with plans to rewrite means a necessary article stays. With that said, Keep and rewrite --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • And I've done some cleanup, but it still needs some work and sourcing. I'm not the least bit familiar with the book, so I can't do much else. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Being badly written and needing cleanup isn't an appropriate ground for deletion. Otherwise Wikipedia would be down to a few thousand articles. Monicasdude 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Badly written content is one thing, inappropriate content (e.g. an OR book review) is something different. To badlydrawnjeff: deletion means the poor article disappears. It does not preclude a better article with the same title and decent content being created at a later point in time. Zunaid 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • if the article isn't there, some people might not even bother cleaning it up. I'd never think of creating this article, but I can do what I can to clean it up. If you delete it, there's nothing there anymore. Poof. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken. However I still feel my point - that too many articles survive AfD because of some future promised rewrite - is valid. Anyway, I'm off, will check back tomorrow to see what's transpired in the meantime. Zunaid 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the point you make has a logical fallacy: even if a page gets deleted, the fact that it went through AfD means it existed for at last 5 days and will have been read by at least 10 pairs of eyes, including keep voters. That's long enough for someone to clean it up. Anyone who feels strongly enough could always make a copy in their user space and clean the heck out of it and resubmit the better article at a future point, even if it were to be deleted. Zunaid 12:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The original content wasn't a book review, it was a summary (rather lousy) with some NOR/NPOV-violating commentary. If that was a deletion criterion, about 80% of the pop music album articles would be deleted. Monicasdude 15:34, 30 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:31, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Ernie Crossen

nn; only claim of importance is honorary consul of Mongolia in Ireland. Delete. Schutz 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete honorary anything is prima facie not notable. Ruby 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep My first reaction to this was that it was hoax but I've found the School Web page and it's correct. He's also head of a school which is nearly 40 years old and recognised by the Irish Department of Education for teaching TEFL. So it's somewhat more than just honorary consul. Dlyons493 Talk 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable in the slightest, as far as I can tell --kingboyk 20:33, 27 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 nn band, closing AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necrobutcher

nn band. Recorded only demo-tapes, rehearsals and some tracks for international compilations (unspecified). (note: no google hits, but this is not surprising for a group which disappeared in 1992). Delete Schutz 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Speedy delete, as per Durin. Schutz 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: This should be speedied as an nn-band under WP:CSD A7. Two demo tapes does not make it notable in any respect, nor is it a valid assertion of notability. --Durin 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. Ifnord 15:05, 27 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 closing AfD. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Überheaddy

Delete nn band. They don't appear to have recorded any albums. A Google with Überheaddy -wikipedia yields only two hits. --Bruce1ee 13:30, 27 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 need for Afd for this sort of thing. Friday (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly clapp

nonsense page JohnCub 13:32, 27 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, and thanks for the dablinks at Avro, that's all that's needed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:33, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Avro (currency)

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a Turkish-English dictionary.Aris Katsaris 13:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, dicdef that's already in wiktionary. - Bobet 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Turkish wiktionary, and delete. Stifle 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Redirect to Euro or Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Ardric47 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, making a redirect from this title is pretty pointless, since someone typing the title into the search box is unlikely. I changed the wording in the dablink in Avro to point to Euro so this article is a dead-end page now. - Bobet 17:25, 31 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. If there are notable games that were created this way, that fact should be individually noted at their respected pages, which would not mitigate retaining the edit history of this page. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:39, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] List of Game Maker games

Delete. It's badly formatted, only three of the wiki links link to a non-stub article. This content could simply be placed in the Game Maker article. Super Sam 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom then delete. Ifnord 15:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Help instead of complain. --E-Magination 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, then Delete per Ifnord -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is almost infinite games made in Game Maker, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE to keep a full list.
  • Strong delete as this should be a category. As it stands, it is listcruft. Stifle 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete To be honest, I think this article was created for game maker users merely to advertise their games, rather than inform the user about game maker in anyway. There is a link to the GMG topsites on the main Game maker page, and that should suffice. [Sharky] 21:32, 30 January 2006 (GMT)
  • GMG topsites is a really bad source.

This article is mainly to make the cluster of GM games easier to acces. Bold textMERGEBold text--E-Magination 16:49, 31 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 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuniculus

Non-notable, secret dining society at Cambridge university. No sourced information, of course - after all, it's secret! Delete. Lukas (T.|@) 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, too secret. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Ifnord 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quick! Before someone finds out the secret! Zarquon 15:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Secret societies are inherently non-verifiable. JIP | Talk 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't know that secret socities have became encyclopedic. That's not an encyclopedia anymore, more of an info site. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JIP -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We are currently researching to find out who previous members are using records held at the University Library. We hope, as soon as we have gathered the information, to include a list of notable past members and link into their wiki pages. Give us a little more time. Tartufo 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You don't need any more time; if you come up with the info, you can recreate the article in a form that won't be referred for deletion. Incidentally, secret societies are not non-notable by default; viz. Porcellian, Skull and Bones, Hellfire Club. -Ikkyu2 17:40, 31 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 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al karims

Delete. Non-notable restaurant. Lukas (T.|@) 14:02, 27 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 retract and post to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ifnord 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uusimaa

This article needs to be deleted, it is a disambiguation page of Uusimaa, a part of Finland. However, it already exists as another disambiguation page (Uusimaa (disambiguation). The reason why this article should be deleted is that without it I can't move Uusimaa (region) to its proper name, which is Uusimaa. If you delete the article Uusimaa, I can move Uusimaa (region) to Uusimaa and have the disambiguation page at Uusimaa (disambiguation). It sounds complicated, and it is. This would be a smart move just for the sake of clarity, and most people (when searching for Uusimaa) think about Uusimaa (region). Besides, Uusimaa (region) should be under the name Uusimaa because it is so in the Finnish Wikipedia. [18] --Thorri 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This really belongs to Wikipedia:Requested moves and not here. - Bobet 14:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops! Sorry then everybody. And the Uusimaa mess keeps on growing... --Thorri 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect Uusimaa (disambiguation) to this article. Never ever redirect Article title to Article title (disambiguation). If they're about the same thing, redirect the other way around. JIP | Talk 15:06, 27 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'.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiberal

French-language website with no particular claim to fame. Added here by one of its main contributors, who keeps opposing the deletion procedure on the french-language wikipedia with the question “Why should we delete it when it's ok on en ?”. So I thought I ask you what you think…

  • Delete nn especially for those that don't speak French. This is an English encyclopedia.--Adam (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as no claim to notability. Not because of language, as long as the article is in English it's not a problem. Ifnord 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should we delete it when it's okay on fr? Just kidding, Delete Ruby 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Strongly object to the idea that the website itself being in French makes it unsuitable material for an encyclopedia in English. Robin Johnson 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's good enough for es.wikipedia.org...hmmm....not there...delete as nn with a side of WP:POINT. Turnstep 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Off with the head, I say. Delete. --Agamemnon2 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

Please, do not consider the french voting results about this article !

Deleting this article « because it lacks notability in an encyclopedia in english » is a good reason, but keep in mind that this is not true in a french ones, which doesn't improve this article being considered for deletion in french wikipedia too...

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm apolitique (I'm sorry, but I don't know the english word for this french ones: it means I'm not affiliated to any kind of political party or political tendency, and that I'm not a militant).

One of the reasons this article is being considered for deletion in french wikipedia is that there are persistant Neutral point of view problems about political subjects here (yes, as you probablysurely noticed, I'm french: my english can't lie ;-) ).

On one hand, articles on fr.wikipedia.org dealing with Communism, Anarchism or anything dealing with the left wing are widely approved and encensed, while bad things about them are silenced, or unsaid.

On the other hand, those dealing with liberalism or anything dealing with the right wing are frequently subject of a sort of persistent denigration and vandalism.

Ok, I'm a bit exagerating, but that is mainly true. So, this is the reason why you shouldn't consider the french voting result about this article, and vote considering the notability in en.wikipedia.org.

Regards, Manchot.

Don't trust Manchot. It's not a political problem. Anarchopedia, the anarchist wiki, is also in french Articles for deletion. So, trust him when he says he is exagerating ;D Alvaro 06:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Just have a look to the french article about communism, and you'll find no word about the dictatorship of the proletariat, no word about Trotskyism, no word about Cold War, no word about Maoism and the dozens millions deaths it is responsible for, no word about human rights violations, no word about abuses, no word about Gulag, etc. This french article encense Communism. Anything more to say ? :-) Manchot
Yes, work on this article ;D Alvaro 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The english article communism has more than 3000 edits, the french one less than 1000. The way of NPOV : work ;D Alvaro 16:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record : there are indeed serious problems with articles about communism on the french wikipedia. Sadly for the people who accuse me of listing Wikiberal for deletion because of my personal political bias, I'm actively dealing with these problems right now (see fr:Histoire du capitalisme and the associated pages). This thing about bias and POV on fr is just one big straw man argument used by a bunch of people not willing to acknowledge that this website is clearly non-notable. Incidentally a number of them suddenly re-activated their wikipedia accounts after a post on a forum associated with the website in question. GL 10:05, 30 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. Canderson7 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quibbly

Neologism, yet more barse and taint stuff. No relevant Google hits on either the term or its alleged originator. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary.--Adam (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What is with these "Wikipedia is not..." quotations. Wikipedia is not a democracy :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Neologism used by a web forum member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/wangi 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article admits the word was created to replace "Taint" which was AfD'd. Ruby 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sockpuppets are out tonight. Ashibaka tock 17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the quibbley, and don't delete my vote again, fuckers! EdHalstram 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the articulate Mr Halstram has taken to repeatedly removing the afd tag from the article, blanking this afd page and vandalising talk pages. And what on earth is a "cockmonkey"? Apparently I am one. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't blank this page or otherwise modify other users' comments. Anyone tampering with this page may be blocked from editing temporarily. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified nonsense. The links on the page do not contain any mention of this term, as far as I can tell. --Thunk 22:25, 27 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. The arguments presented here show a consensus that the article is a trivial categorizaton, and that the article is inheirtly in violation of WP:NPOV.--Sean Black (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of interesting or unusual place names

A list of geographical places that Wikipedia editors (or rather the editor that adds an entry) find funny or amusing. This is inherently not WP:NPOV (with no WP:CITEing of sources so someone can WP:Verify entries) and is not encyclopedic content. Thanks/wangi 15:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Thanks/wangi 15:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encylopedic.--Adam (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We've been through this before with List of NFL Draft Busts and List of songs in English labeled the worst ever. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 15:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • However those two at least had some level of references listed - this one has none, it is entirely subjective and non-encyclopedic. T/wangi 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is inherently subjective. Zarquon 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete almost every place name in the world has some sort of origin story and is thus "interesting". Mostly just a list of "naughty" place names, and I'm disappointed that there are people out there who are unaware that "butte" is pronounced "byoot" and not "butt". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the manifest impossibility of defining an objective definition of either "interesting" or "unusual" in this context. Hence, article is inherently unerifiable and POV. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impossible to maintain NPOV with this subject matter. 23skidoo 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tee hee. Listcruft. Powers 15:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, arbitrary criterion. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's interesting enough for me to save a copy to my hard drive. Ruby 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Lots of things are interesting enough to save to a hard drive. They don't all belong on Wikipedia. Take, for example, a list of lightbulb jokes. Powers 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That one I did vote to delete after saving it to my harddrive. Ruby 16:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not as subjective as you are making it out to be. Hell Michigan is a strange city name, Lincoln Park is not. Right? Sinatra3d
Boring, Oregon is interesting too, ironically. Ruby 16:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And Lincoln Park is interesting if it's where you park your Lincoln. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator as subjective and non-encyclopedic. Any list "provided chiefly for its entertainment value" (per the article) is not suitable for an encyclopedia, so even though I enjoyed reading it, it really doesn't belong here. --keepsleeping slack off! 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, good list. This is still not too bad compared to some other lists. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete inherently POV and subjective and non-encyclopedic. The closer should ignore all votes which say 'keep, interesting'. If this article is inherently POV it must be deleted regardless of conensus. NPOV is not negotiable. Any legitimate argument for keep here, would have to refute the charge of inherent POV (how, I don't know), if it does not do that it is irrelevant to this debate. --Doc ask? 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding POV, I think. An opinion is POV, but the existence of an opinion by an individual is a verifiable fact, and hence NPOV. The same holds for the possession of a belief by a body of people. As long as inclusions on this page are circumscribed by this criterion that "a significane proportion of English speakers will find the name of interest" we have a NPOV page. SP-KP 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not misunderstanding NPOV. What is 'interesting' is ultimately POV. Of course the existence of a opinion as to what is interesting could be a verifiable fact - but that isn't possible here. As to 'a significant body of English speakers will find thisof interest', how do you propose to verify that? If would become an opinion on what a 'significant body' would find intersting - and that again is POV. You could arrive at a consensus - but that is effectively a survey of wikipedians, and would violate WP:NOR. So, yes, it is inherently POV. --Doc ask? 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Reading the above, I can't understand why you aren't suggesting that virtually everything in Wikipedia is ultimately opinion and should be deleted — we could always find somebody somewhere to disagree with much of what Wikipedia says. To achieve a sensible balance, we have to accept that the Wikipedia editor community will make collective judgments based on their opinions (e.g. it is clearly possible for a collective judgment to be made on the questions you pose above) and that these judgments, whilst POV, result in our best efforts at producing content that is NPOV. I think few editors would agree with you that the Wikipedia editing process is inherently a breach of WP:NOR, which is in effect what you are saying, if I've understood correctly. In an ideal world, we'd make it clear everywhere that this is they way Wikipedia is edited, but in the real world we have to make compromises (otherwise we'd have article titles like "[[A view arrived at by some volunteer editors who may or may not have been following the proscribed editing process on what material is relevant for a Wikipedia article on the subject of the Battle of Hastings, at this point in time, subject to the possibility that vandalism may have taken place on this article]]") SP-KP 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I am of the opinion that arriving at an objective set of criteria isn't impossible, it's merely difficult, hence, we shouldn't be attempting to delete this article, but rationalise it once we have an agreed set of criteria in place. Some criteria are so obvious that we'll all agree on them (places with the same name as a "naughty bit", for example), others not so obvious - let's discuss and agree an approach to this latter group, and then we have the basis for rationalisation. SP-KP 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
See 2nd reply to Doc above. SP-KP 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently POV. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Too diffuse and expandable past all maintenance. Durova 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but delete some of the red links. Gilliamjf 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this artilce is inherently POV. If it is so, it must be deleted. If you are voting keep, please explain why it is not inherently POV, or your 'vote' is irrelevant. --Doc ask? 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I voted Delete, but I don't think the article is inherently POV, any moreso than List of songs in English labeled the worst ever is. In its current form, it's listcruft, but a similar article called something like "List of place names that have attracted attention" might be ok. Powers 20:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom --kingboyk 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Keep if within Wikipedia namespace, Delete the redirect or the article if there's no concencus to support the cross-namespace move. --kingboyk 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've used those red links to start new articles. SchmuckyTheCat 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently POV. Save it as a user page if you so desire, but this isn't suitable for the article namespace -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep if in Wikipedia namespace, Delete the redirect or the article if there's no concensus to support the cross-namespace move, per kingboyk. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as POV and listcruft. Hirudo 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with those who have said that the criteria for the list are subjective and arbitrary. Interesting to whom? Unusual by what measure? There are no bounds for this list. --Thunk 22:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps it should be renamed to "List of unusual place names", as what is unusual seems more objective than what is interesting. However, I do think that lists like these serve as a tool for navigating wikipedia. I know that I've personally used this list to find interesting articles. Maybe we could consider turning it into a category? Personally I think that the status quo is fine. NoIdeaNick 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Unusual can be determined better. Rarity is able to be determined in other things so place names shouldn't be too much of an exception. So I'd vote keep if limited to that.--T. Anthony 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is not encyclopaedic, yet self-indulgent, subjective (what is funny to some, is totally unfunny to others), a hell of job to maintain (they are not necessarily places where people live at all, but may be fields, woods, etc.), and the whole thing keeps lots of people occupied who could use their time much more fruitfully in this great endeavour, Wikipedia. Dieter Simon 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I liked your closing comment, as I was thinking exactly the same thing about people who spend their time nominating useful material like this for deletion SP-KP 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is way more deserving of a spot than yet another stupid, devoid-of-info-yet-a-guaranteed-keep school article. Denni ☯ 02:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have gone through the list, and it is an almost random collection of school-boy humour, Carry On style jokes and barely amusing cultural observations. It is a list which is POV from the very start, and barely worth reading through to the very end. It assumes everyone who reads the article would understand "the joke", but omits the basic fact that is reads like a padding piece from a trashy tabloid mag. Delete because it is POV, barely encyclopeadic and almost impossible to improve. doktorb | words 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or categorize per NoIdeaNick. Wisco 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as DrBob said in this edit summary, "Wikipedia: All human knowledge is here, especially the immature bits"! I'm not really sure how to vote on this one, because I contributed 23 edits to it, adding place names like Woy Woy, New South Wales and Ulladulla, New South Wales, and just doing general cleanup. My first few edits were to that article, so if it was deleted, those edits would be permanently erased from the contribution history, which I wouldn't be happy about. Having said all that, I agree that the list is silly and unencyclopedic, and requires some major cleanup and reorganisation. So ... weak delete, but I'll be saving it in my hard drive if it does get deleted. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and definitely do not categorise. A category is much more difficult to keep patrol of and navigate than an article, and we might end up with people adding place names that are dreadfully boring just because noone had those place names on their watchlist. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Interesting? Inherently original research or POV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. Dbinder 15:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently subjective and POV, and a list that appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I assume this article was created in the spirit of the very popular page Wikipedia:Unusual articles. If we are to delete this article because referring to a subject's "unusualness" is a violation of NPOV, that means we logically must delete WP:UA too. That would be sad. -- Mwalcoff 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the WP: namespace has different inclusion guidelines than the main namespace. Powers 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe the list of place names should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps at Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Places with unusual names. After all, part of the WP:UA page is devoted to articles on people that have unusual names. If we can have a list of people with unusual names, why not places? -- Mwalcoff 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. --kingboyk 06:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd support this too (although I'd be happy to see it stay in this namespace, as per above argument) SP-KP 11:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Dbinder 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT EITHER. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved it, and have changed my vote to keeping the list within the wikipedia namespace and deleting the redirect. --kingboyk 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. This is only useful in the English language, translating to other languages would be pointless. Atrian 06:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep dangit This is infact encyclopedic. thsi is listing nto what seems funny but unusual names of place. there is a good trivia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.14.178.51 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep This isn't POV, what a ridiculous misunderstanding of POV. 80% of the list doesn't need a reference, and those that do can easily be provided. I also object to it being moved in the middle of a debate. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, but I was being bold and acting as I saw it with the interests of Wikipedia at heart. It was also procedurally correct. Therefore, there's no need to bark out an order to me in the edit history when you reverted my change. --kingboyk 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia Is Not an accretion of random information. This list is. The Land 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What a load of you know what. Surely there are better uses for the encyclopedia. Bombycil 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fun page, but NPOV is non-negotiable. Deltabeignet 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Good page but inherently NPOV Hdstubbs 04:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on condition that entries are verifiable and it already has an article. That means including notable place names covered by the media like the F-word town in Austria, but delete the redlinks. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • em, how do you verify that something is 'interesting'?--Doc ask? 08:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant was verifying that it actually exists. I never said anything about "interesting". :) But anyways, do also count my vote as a move to Wikipedia namespace as per the above discussion. Think that's great as well. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Wikipedia isn't a regular paper encyclopedia, and these places do in fact have odd names! 87.80.126.226 17:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list --Jaranda wat's sup 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Canderson7 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trustafarian

Non encyclopedic, divisive attack singling out people perceived derogatively for their a) race b) faith c) economic state - can it sink any lower? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Is it your claim that the article constitutes an attack or documents an existing attack? I have (very rarely) heard the term used in real life as a slur. I've never had a strong opinion how/if slurs should be covered in the encyclopedia. --Improv 02:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've never heard the term until I read it here. For all I know, it was invented here as a means of slighting people. But even if it is in use, it's hardly encyclopedic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef of neologism. It exists, but should be somewhere else. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. And "Thou shalt not covet." Ruby 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, unencyclopedic. This kind of information is definitely not for Wikipedia. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, definition was already transwikied to Wiktionary: wiktionary:transwiki:Trustafarian. I presume it has been recreated. and deleted in April [19]. - Liberatore(T) 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - See these well sourced usages [20]. Terms/phenomena that "single people out" are not necessarily unencyclopedic. If that were the case, we would have a whole lot of articles to delete... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.1.103 (talk • contribs) 19:35, January 30, 2006.


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

The result of the debate was keep. Canderson7 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Knipfel

tagged as db-bio but notability asserted so bringing here instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn author. One novel and a bunch of memoirs. Ruby 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Both Slackjaw and The Buzzing are on amazon; while they have very high ranking (mean: low selling rates), I think they may go over the required 5000 copies of the guideline (is there any way to get the number of copies sold from the amazon rank?). Also, he writes for New York Press, which I also think have a sufficient circulation. - Liberatore(T) 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. At least a few of his books were reissued as paperbacks after an initial hardcover issue. That's a very strong indication towards the 5000-sales guideline in WP:Bio. Amazon lists a full complement of review from major periodicals too (here's the Slackjaw page). ×Meegs 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As per Meeg, notable writer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 17:20, January 27, 2006.
  • Keep, legit journalist, like Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Liberatore. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's not usually my cup of tea, but he meets the notability requirements. --Aaron 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 19:14, 27 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. Deathphoenix 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doutzen Kroes

A) trivial B) just plain bad

Out, dambed spot!

Maury 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Supermodel articles should at least provide eye candy along with the text! Ruby 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial bio. Stifle 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: just rewrote the article. Calwatch 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Canderson7 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought supermodels were notable in their field. Hence "Super"model. Jcuk 20:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep grounds for notablity are now clear in this rewrite.Obina 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear photonic rocket

THis is all original research and speculation -- Unsigned.

  • Keep. It seems pretty reasonable to me. The maths looks correct, where it refers to existing technologies it is correct. I see this as reasonable material in an encyclopedia entry. Do you have any evidence that it is original research rather than original material about a known topic? njh 06:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:V. "Original material about a known topic" does not comply with the policy on verifiability, which says that articles should "refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher". Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps you can list which facts are unverifiable? When I read through the article it certainly contains lots of statements such as 'other particles are baryons', or 'A nuclear reactor generates 5 times more heat than electricity'. These statements seem quite verifiable to me (by looking at the page on baryons or fission reactor respectively). Are you just asking for each line to have a link to an article that details the fact? This seems quite doable, and a weak reason for deletion.
Or, do you mean the general concept of using photons to accelerate a spaceship is unverifiable? Or that we can't build nuclear reactors? I really don't understand what you mean by unverifiable here - we're not talking about introducing some new physics, merely detailing the calculations giving upper limits on a plausible technology.njh 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP not a crystal ball, overuse of the word "would" in this article. Ruby 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete. Highly interesting, unfortunately completely unsourced. (Caveat: If some references appear in this in the next 24 hours I vote keep. If not, then well the price of wiki is eternal vigilance, isn't it.) - Randwicked Alex B
I believe I've met your deadline. I'm curious, though; If I'd added references after 24 hours, would you still vote delete? If so, why? Bryan 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably not, because I'm fickle. A feel a sense of urgency helps in editing, though. - Randwicked Alex B 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of what I find comes right back to Wiki [21]. Does it exist? If not, is it a widely accepted theory? If someone can provide legitimate sources and makes a good case for the subject, I might reconsider. PJM 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (Now no vote.) Delete as original research, lacking credibility as well as sources. For example, why bother converting the reactor power into electricity (with the attendant reduction in efficiency) if, as the article admits, you can just pipe out the coolant and use the thermal radiation directly? Another point is that at white-hot temperatures the glowing filament (tungsten or graphite) would evaporate and form a blackening deposit on any containment vessel or reflecting surface - which would then reduce the reflectance progressively to zero. Without proper argument and sources this article just doesn't ring true. It also lacks of any mention of the "nuclear photonic" rocket's principal competitor (the ion engine), which is a proven technology. Sliggy 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not original research; this is an article about blue-sky thought experiments that were popular among physicists and lay readers of science magazines in the 1950's and 1960's. Folks like Freeman Dyson used to turn these sorts of ideas out by the metric tonne. Agree that article is in dire need of references. -Ikkyu2 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    An interesting point, but where is the evidence for this interpretation? I agree there were (and are) thought experiments, such the solar sail, nuclear thermal rocket etc.. With references, OK, I could agree that it's an improbable blue-sky idea; without references it is purely and simply something made up at school/college one day. The physics/engineering doesn't make any sense. Sliggy 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, whether it's published somewhere or not isn't dependent on whether this article has appropriate references - i.e., absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree that the physics seems ridiculous - the thing would have to be hotter than a sun to provide any appreciable propulsion, and then you'd have to attach a spaceship. But other thought experiments, like pure fusion weapon and Dyson's Project Orion, do have decent articles. I'd argue for the conservative "Keep" until we have better proof this is a hoax, under Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Both of the examples you list have fully-readable references available. This article does not. Sliggy 16:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have downloaded the article which is referenced now; my university apparently subscribes to this. If you like, I will mail it to you. Among its assertions are "It should be noted that the development of photon engines for space flights is an old dream of the mankind. This concept was always associated with the nuclear reaction of annihilation or fusion, however its space application has not been invented to date, and in any case it would be very expensive (Lenard et al, 2000)." The Lenard article is cited: Lenard, R.X., and Lipiniski, R.J., "Interstellar rendezvous missions employing fission propulsion systems," in Proceedings of the Space Technology Applications Int'l Forum, 2000. I believe this dispels the concerns about OR; the idea is being talked about at space technology meetings. -Ikkyu2 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I have found and added two further references to the article, [22] and [23] , whose abstracts discuss this (improbable) idea; so I've withdrawn my delete. There should be a source for every point made in the article, but I accept that the concept itself has been previously described. (I also think the article could do with a re-write to emphasise its highly theoretical nature, but this is not a consideration for AfD.) Sliggy 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've also just discovered that the person who originated the article, User:Bryan Derksen, has been a Wikipedia member for more than four years and is currently an active admin with many thousands of helpful edits to his credit. I've dropped a note to him on his talk page; perhaps he'll have something to add here. -Ikkyu2 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I split the original article out of a much larger one that used to be at spacecraft propulsion, so I didn't exactly originate this article. However, I recall coming across the concept in other places before. I just did a quick search and I found a couple of references. I'll specify below: Bryan
  • Keep. I found an external reference to a scientific journal, so "original research" doesn't seem to apply. [24] has an article on "Application of nuclear photon engines for deep-space exploration" from the AIP Conference Proceedings (authors: Andrey V. Gulevich, Eugeny A. Ivanov, Oleg F. Kukharchuk, Victor Ya. Poupko, and Anatoly V. Zrodnikov). It's subscriber-only, unfortunately. A couple other lower-quality references I found in my cursory search through the first few pages of Google results: [25] references the Wikipedia article, but says that it "is what Niven was doing back in the good old days" so this might be another lead. [26] discusses them but doesn't give a source of its own. Bryan 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research unless someone cares to prove it otherwise by providing verifiable source citations for the main points made in the article, prior to expiration of the AfD discussion. If the article is not deleted, I intend to remove all of the unsourced material in it per the verifiability policy. At the moment, that would be all of it. As always, the article can be re-created without prejudice provided all of the main assertions in it are properly sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is linked to by spacecraft propulsion, which has been a featured article. It's linked to from a wikified table in that article, as an example of a propulsion type which would have very low specific thrust designed to be applied over decades. Worth a look, especially as deletion would leave a big ugly red wikilink in a formerly-featured article. -Ikkyu2 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepMeets or exceeds the minimum requirements for inclusion, and I came on the article from a Google search for "photonic rocket engines". --DV8 2XL 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that the original article has been extensively and verifiably referenced since the AfD was posted. Ikkyu2 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Marginal, but it should be kept if only to expain how and why it's such a rotten idea!WolfKeeper 12:34, 31 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. Deathphoenix 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nya Revolutions Armén

Delete. This page is a vanity page for the two people the page mentions. The organisation mentioned has had no real activities, probably no actual members except the so called "leaders", and the organisation is not at all famous in the swedish left, neitehr for splitting, nor for cooperationg with the equally non-existant swedish National Bolsjevist party. Regebro 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete communist groups in Sweden are about as remarkable as bowling leagues in the US. Ruby 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And what is that generalizing statement supposed to mean? There are Communist groups in Sweden, as in any country, which are or have been of some importance. This is just not one of them. Tupsharru 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs).


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uckfield Community Technology College

Delete because page is infringing on personal details of a private company 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelritchie200 (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy keep as silly nomination. The nominator created this article, but it does not means he owns it. --Ezeu 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep same as Ezeu--Adam (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ezeu. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing outstanding about this school which is "ranked 414th best school in the country" Ruby 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, No personal infringement, but article is of no general interest. --Regebro 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Another high school? Speedy keep. All editors voting 'delete' on high school articles would do well to familiarize themselves with WP:SCH. Also, the reason for nomination makes no sense at all. - Randwicked Alex B 16:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment just because a bunch of non-notable schools survived deletion votes in the past does not automatically make my vote invalid. Otherwise there would be a "Criteria_for_speedy_keep" with an item that said, "Any school". Ruby 17:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But high schools are notable. - Randwicked Alex B 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are some personal details in the history, but these could be removed through a selective history delete. Uppland 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw a few attacks on teachers, but noone's personal details? - Randwicked Alex B
      • Yes, that's what I meant. Even though the details were perhaps not very personal, there is no reason why the names should even be there. Wikipedia is not ratemyteachers.com. Uppland 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There's no reason to remove personal attacks from the history though. Yet, anyway? Who knows where this brave new world of wikilitigation will lead. - Randwicked Alex B 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
          • There is no reason to look actively for personal attacks in the history of articles, but when we stumble on them, we might as well get rid of them. Uppland 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks like an established secondary school. Kappa 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep yadayada WP:SCH. Jcuk 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa Merchbow 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but just perhaps as a selective history edit. (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Canderson7 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Albrecht

NN autobiographical. I can't find any hits for "William Albrecht Olivares" [27], and only 118 unreleated hits if I search for "William Albrecht" and Jesus. [28]. The article claims notability because of causing disputes in online forums, but that's not a WP criteria. Mikeblas 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete he's just a personality on a Catholic forum. Ruby 15:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio.--Adam (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious nobody. If he wants a page on wikipedia he can get an account. ;) --Regebro 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notice that the article's author is CATHOLICHEAD, and the discussion page has a comment saying 'Nice information' authored by.... CATHOLICHEAD. Vanity in its purest form. --Lockley 16:33, 27 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 (CSD R3 -- unlikely typo). howcheng {chat} 07:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COSTA, DA, PEDIGREE

Non standard title with redirect to non standard title Paul foord 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete but target article is okay. Ruby 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia would look up Pedigree Da Costa, not this. That article's own ongoing AfD is another matter. Robin Johnson 16:56, 27 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franz tornado

No allmusic.com entry, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Delete. Kusma (討論) 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Stifle 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nn band. Ruby 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete --Regebro 16:00, 27 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 del mikka (t) 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turantekin

Does not deserve an entry. The contents of this "article": Turantekin is a surname from Turkey, Bursa. Punkmorten 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't like whole articles for surnames. Lists are borderline. Ruby 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, dicdef at best. Ifnord 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Dbiv as patent nonsense (CSD:G1). Stifle 19:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fillet mcfuck

Hoax, or a made-up neologism (but I am strongly inclined toward that being an hoax). No Google hits [29]. - Liberatore(T) 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete This is either a hoax, or nn slang. Take your pick. Ruby 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Durova 17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletey per nom & others. --Lockley 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slowly delete Where (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  19:44, 27 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 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nantucket Fourth of July

I came across this tasty sounding beverage while disambiguating links to Champagne. Googling for "Nantucket Fourth of July" +drink returns 3 results, none of which are relevant, so I predict that its probably safe to delete this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, while there is a Nantucket cocktail I cannot verify this one either/wangi 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the bozophobic insomniac. Ruby 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; there's nothing in the article to indicate that this is anything but a personal invention. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense, try BJAODN. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. does not exist. Crunch 14:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable hoax. Stifle 19:06, 28 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 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's Reoccupation of the Rhineland, 1936

A personal essay that didn't appear to meet the criteria for a speedy. The topic is also already covered to some degree on the Rhineland page. My preference is for delete. RJH 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete An article that begins "I would regard..." is never good. Ruby 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All personal opinion, not verifiable, nothing factual worth merging to any other article. Same author responsible for The Anti-Comintern Pact, 1936-37, which I've listed for deletion below. --Lockley 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, this is an encyclopedia, facts please and no opinions. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NPOV or WP:NOR; take your pick. PJM 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation; original research rather than encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  19:42, 27 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. Deathphoenix 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maclean Stewart

Delete Non-notable actor. Mostly bit parts. Stu 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn actor. Ruby 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete There are hundreds of, what I would consider non notable bit-part and b movie actors, listed in Wikipedia, as well as hundreds of porn "stars". If you delete this then hundreds of others should go. I think it should stay - a NI actor who has appeared in any movie should probably be considered notable in some way. Ardfern 14:47, 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. Deathphoenix 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waiving immunity

happened once on one reality show, this info could easily go on either the show's page or the contestant's page, and nobody is gonna search for "waiving immunity". non-notable. Zzzzz 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Making this connection between shows amounts to original research. Ruby 16:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is basically an attempt at veiling the Bradford Cohen thing as a valid encyclopedia article, which it isn't. Stifle 19:06, 28 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. Deathphoenix 01:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew J Coyle

nn-bio of wrestler, little wrestling info contained of note, extremely limited Google presence, bio includes numerous odd jobs of no importance. Delete Essexmutant 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Won at least two titles. Ruby 16:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - GWA is a closed e-Federation as far as I can tell (link). Unable to find any verification on ICW title. Claims to be a "world title" are also debatable. Essexmutant 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the influx of independent wrestler articles is becoming ridiculous. McPhail 19:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:21, 28 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. Ifnord 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Dossor

Notable? Me and Google doubt it. Missmarple 16:56, 27 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 del mikka (t) 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Anti-Comintern Pact, 1936-37

Delete. This short page is non-factual opinion, therefore not verifiable / original research. I see nothing worth merging. Lockley 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and fix it. Ruby 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Delete per Ashibaka. Ruby 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We already have Anti-Comintern Pact, nothing left to merge. Ashibaka tock 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ashibaka. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No point merging; as per Ashibaka.  (aeropagitica)  19:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • May not be worth merging, but probably worth a redirect, which are fun, cheap, and a great way to increase your edit count. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ashibaka --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:15, 27 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:25, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Pre-verbal insult

The term pre-verbal insult is a neologism. The exact phrase pre-verbal insult gets zero hits on Google, Google Book Search, Google Scholar and Google Groups. Neither are there any hits for the exact phrase preverbal insult. As documented on the article's talk page, the editor was unable to cite a source for the phrase, although sources were provided for the separate terms pre-verbal and insult. Zarquon 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The editor has now provided a source for the phrase on the article's talk page. Zarquon 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Neologism ComputerJoe 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the author can comply with WP:CITE. Ruby 17:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 17:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Was going to say 'OR', but it's ascribing a new word to something everyone knows (that you can upset babies), so doesn't appear to qualify. Only one of the supposed sources use this phrase, and it doesn't convince me that this is an established term. --Malthusian (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The author of this article is Mjformica. A look through the history of this page, and its talk page, and the history of User talk:Mjformica, shows multiple disputes and misunderstandings, and then blanking. For instance the AfD notice was blanked from this article. There's a single citation now. I'm willing to assume Mjformica's good faith and accept her citation on 'pre-verbal insult', keep the phrase or merge it into another page, with a strong reminder that wikipedia is a collaborative effort. --Lockley 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • One citation doesn't make a neologism notable. I assume good faith, however the user is breaking policy. ComputerJoe 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no investment in keeping or not keeping this page. It's existence is solely for the purpose of providing further information for the term "pre-verbal insult" mentioned on other mood disorder pages. I was asked independently by two different administrators to aid in the wholesale clean up of all the psych pages. That said, I was under the impression that our collective goal was to provide information. I had assumed I was providing that service. As for the blanking, I did not know that a humble user could not take off a deletion notice. I did not blank the page, I only removed the deletion notice. Signed in the wrong syntax by Mia Culpa at 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC).
        • May I apologise, I shouldn't have given a {{blanking}} for this. This was a simple error I made, and if I didn't make this error I'd have assumed good faith in the first place. Still that whole incident is irrelevant from the AfD. ComputerJoe 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Further, the call for deletion is uninformed. As noted, the premise of the nominator for deletion is flawed in that s/he is not qualified to question the term, as far as I can tell. I expressed the opinion that this is an exercise of ego on his/her part and I stand by that surmise. Finally, I suggest you take a poll of medical professionals and see who doesn't recognize the term. This is first year psychiatry stuff...and certainly not a neologism. Mjformica 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Another citation: Are you guys going to make me do this all afternoon?... The Trauma Spectrum: hidden wounds and human resiliency, Robert Scaer, ISBN 0-393-70466-1.
        • Robert Scaer, known for his earlier book on somatic trauma "The Body Bears the Burden" puts forth the thesis that trauma covers a spectrum which includes not just dramatic events, such as accidents, abuse and environmental disasters, but also medical interventions, preverbal trauma and intrauterine events, dilemmas in bonding and institutionally or culturally sanctioned traumatic stress. It is the cumulative result of these over the life span which determines the person's adaptation to a particular near-term trauma, such as car accident, robbery, or loss, and this accumulation is literally embodied in the way the brain, nervous system, neuroendocrine system and autonomic pathways are shaped and organized by each traumatic adaptation. Scaer does an especially good job at delineating the medical conditions which arise out of traumatic stress adaptations, and gives trauma a central place in understanding medical practice. He also gathers the emerging understanding of neonatal and preverbal insult, bringing embodied, senori-motoric forms memory into the foreground and helping us see how this is reflected in somatic symptoms, bodily experience and orientation to the world and others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjformica (talk • contribs) 18:34. 27 January 2006 (UTC).
      • Comment. ComputerJoe, thanks for the message, and I agree that Mjformica is not observing policy. Mjformica, I assume your good faith, and accept your credentials, and appreciate your contributions. I think we're getting tangled up in communication and process issues. This AfD process is imperfect but it's our best mechanism for checking the validity of articles, which means you're called on to defend your contributions to the people who review AfD's, which means providing appropriate citations that are independently verifiable, in an open and good-humored conversation. --Lockley 19:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • May I apologise for my hypocrisy. I think at times I may not have assumed good faith and at times been a little incivil. I'm the chairman on the organisation promoting civility, and I would just like to say sorry to Mjformica for seeming a little harsh. ComputerJoe 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikiquette issues aside, as long as Google has no hits for "preverbal insult" and "pre-verbal insult" my vote will probably stay 'Delete'. Just as Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms used only by academics. Basically, this is still a term that a select group of people use instead of "something that upsets a baby". I view the sentence "Typically, this terminology is used by psychoanalytically trained psychiatrists and object relations theorists" the same way as I do "Dis word is used by da WELNEY KREW holla". Ignoring the wording, both sentences basically say the same thing: "This sentence is used by a single group and no-one else". I.e. slang, albeit posh slang. --Malthusian (talk) 02:31, 28 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. Ifnord 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Lewis (percussionist)

I'm creating this nomination per request at WP:AFC. Hopefully the anon will explain the reason for nomination, in the meantime see WP:MUSIC. Kappa 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm impressed by the list of artists he has worked for, any number of whom have charted hits with his work on them. Ruby 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Terribly ugly page now, but if verifiable that he's performed with all those well known musicians listed, that seems notable (certainly way past 5000 people have heard him perform, live or on recordings). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be a noteable presence in Christian music circles as well as some notable impact on mainstream pop and country. List of artists is verifiable through a link at bottom of article page (refers to his website, which has a similar list) as well as being verifiable through many album credits.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:38, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Alain Charette

I made the article but after thinking a bit, Alain Charette is not notable enough. I didn't know each Party had it's candidates page then, but now I put Charette at Bloc Québécois candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, so his individual page isn't needed. I'll delete the other Hull-Aylmer candidate not notable enough too. Red Star 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as author requesting deletion. Stifle 19:11, 28 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:37, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Doddnetwork

Non-notable. 200ish results. ComputerJoe 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete, agreed, advertising └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. agreed. -17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/stub for nn company.
  • Delete agreed. :) --^BuGs^ 00:59, 28 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:38, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Servepro

Seems like Advertisement only —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sciribe (talk • contribs).

  • delete agreed, advertising └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:23, 28 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 deleted. This one is so obvious I don't think we need to wait. It was a personal essay/sales pitch, not an article. Friday (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is my home worth?

Delete unless you need to buy real estate Bugturd 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopedic --Bill 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete orig research, not encyclopedic. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:33, 27 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:46, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Peerunion

Fails to establish notability. Has been {{notability}} tagged previously. Acknowledges service is only in "private invitation-only beta testing". └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as it inherently fails WP:WEB -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete if its invitation only its not verifiable. Ruby 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per [[WP:WEB]. Stifle 19:11, 28 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. Note also that I have redirected it to ACK. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:46, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] ACKS

Unverifiable; for example, a search for ACKS "Steven Sky" in Google returns 2 irrelevant hits [30]. - Liberatore(T) 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn comic. Ruby 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 19:12, 28 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:46, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Kousin Krazy

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:McPhail as nn-bio, but contains a clear claim of notability of being a professional wrestler. However, seems to be a hoax. McPhail's reasoning given below. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable sub-stub with no references. A Google search for "Kousin Krazy" returned 211 results, many of them mirrors of this page. The article offers no real information and does not cite sources for the minimal facts stated. -- McPhail 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
he wrestles for OVW - but appears to be a jobber, so dont know if he's really all that notable. Zzzzz 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Ruby 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:24, 28 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 del mikka (t) 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of reviews by Tim Rogers

Wikipedia is not a link repository. Punkmorten 18:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a collection of internal and external links. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see the research advantage of a collection of links of this sort. Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy this is fine on Tim Rogers' user page. Ruby 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is necessary, because of the history comment on the first edit. And it is listcruft. Stifle 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. mikka (t) 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. I reviewed the content and it had no basis in fact and was, in its entirety, false and malicious. I have deleted it under the provision for attack pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megan Ireland

Please see my section on the talk page for more information, but in short this appears to be nothing but a smear against an Australian whose name was put on a few Usenet spams, as it is unverifiable and mostly submitted by anons. --maru (talk) contribs 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Entirely unverifiable at this stage, and could potentially be extremely damaging to the article subject. Nach0king 17:29, 27 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:52, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] NeoAniCon

Crystal ball article at best, advertising at worst. Convention may not even be in existence any longer as website seems not to have been updated (as per site itself) since Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:03:43 PM. Aside from a press release on PRnews.com and some hits on Google, most of which are mirrors of this article, no information at all. In any case, Wiki is not a crystal ball, and this con is too early in the planning stages to even be called a future event, if it is still in planning at all. み使い Mitsukai 18:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP not a crystal ball. Ruby 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 19:16, 28 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 --Gareth Hughes 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OPCC and Opcc

Promotion of author's own website that has no particular significance, and the title of the article is not even the name of the website. As a quick search can determine, this acronym is actually used by several different entities, and this article location should probably be reserved to disambiguate those if anyone ever writes articles about them. --Michael Snow 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Hirudo 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:25, 28 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 Independent candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Deathphoenix 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew C. Thomas

Independent candidate in the 2006 Canadian election who got 82 votes, 0,2 %. Punkmorten 18:27, 27 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 --Gareth Hughes 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisgen

Advertisement for non-notable company according to WP:CORP. Only 689 Google hits with also some obviously not related to the company. The editor of the article twice removed a notability template. -- S.K. 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NB Already speedied once before

  • Delete advertisement. Ruby 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem particularly notable to me and the user did not supply any reasons for removing the notability template. --Inditalk 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 19:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Math Trail at Mills College

Delete Not Wiki Bugturd 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unencyclopædic. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Why? I cannot understand,

This is a guide to a Math Trail at Mills College

Tara Emami 19:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. --Aaron 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Upgrading my vote, see below. --Aaron 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Appears to be blatant copyvio of PDF at [31]. --Aaron 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Removing my vote for now; see comment below. --Aaron 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I have got the document form the author,
The Trail has been created by "Ron Lancaster" who is a known Math teacher in Ontario Canada,
He has also created some other math trails in several cities world wide and I hope we can get all of them to Wiki.
He owns all the rights to this one and has agreed to put it in Wikkipedia (I have already sent him the GNU Free Documentation License).
Tara Emami 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not taking anything away from his (or your) work, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia--Bugturd 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:BITE, I'm going to ask some admin friends to take a look at this, and see if it can't be made Wikiworthy. I don't know if it can be, but it won't hurt to get some experts to take a look at it. Pending the outcome, I'd like to request we put a hold on this particular AfD. I figure we'll have a consensus on the copyright/Wikiworthy issues in less than 24 hours. Thanks. --Aaron 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete; not an encyclopedia article, and not an encyclopedic topic. Brighterorange 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A8, or delete. A noble effort by Aaron, but a doomed one. This article has negative-numbers value on Wikipedia unfortunately. Harro5 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is NOT an A8. The source is celarly not a commercial content provider, and ther is a claim of permission. DES (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gentle Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Not an attempt at an encyclopedia article. Not even something that could be blanked and rewritten as an encylopedia article. This belongs on the webpage of either the school or the person who created it, not in an encylopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article as it stands is completely unencyclopedic. A brief article describing the "Math trail", indicating who erected it and why, and what the reactions/results/effects have been, particualrly if it can cite independant media coverage, might be encyclopedic. It should probably not include any of the puzzles/questions; possibly one as an example. it probably should mention the kinds of problems included, their level of diffuculty, areas of math involved, etc. Delete unless totally rewritten. DES (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the correct place to position such information. I suggest you use a web hosting service, such as Freewebs. SYCTHOStalk 00:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy this pleasant but unencyclopedic essay. Lewis Carroll, author of A Tangled Tale, which is also an entertaining chain of math puzzles in narrative form, would have enjoyed it. The text of A Tangled Tale wouldn't be acceptable as a Wikipedia article, either. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not an encyclopedia article. An example of a type of exercise that might be worthy of it's own article (or might already have one, me not a math guy). --Wtwilson3 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 19:16, 28 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 --Gareth Hughes 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close Up To Fame

Not encyclopedic, advertisement, probably a copyvio from somewhere anyway. Please delete this nonsense. Fang Aili 19:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not encylopedic.--Adam (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pure nonsense. Ruby 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete make it go far away. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Light current 03:21, 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 --Gareth Hughes 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ether Warriors

NN. Does not currently exist. WP is not a crystal ball. Jwissick(t)(c) 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 19:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The author Pet 350 just strengthened the case for this deletion by blanking this AfD section. --Lockley 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What on earth!? How dare you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pet 350 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete, the notability of this series of computer games is not demonstrated in the article, plus there are no verifiable sources, and probable vanity issues. Unfortunately I can see no applicable speedy criterion. Sliggy 20:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - the series of games DO exist with the hyper link provided www.geocities.com/etherwarriors , where downloads are AVAILABLE. Deleting this article would just show what a lot of pompous, incomprehensible cretins of admins you are. This article by my knowledge is superflous to criteria requirements! You absolute blatherskytes.--62.30.195.121 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    • The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Haddock from the Tintin comics, based on the tone and language used. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article only says the thing is in production. Ruby 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the obvious reasons above, and in the hope that I'll be called a "blatherskyte"--Bugturd 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasoning outlined by Sliggy, and also bad behaviour by the article creator during an AfD is seldom a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 27 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 --Gareth Hughes 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Perry

Non-notable politician. YUL89YYZ 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn.--Adam (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}} because no assertion of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:39Z
  • Delete At first I was confused by the fact that the article never mentioned what office or offices this person is/was supposed to have held. Googling "James Perry"+"Fort Erie" makes it look like he's a guy who goes to city council meetings and such but I couldn't find any evidence that he holds, has held, or has even stood for any public office. As such, an entry identifying him as a politician almost seems like a hoax. "Activist" might make more sense if someones wants to edit and keep this (although I can't see any good reason for keeping it). Probable vanity, as well. Ergot 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amerianada

70 people in some guy's bedroom, claiming to be a country. Even by micronation standards this is non-notable. DJ Clayworth 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Bugturd 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete complete bullocks--Adam (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. PJM 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Someone removed my speedy tag from the article - please have some common sense - this qualifies for speedy on the grounds of non-notability and nonsense. -- RHaworth 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete patent hoax. Ruby 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn group, nonsense. Sounds like a parody of the silly "micronation" articles we get often. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nanonation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:37Z
  • Delete per verifiability policy, and also as non-notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense but save it at BJAODN. Highly amusing.Ben Kidwell 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree that it's a good candidate for BJAODN. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Move to Auoindaon. Deathphoenix 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quieunonascaranas

Un-verifiable chief of the Hurons. Possibly hoax. YUL89YYZ 19:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. An elaborate hoax that has propogated on many sites similar to Wikipedia (with exactly the same text), but nothing else can be found on this guy.--Adam (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Adam. --Lockley 20:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Adam. Ruby 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the moment. Hold your horses, this is more than just a hoax, needs some more research, and not of the kind you can do with Google in five minutes. There seems to be some true core to this story, although I haven't been able to verify the name as such. There definitely was the establishment of a Christian recollets missionary outpost among the Hurons at the time mentioned (1623), at a place called Quieunonascaran, although the local chief was called Auoindaon, according to one source. See [32], [33], [34]. - By the way, I've contacted the creator of that page, User:Zanimum, whose profile doesn't exactly look like that of the average Wikipedia hoaxer. Lukas (T.|@) 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait. Keep this on AfD so I remember to investigate this. I can't see why I would have created a hoax article, and I'm confident this isn't about a fictious character in a book, movie, etc., as I don't read that often. I've been to the Sainte-Marie-Among-the-Hurons site many times, and might have picked up the info there. I would have been in high school at the time of this article's creation, and so I might have got it from a textbook, or a book in the school's library. Sadly, I'm in Toronto all week every week, can't pop back in there to see. I've tried Google Print, with no luck, so I'll try and get in contact with that historical site to have them confirm or deny. -- user:zanimum


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats Happening Daytona

DeletePromotion of website Bugturd 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above.--Adam (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Draeco 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly add the link to the article for Daytona. Ruby 21:42, 27 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 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wungo

Slang term, probably unsuitable for Wiktionary. Punkmorten 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. PJM 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef neologism, but it's not even worthy of Wikitionary. Draeco 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete zero applicable google hits. Ruby 21:41, 27 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 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitwall

nn webgame, 420 users. If I had to put it in a category it's WP:WEB failure. Delete RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 21:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable online game. Traffic Rank for pitwall.org: 298,095 . —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:37Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Agree to speedy delete --TimPope 11:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snake-T

Not notable, possible vanity Gaius Cornelius 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: As above. Gaius Cornelius 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Obvious vanity article --Xyzzyplugh 20:21, 27 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. Shanel 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willy_Wanker_and_the_Fudgepacking_Factory

Delete Non-notable. A google search gives only 7 links to this title, most of which link back to this article. This movie may not even actually exist, and if it does, it's unknown and not worthy of a wikipedia article. Xyzzyplugh 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't tell you thought this was an actual movie. --Harrington is like Montana 20:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, well, it could have been an actual porn movie, given that title. But it doesn't seem to exist.--Xyzzyplugh 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Right; with all the stupid-sounding adult film titles out there, I wouldn't question someone for checking. PJM 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, as an adult film title, I've heard far worse. Oh, and delete. ;-) 23skidoo 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete though I hate to vote against articles on a subculture, it is nn. Draeco 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn porno. Ruby 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:35Z
  • Keep notable 213.106.152.192 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)'
  • Strong Keep I've jacked off to this; good stuff. 24.255.122.105 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per meatpuppetry. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some reference can be provided. --Dschor 08:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 19:17, 28 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 to delete. Ifnord 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Bell

Borderline notable computer programmer and book author. Possible vanity concern.

  • Weak delete. I am nominating the article, but only find it a weak delete. The article is a slight vanity piece, given its creation by the subject (but anyone who knows me knows I don't take WP:AUTO as broad dogma). His 1998 book seems to bring it to borderline notability, but unless he has other publications, I think it falls below the threshold. The various programming jobs seem non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Followup: Java Game Programming for Dummies is Amazon.com rank 809,649 (quite possibly higher closer to publication). Doug Bell is second listed author, so I presume Wayne Holder is the primary author. It appears to be in print.[35]
    It was straight dual authorship (we each wrote half the chapters), but somebody has to be listed first. Wayne was the initial contact point with the Dummies people, so he got to be listed first. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. He wrote a book- Someone may want to know more about this author. Not as notable as others, but I'd keep it. Colby Peterson 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment User: Doug Bell is doing a lot of defending of an article that's about himself, that he started himself. That just seems to me the definition of a vanity article. Changing vote to weak delete.
  • Keep He was the lead programmer for four projects too. Ruby 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The book has little to do with my notoriety—base your vote on the games where I was the principle developer. Also, you might find my comment at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters#Regarding Ward Churchill, please review WP:NPOV interesting. BTW, I would have expanded the article (and will if so requested), but I didn't want it to be a vanity piece and would rather that someone else do it. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    The subject of this article apparently has the incorrect belief that my nomination of this article on AfD has something to do with an editing disagreement he and I may have had on an unrelated topic. The merit of an article on Doug Bell is completely unrelated to any editing either he or I may do on Wikipedia; moreover, I urge voters to put the WP:AUTO issue in perspective: a subject's notability is not affected by whether they contributed to their (auto)biography; there is merely a heightened concern that the article meet WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in such cases (IMNSHO).
    Looking at notability guidelines at WP:BIO#People still alive, the book authorship is an explicit factor recommended in consideration of notability. Job titles as software developer or project lead are not explicitly considered there, though I think someone like Andrew Tridgell should certainly be considered notable even if he had nothing other than his software development projects (which is still the main focus of his article). While the biography subject may be most proud of things other than book authorship, that does not necessarily mean that readers find those things most notable. That said, as written, I see no WP:NPOV concern with the Doug Bell article, only a possible notability theshold concern. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, pointing people to the games I developed has nothing to do with what I am most proud of, but rather what I am most well known for. The book sold somewhere between 12,000 to 15,000 copies in the U.S. and the games had combined sales in over a dozen countries of a couple several million units—back when a million units was almost unheard of—so as you can see, there would be a somewhat larger exposure to the games than the book. There are still (amazing to me) quite a few active fan/clone/derivitive sites devoted to the Dungeon Master series nearly 20 years after the game was first released, but as far as I know, none devoted to the book. There was, and to a small degree still is, a major cult following of the game that lasted well past its market dominance (and again, no cult following for the book ever materialized). I was interviewed for scores of magazines and even appeared on a few TV shows for my involvement in designing computer games, but other than a couple book signings, I didn't get any publicity for the book. All of the games were at one time or another a number-one selling game, and in the case of Dungeon Master, a seminal work in the history of computer games; the book, alas, set no sales records, and while well-received, would not stand out in a collection of books on designing computer games. Anyway, I'm not here to lobby as I'd rather this is decided on its own merits without regard to the fact that I happen to be active on Wikipedia, but it is just kind of curious that nobody has apparently done the type of research that I see on other bio AfDs. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    The difference, to my mind (and probably in the mind of the writers of WP:BIO), is that when you read a book you are prominently and conscpicuously presented with the author's name. Book in hand, it's logical to wonder "who is this author?" When you play a video game, you generally do not see the names of creators; I guess some have some "credits key-combo" to reveal some screen of this information, and maybe it's in small print in the manual. A million-selling video game deserves its own article, but its creators are semi-anonymous (though I suppose there are special industry forums where game developers are discussed, given awards, etc). Likewise, my "Black-and-Decker 8" Flat-Head Screwdriver" probably sold 50 million units, and somebody designed it (there's probably a lot that goes into choosing and testing materials and processes, quite likely patents involved). But this person who developed my screwdriver doesn't get an article on that basis (though s/he may well get industry-specific awards, reputation, etc). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I don't want to be drawn into responding on this page as I don't think my participation here is appropriate and in my opinion I've already been drawn into crossing a line I'd rather not have, so I intend to make this my last addition to this page unless there is some exceedingly good reason to do otherwise. I will only mention that the computer game industry is much more like the movie industry than the tool industry, and similar to the movie industry some people are interested in who makes the movies and some people just watch the movies. (For that matter, some people care who wrote the book and some people just read the books.) Lulu, if you want to discuss any of these issues with me further, please use my talk page. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    The analogies among industries Doug Bell makes might be roughly correct (or might not be). I'm not part of either industry, nor part of e.g. the hand tool industry. I do sometimes marvel at how clever some little bit of industrial design is (or at how stupidly it was done), and sort of wonder who was behind it). But there seems to be a prominent notability distinction among where authorship is prominently assigned and where it is not. For example, someone copy-edited, and someone else bound/printed Doug's book. The book would not exist without those steps either; yet those people are not judged notable by WP:BIO. I can't really say what "some people are interested in", but try to follow the guidelines in WP:BIO in determining notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not every published author deserves a wikipedia page. Same goes for game developers. I don't see anything notable about this person. He played a part in designing some games....so what? --Pierremenard 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Involved with some classic (and notable) games, book published; maybe borderline, but good enough for me. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for Wikipedia. And it's not like his self-authored article links to his resumé or anything. - Outerlimits 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book he co-authored isn't the real issue. He played an important role in a classic video game series, makes it more than worthwhile. - dharmabum (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not in favor of having articles of everybody associated with creating some game, but a lead developer of four certainly clears the bar by my book. Keep. I understand the issue that he's written the article himself, which is generally discouraged, but I find it laudable that he has written a concise and neutral piece about himself, as opposed to some other people who write ludicrous self-aggrandizement here. Radiant_>|< 12:15, 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 this, Markus Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern, and Josepha Zapletal. Cleanup Prince Georg of Bavaria, Javornik, and Prince Leopold of Bavaria. --Deathphoenix 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern

The veracity of the assertion that George, Prinz von Bayern, had an illegitimate son named Franz cannot be verified; citations to sources were requested and have not been provided. If there were such an illegitimate son, we should be able to cite sources; if there wasn't, the article is deceptive; if there was and we can't cite sources, it's original research. (Please see conversations at Talk:Franz Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern) I am also nominating the following related pages because they depend on the existence of "Franz", and are similarly unsourced:

  • Markus Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern
  • Josepha Zapletal

The following articles may also need editing attention if the claims cannot be documented:

- Nunh-huh 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete he isn't quite notable, so this amounts to a memorial. Ruby 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nunh-huh, who has done a lot of work here, on the grounds of being unverifiable. If this is a hoax, and something about those photographs and the indignant tone of those denials on the talk page, it's a curious hoax. There's still some small doubt in my mind, but Nunh-hh gave 'em plenty of opportunity to verify. --Lockley 22:25, 27 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 04:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohannon Group

Delete Thinly veiled advertisement Bugturd 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn ad. Draeco 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete admits it is one of many offices within this or that group, absolutely not notable. Ruby 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. SYCTHOStalk 23:11, 27 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 in all caps, thank you. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:02, Feb. 2, 2006

[edit] Lorenz Latin Dance Studio

Though the author insists he has no commercial interest in this, it's still basically an ad. Claims of notability are that it's important to the New York salsa dancing community. Well, everything is significant to someone. My local bingo hall is important to my local bingo community, and I wouldn't expect to find that in wikipedia. And performing at the pre-party for the New York Salsa Congress is hardly an olympic-caliber event. This is just one of several million commercial interprizes in the US. -R. fiend 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. But I betcha someone will come in here and say it's a "school" and therefore automatically notable. Ruby 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 19:18, 28 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 under WP:CSD A7 (non-notable nio). DES (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank Haven

This is a nn, probably vanity, description of a myspace artist. Draeco 20:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete article about a nn artist. Ruby 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable artist.  (aeropagitica)  21:35, 27 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 mikka (t) 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ra Ankh Eye of Horus

Delete No hits from Google, previous version showed Pi Kappa Alpha coat of arms. Probably bogus Bugturd 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I am currently adding content and used the Pi Kappa Alpha page as a template. This will shortly have more content. --RaydenUni 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can understand using the PKA coat of arms as a placeholder, but the lack of relevant hits on Google leads me to believe that the group is non-notable at best.--Bugturd 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. But if new content is not added, default to delete. I will watch, and would like to see at least one solid ref. --DanielCD 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 20 members. Only Egyptian frat? What's next, a Mayan sorority? Ruby 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He's a new user, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Let's see what he can do with it before we snap-judge. --DanielCD 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Hey. I'm another member of the fraternity. If we were a greek fraternity, you wouldn't be trying to delete us so quickly. Keep this one going. Let's see what it becomes... --Ninjayeti 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: users fourth post Zzzzz 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nn-club Zzzzz 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think they should get a chance, who is to really say anything about them. They could be important and this data could be used by people. --NuDrew 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: users first post Zzzzz 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. It's real, but I saw shirts around campus for the first time today. I assume it's a joke. -GregoryWeir 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment One of our own is against us! Noooo! We are here to stay however. How long? That depends on future members. --RaydenUni 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You guys with new accounts, I don't think that's going to work. You need to make a case, not try to vote-flood; believe me, it's not going to help you. --DanielCD 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Criteria for speedy deletion Articles #7: "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." - So how does one do that? Would proving multiple chapters across the country help? --RaydenUni 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note This isn't speedy deletion. It's AfD. You've got some time. --DanielCD 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fraternity is still fairly new, but an early Wiki allows for better documentation as it grows. Also, incident is not isolated. Howard University founded their own Egyptian fraternity in 2003. If the fraternity was not worthy of wikipedia, I do not believe it would still exist after a year. --Bacterozoid 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Del nn. mikka (t) 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Czop

Hoax. Ro starters, Castro didn't come to power until 1959. And the list goes on. Esprit15d 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete – every bit of it screams hoax. ×Meegs 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax? Joke? Attack? nn bio? Who knows! Snurks T C 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. And not even a worthy one. Ruby 21:25, 27 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 to delete the article --File Éireann 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FSHOD

Acronym for "Flying Shithook of Death". First-person narrative about something which at first glance appears to be patent nonsense but is likely simply something non-notable (author's personal circle of friends perhaps). If notability could be established it would need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style. -- Curps 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, unencyclopedic.--Adam (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete you know it's bad when the article has to say first off it is not really nonsense. Ruby 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • They put that there because the article has already been deleted once as nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete while it may be mildly interesting, it really has no place in WikiPedia. Otherwise, agree with Curps --Walter Görlitz 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Muchness 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, essay. The first acronym for FSHOD removed, now is only Fearlessly Seeking Honest Open Disclosure. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:59Z
  • Strong Keep, always assume good faith. Al-Kadafi 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn group, good faith doesn't mean we have to keep all of the detritus put out there. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. total crap. Zzzzz 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible as nonsense article on vanity subject. I tried to restore comments deleted by Al-Kadafi here: [36], but it seems as if somebody else has already done that. SYCTHOStalk 22:54, 27 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 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart katt

Article written by the artist creating the character...WP:AUTO Bugturd 20:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete not notable.--Adam (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable in any event. Ruby 21:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable illustration of fictional character. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:58Z
  • Delete as per above. -- gtdp [T]/[C] 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Latinus 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 19:18, 28 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 04:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paperstreet

Nn website WP:WEB Adam (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and thanks for saving me the trouble of nominating it myself :) --kingboyk 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable corporation (article is about a webdesign company, not primarily about its website). But yes, website is non-notable as well. Traffic Rank for paperstreet.com: 589,048 . —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:56Z
  • Delete blatant advertising. Ruby 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert. --Latinus 00:54, 28 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 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green UML

When exactly was it decided that each and every thing software-related was encyclopedic? What this looks like to me is a vanity article on a vanity project. "Green UML" -wikipedia got me 53 unique googles (and I don't think they all were about this), which is microscopic for anything computer related. I don't see the encyclopedic merit of this article. -R. fiend 21:12, 27 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. Meets criteria for non-notable biography. -- Psy guy Talk 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neal_Schroeder

Delete, this is an obvious vanity article Xyzzyplugh 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This is the stuff of vanity nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography, hoax. (Claims to be an unverifiable CIA agent who received non-existant medals from the prez, etc.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:51Z
  • Delete per nom as patent nonsense, hoax, vanity, your choice. --Lockley 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Unlike other, lesser men who would have trouble controlling such awesome gifts from the Gods...". Vanity. Unless its verified, I suppose. --Thunk 22:05, 27 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 04:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Batman Sequel

This was already deleted once under a different name. After reading this article again, this one as become just an article for speculation. --^BuGs^ 20:20, 27 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. Shanel 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our.imgSeek

This was previously nominated as a CSD A3 speedy (no content whatsoever). I don't think it meets the criteria for that. I believe that this article should be deleted as a spam ad for a web site, but it requires and AfD to determine that for sure. --Deathphoenix 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable website. Flickr/delicious/etc clone. Traffic Rank for imgseek.net: 1,495,487. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:44Z
  • Delete not sure if I'd call this an ad, but with an alexa rank of 1M+ it falls in the nn category Hirudo 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I originally called for the speedy...but I can go along with the AfD process to be fair --Bugturd 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - spam. --Latinus 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Another ip added a wikilink to this in Social software. Investigation of its edits showed that the site used to be in imgseek.python-hosting.com, which has better roots than its current newly-established domain. For instance, this Newsforge article. WP:V somewhat satisfied. --Perfecto 03:03, 28 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. Punkmorten 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vividor

devoid of information, basically all that's in there is a link to an article that got deleted in December 2005. Not sure if I should have speedied this Hirudo 21:42, 27 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 04:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redux

Non-notable fanzine. The article nominates itself by asserting its own non-notability: "It does not circulate many copies, nor does it have much of a fan base, but we thought it deserved a wikipedia entry." I didn't tag it for speedy deletion because CSD A7 doesn't appear to cover publications. --Muchness 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. --Muchness 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Clearly non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 21:47Z
  • Delete per nom. And delete nn user User:Redux while we're at it as well. --Deathphoenix 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Latinus 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. But the article, not me! User:Redux 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avalon 00:41, 30 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 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jidder

Delete sub-stub article about a slang-term; many google hits for the term, but none seem to be related to this. Mindmatrix 21:43, 27 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. Shanel 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hallway tango

Neologism and vanity (the article's creator was User:DottiBrundrett, the creator of the term). NoIdeaNick 21:44, 27 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 del mikka (t) 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TravBuddy.com

Not notable, new website as of November 2005. Article created by site webmaster. -- Longhair 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree. Many articles on Wikipedia do not affect millions of people, yet they are not instantly deleted. I think you should reconsider this decision. BTW, I am the article creator for the record, and sorry about my several edits, I am still getting a hang of the wiki code.Dlazzaro 22:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Edited: Dlazzaro 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that Wikipedia's many biographies, including many for professors or others who have written obscure books, offer fairly little in the way of content. In fact, I feel it is extremely biased for you to consider a professor who perhaps wrote one or two books years ago to be more valuable than a currently growing and updated web site. Dlazzaro 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam/vanity--Bugturd 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as non-notable website. Traffic Rank for travbuddy.com: 142,087. It looks promising though -- I suspect it will be more notable in a month or two and in that case the article can be re-created. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:32Z
  • Strong Delete per orginal reasons. --^BuGs^ 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, advertisement. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep has a bit of recognition by other sites. Ruby 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1). howcheng {chat} 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metric Tom

The article is about a neologism, it's unsourced and it's fairly nonsensical. NoIdeaNick 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as Bollocks. A sample: "A unit of measurement named after its discoverer Tom Broad.... The only problem which has been found with this particular unit of mass is that it is equal to however much Prof. Broad happens to weigh at any given time." --Lockley 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'll see your Bollocks and raise you Complete Bollocks. --Thunk 22:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Make that complete and utter bollocks Obli (Talk) 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nonsense/borderline attack page. - Bobet 22:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:29Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teagames (re-nom)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teagames, but undeleted for further review at DRV. No vote from me. -R. fiend 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete it has an okay Alexa rank, but the article as it stands is extremely insubstantial and reveals some of the inherent problems with covering most websites: without getting into trivia, there often just isn't a whole lot to say about them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. Simply not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. JDoorjam 23:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per brenneman. Ruby 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - needs more content, as it doesn't even cover the latest additions - Ace of Risk 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Brenneman is right. Eusebeus 07:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Brenneman. Thryduulf 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete previously deleted. incog 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I supposed I'm not allowed to say "speedy as previously deleted material." But I'd like to :P RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thirty Flash games. RII-IIGHT! Pilatus 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Drymon

He is an employee for Nickelodeon. the only "real" claim of notability is currently producing a pilot episode of his own cartoon show which will most likely air on Nickelodeon. . not verifiable Melaen 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:28Z
  • Strong Keep Two-time Emmy-nominated writer, credits include the big-screen Spongebob movie. The pilot episode part should probably be removed if it can't be verified, but that doesn't cancel out his other achievements. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The imdb page convinced me: [37]. Plus, he was the voice of "The Screamer/Fisherman" in the movie. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. Ruby 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Okay, he won two Emmy's, but only as a member of very large teams (one with 11 people, one with 7 people), and he won an Annie Award (which I've never heard of, but that doesn't mean much) on a team of 3 people. Now.. I think Emmy's are of course a big deal but I don't know how well they apply to large teams in terms of Wikipedia notability. It would seem to dilute the importance of the award a bit (for our purposes of course, not in general), but I don't know how much. --Fastfission 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per starblind Jcuk 15:50, 28 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 del mikka (t) 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S. Somasegar

  • non-notable corporate VP. Rmhermen 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not a good enough case for notability; article reads like a CV fragment. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn resume/stub Ruby 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cristo Staffa

An unofficial character. "Cristo Staff does not appear in any of the Star Wars films or Novels or Comics.". Zero Google hits. Is this somebody's fanfic character? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as starwarscruft, FFINN -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, looks like fan fiction. Delete. -- gtdp [T]/[C] 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fanfic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 01:14, 28 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 del mikka (t) 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John rushman

He's just a Junior High Math teacher. The award he has one is given out to many junior high math teachers per year, and he hasn't 'led' NC to anything in Math. DJ Clayworth 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as per nom--Bill 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A junior high math teacher(!?) The article does have some claim of notability, which I guess pushes it out of Speedy Delete territory, although the claimed "Edith May Sliffe Award" only gets 34 unique Google hits by my search. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Latinus 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn-bio OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre's Law. Stifle 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Edith May Sliffe Award is described at http://www.unl.edu/amc/f-miscellaneous/f4-sliffe/sliffe.html. See added information, newspaper references, and letter on the page. Also, page moved to John Rushman. Mysmartmouth 19:18, 28 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 del mikka (t) 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DUPLiCA

Reads like an advert and doesn't say why the company is notable. Maybe a speedy delete, since the first paragraph may be copyvio (from http://www.duplicainc.com/aboutus.html) and what's left would probably fail CSD A3 as nothing more than contact details. Definitely delete, speedy if appropriate. AJR | Talk 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete blatant advertising with extreme prejudice. Ruby 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:12, 28 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. Deathphoenix 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KCIM

Non-notable AM radio station, article is uncyclopedic (looks like a listing for the yellow pages), and the last part conflicts with WP:NOT - indiscriminate collection of information, as it's just a list of technical specifications for the station. Returns about 350 hits on Google. Delete Obli (Talk) 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Oh boy, a thousand watts. Ruby 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I wince in voting so, but it appears there are no non-notable radio stations, any more than there are no non-notable schools. Pity. Denni ☯ 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep duly licensed radio stations. But rewrite this stinker of an article from the ground up -- it's full of technical detail but I can't even figure out what format it is. Haikupoet 04:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Mind you the rewrite may be problematic......there aint a whole heckuva lot of info out there about this one... Jcuk 15:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (more of a rant, actually): (p.s. this probably belongs somewhere on an AfD process discussion page) I've always had a philisophical problem with "keep and rewrite" votes, and I guess it goes to the heart of what AfD actually is supposed to be. IMHO what people are basically saying is that an article on the subject has a right to exist, but that this particular article in its current state isn't it. Do closing admins take that into account? i.e. if the article isn't improved by the time the AfD discussion closes are those votes counted as "delete"? The reason I ask is because there are many poor articles on good subjects that survive AfD purely based on "keep and rewrite" votes, without the rewrite subsequently taking place. This leaves those articles in the poor state they are and virtually immune to future deletion (based on it having survived AfD already). Zunaid 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or re-write per nom. Zunaid 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or re-write. And this means "If it gets re-written enough to be encyclopedic I'll come and change my recomendation" not "Any re-write changes this into a keep automagically." My watchlist is big, I'm happy to be pinged. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A poorly written article is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to add the cleanup tag which I just did. Vegaswikian 01:30, 31 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 del mikka (t) 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bird Rodeo

Neologism, 8 Google hits that aren't even related to the article, Delete Obli (Talk) 23:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (Side note by willrobbo This game is also known as the 'Fat Bird Rodeo'. Google that.)

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If this exists at all it would be better off in a dictionary of slang, as opposed to an encyclopædia.  (aeropagitica)  23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Latinus 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Ruby 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Whether this article was intended to be humorous or not, I sincerely believe it should be kept, because when i read this, it really did bring a tear to my eye (i was laughing that hard.) Wikipedia is for the enjoyment of the user,is it not? As such, i believe articles such as these should be kept, whether it is a hoax or not. Rasmuffin 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it can be kept in BJAODN where it belongs. Daniel Case 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a valid article. I've heard of this game being played in Liverpool, Manchester and London. Whether it's widespread or not, the game's rules and content should be documented. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EVERYTHING, IS IT NOT? Removing this article would remove valid information. --Willrobbo 16:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Fat Bird Rodeo," the alternative recommended above, has three unique Google hits that appear to relate to the article topic. Brendan 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism/hoax/non-notable. Ifnord 03:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auction House

Article about a feature in World of Warcraft, adds nothing new that the main article hasn't already stated, the article name is also inappropriate and confusing. Obli (Talk) 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge without Redirect, to an appropriate WoW article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:27Z
  • Weak delete It's a fairly big deal in WoW and could be said to be the hub of the whole economy. I don't think it can really be made into an article for a general-interest encyclopedia though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into an existing world of warcraft article... very important for the economy as mentioned above... but probably not deserving of its own article... Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the parent article per Nick. Ruby 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancuft. mikka (t) 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capalaba Bus Station, Brisbane

This particular bus station claims no notability, it's not even in a major city, parts of it also conflict with WP:NOT as it's just a list of bus routes Obli (Talk) 23:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there are articles for most bus stations in this transit system, it would seriously mess things up if we deleted one of them. Obli (Talk) 10:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into TransLink (Brisbane) services TransLink (Brisbane), which should be renamed in and of itself. Youngamerican 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a bus schedule. Ruby 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Ruby. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as there are any number of precedents, in metropolitan Brisbane (of which this station is a part) and Perth, all of which have current lists of routes. The fact that nobody here probably even knows where Capalaba is does not make it unnotable (last time I checked Brisbane is probably notable, sheesh), and for this deletion to be logical all references to bus stations in Australian cities would have to be deleted. I find it very irrational for example that the Eastern Region's less important bus station, Victoria Point has no vote for deletion. Further, what part of WP:NOT does it clash with? It is not a directory, list of definitions, primary research, advertising, a collection of links or files, a blog or even really a travel guide or FAQ.SM247 08:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, the way I see it, that list of bus routes does not belong here, compare it to a phone directory if you will, but I'm fairly sure none of them have any claim to notability. What if everyone wanted an entry for their bus routes? They belong in the bus schedule. However, I see it's huge undertaking, it would be a bad thing to delete all of the related articles :( Obli (Talk) 10:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. --King of All the Franks 10:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you all insist on deleting, then why not delete everything else? What is so abhorrent about Capalaba? By your logic, you should delete every railway station e.g. Traveston, which only has a bus stop sized platform and gets two trains a day. What is so notable about that? I also refute any claim that Capalaba or Redland Shire is not notable - it has a detailed article of its own. That fact you don't know where it is is irrelevant. I've probably never heard of the vast majority of places in the world that have their own articles. I have cited several precedents to establish the validity of this article. If you delete this, delete everything. Further, Wikipedia is not meant to be static, that is why we can edit it.SM247 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I found this particular article just by chance, and didn't bother to look any further. Had I known how many related articles there were I would have thought twice about it. I withdraw my nomination, anyone may however re-nominate it together with any related articles or parts of them that doesn't compy with WP:NOT. Obli (Talk) 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --WikiCats 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, nonmaintainable. mikka (t) 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly-not-to

Little used neologism. At best belongs in Wiktionary. Weregerbil 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable idiom / figure-of-speech. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (but Wiktionary is). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 23:25Z
  • Delete. Silly not to. --Lockley 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No sources cited for widespread use of thios as a meme or a phrase symbolic of a life style or culture trend. If reliabele sources are cited tot hsi effect thsi should be kept. but otherwise not. Delete. DES (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. -- gtdp [T]/[C] 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism "attributed to a locally renound Surrey disc jockey. " Ruby 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Latinus 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • hardly a neologism - the nearest it comes to that is adding hyphens to a looong-used phrase. But that's all it is: A phrase. An idiom. A figure of speech. As such, if belongs in Wiktionary (without the hyphens), but should be deleted from Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Says this Wiktionarian, no thank you. It's not really idiomatic enough to merit an entry in Wikt, either. — Dvortygirl 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Definately a thoroughly precise definition I back it up completely! This deserves a place in wikipedia for ever. James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.254.50 (talk • contribs).
User's first edit. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Botz

Tagged for speedy, but WP:CSD A7 deos not apply to articles about songs (as opposed to bands). But there seems to be exactly one relevant google hit. The lyrics do not seem to be anywher online indexed by google, but are probably a copyvio anyway. non-notable. Delete. DES (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Whoops, my bad, I thought the band was called botz, while the band my qualify, I don't think their songs are notable enough for articles. Obli (Talk) 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article probably cannot be expanded into anything more than the song's lyrics. Same goes for all of the other songs listed at RAQ. — orioneight (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a repository for song lyrics, even with an explanatory blurb. Ruby 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Latinus 00:53, 28 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 mikka (t) 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moojub

Most of this article belong in wikibooks, the part that would be left is probably short enough to move to an article about card games. Obli (Talk) 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia articles can be about Moojub but they can't be detailed instructions on how to play Moojub. Ruby 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 23:49, 28 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 Postal order. Deathphoenix 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postal Orders of Christmas Island (Pacific Ocean)

This item of ultra-obscure-numismatics cruft, created by a banned user, lets us know that a BFPO postal order may have been sold somewhere. WP:NOT most certainly applies here, namely "indiscriminate collection of information", "soapbox for personal opinion", and the Verifability policy too. Kiand 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge. I recommend moving this information into Postal order until a narrower article, if appropriate, is created. This one is definitely too narrow in scope. Logophile 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Logophile. Ruby 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - however, it seems like there are some similarily narrow articles in the stamp collecting category. Also, I took a look at why the author's talk page, it looked like he was banned for being a jerk, but he still appeared to be quite knowledgeable about this subject. I suspect that if he wasn't banned, he would have probably been able to have offered citations to help with the verification. -Nortonew 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Postal orders are not technically an interest of stamp collectors, but are part of nimismatics, as mentioend by Kiand. There are some very poor articles on the collecting of postal orders. I hope an interested editor improves those articles, creates new ones, and eventually puts this article in its appropriate place. For now Postal order looks like the best home for this information. Logophile 03:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with postal order Jcuk 15:31, 28 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 del mikka (t) 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow viber

Definition of DJ terminology, I can't really tell if this is a common DJ term or not, if it is it could probably go into wiktionary Obli (Talk) 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism. JDoorjam 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with DJ. Ruby 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like an inside joke/neologism. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neoligism. Jwissick(t)(c) 14:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism. Latinus 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:28, 30 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.


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_January_27_2359.html"