Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 13

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think Tank Television

NN according to WP:MUSIC Josh Parris#: 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Speakers of the House Album Think Tank Television.jpg, only used on the above page, ought to go too. Josh Parris#: 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty other than the infobox. Stifle 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN -Nv8200p talk 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just an infobox isn't sufficient. Pilatus 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't seem note-worthy to me. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. only an infobox provided. --King of Hearts 05:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mirago

It's a POV attack against a non-notable company. The whole thing should just be deleted. Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I speedily removed the attack bits. No vote. FCYTravis 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a search engine company. -- JJay 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's still a really crappy article though. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's probably true. But are they really as NN as you say? -- JJay 07:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Mirago.co.uk has a Alexa rank of 10,070. It's not Google, but not all that bad either for a company providing internet services. They seem to get visitors. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it was up to my opinion I'd vote delete. But, as much as I may dislike it, they are notable. --Ezeu 13:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep With attack bits removed, is ok as a starter stub. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks fine to me now.Gator (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks fine but needs expansion.Gateman1997 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the fixed version. Stifle 10:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). FireFox 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic spectrum

This is unsourced and full of original research. Pilatus 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The page reminds me of Political Compass, which is probably its source. The page just needs to be improved, not deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt it. The political compass is different to what this article espouses. Look at the article as the original author created it. This is an opinionated essay that editors have attempted to clean up as best they can. But since the article has no sources, there has been no goal to actually aim for, and what is left after the more overtly opinionated parts were excised is not very coherent. Moreover: The section on the political spectrum is contradicted by our political spectrum article. Uncle G 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a bad article, could use with a little expansion. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is beyond salvation. Sigh. Pilatus 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep and expand. -- JJay 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • How is that supposed to happen? This is an essay from User:Paganbaby without sources, worse than that, there isn't the slightest indication that "economic spectrum" has ever been used to describe the degree of government control on the economy. Since you vote to "keep", can you at least provide a roadmap what to do with it? Pilatus 06:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I have to assume your request is disengenuous since you have made no attempt to improve the page. No talk page message was left prior to AfD and you long ago expressed the belief that the page was beyond salvation. I also assume that if I fail to hand you a blueprint for improving this article you will next claim that my vote is baseless, or unfounded and should not be counted- as that seems to be a common approach among noms. While your defeatism may appear seductive, my thinking is based on the following: the term is far too common not to have a page here. This is shown by google, google scholar, google books, a search of newspaper databases, etc. The term has been in wide use throughout the English speaking world since at least the 1920s. I have found many examples in government, academic and financial reports. Therefore, I believe, the best approach would be to come up with a definition for the term and provide examples. If that requires deleting the nonsense down to a stub, and expanding from there, then sobeit. The editors who will continue to contribute to the page are certainly experienced enough to undertake this process. I'm sure they would welcome your contribution. -- JJay 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Did you actually look at any of the references that you say you have found? Wherever Google Scholar finds the phrase "Economic spectrum" (often as its synonym "socio-economic spectrum") it nothing but the gamut of income from poor to rich, this is trivial and at best a dictdef. It certainly doesn't mean the degree of government control on the economy. As such, there is nothing salvageable here, the unsourced essay that currently resides under the lemma discourages editors to contribute. (Note: the last good edit was back in July.) Delete, and maybe redirect to social class or somesuch is my roadmap, as there is nothign to be gained from the history is my roadmap. What is yours? Pilatus 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • So I was right, you are being disengenuous. Thanks for wasting my time. [1]-- JJay 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is not from political compass. The discipline of political science uses these terms(political system, democracy, totalitarian,economic system, market economy, centrally planned economy, ideology, socialist ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, spectrum,left-right rate of change spectrum(i.e., radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary) as a matter of course. What is lacking is proper distinctions between the four separate spectra because of the use of the same word, liberal, for instance, to refer to completely different subject matters. Liberal, in one instance, is refering to the rate of change that is advocated. In another instance the same word is used to refer to a particular ideology comprised of: private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government per John Locke. The same can be said of the term conservative as a measurement of rate of change and at the same time a description of a particular ideology. For many people(societies) the distinction is not made and political systems are equated with economic systems. Even in Wikipedia this situation exists in some of the discussions. Hence, in the mind of many, democracy=market economy and totalitarian=centrally planned economy. Or, in another way, it is: democracy=capitalism/free market and socialism=totalitarianism. This is an error because in each case a political system is being equated with an economic system. How should all of this be sorted out? Correct definitions and correct applications according to the proper spectrum would help--wouldn't it? Is there a definition used that is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.18.131 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Solid B work as an Econ 101 paper. But this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE The reference to the entry as being contrary to Wikipedia's political spectrum entry is accurate. Here is part of the Wikipedia entry(in the Left-Right heading):

"In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is described along left-right lines. This political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy and fascism("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism("the Left") on the other."

There are problems here that confuse rather than clarify.Theocracy describes a particular type of political system. Socialism/communism/fascism describes particular types of economic systems that have particular types of political systems. The reference to conservatism is not clear as to the intent. Is a particular ideology based on inequality and status being determined at birth being refered to(medieval Europe)? Or is this a reference to a preference to maintain the status quo in a society; which is a rate of change measurement? Many people and societies equate a democratic political system with a market economic system(democracy=capitalism.) They also have a tendency to equate a centrally planned economic system with a totalitarian political system(socialism=totalitarianism). This ignores the fact that there are separate political and economic spectra and where a country is located on one does not necessarily dictate where a country will be located on the other. In a democratic country, the people can choose to have any type of economic system they want. If they cannot choose the economic system that they desire--it is not a democracy. Fascism has a market economic system and a totalitarian political system. Socialism(communism is one type) has a centrally planned economic system and a democratic political system. Socialism has never existed in a modern society. The USSR(nor any of the others that claimed to be) was never socialist nor communist for that reason. How does the average citizen, who looks at an encylopedia to try and makes sense of these terms, deal with the fact that there terms that have different meaning depending upon the reference? How is the term liberal being used? As a reference to a society that has an ideology based upon private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government? Or is it a reference to a measurement of being willing to accept a measure of change? Shouldn't an encylopedia try to sort all of this out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs)

• Delete. "Economic spectrum" is at best a neologism. It does not even qualify as a dictionary definition. It is basically two good words put together (Probably an analogy to "Political spectrum") – which is deceptive. +Economic +spectrum is nothing but two words, each with its own connotation.--Ezeu 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP. I have heard the phrase used numerous times - going back at least ten years. The concept is both notable and verifiable, with over 83,000 Google hits [2]. The article certainly does need a major overhaul and cleanup though! Blackcats 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can you give a link to an article referring to "Economic spectrum" as a notable term – not merely a combination of two words in the same sentence, or a neologism?--Ezeu 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that use the phrase as a notable term (such as this one), but after looking into it more closely, I see that the way that it's used is quite different from the way that it's used in this article. It's generally used to describe the spectrum of social classes from dire poverty to extreem wealth, and not to describe a spectrum of economic systems. So in light of this, I'm changing my vote to redirect to Social class. Perhaps at some point an article can be written specifically about the concept of a spectrum of classes. Blackcats 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to social class. (nb - I also removed the spaces at the start of the above quote to prvent the horrible formatting) Proto t c 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Just another way of chopping up things, but not in use in this way. You will encounter "on the economic spectrum" in newspapers, for example, but that reference is self-evident. We all know already that some economies have greater, some lesser control by elected and governmental officials, but all are under control of one thing or another. This is just a reiteration of that obvious fact. Nor do I think there is a need for a redirect, except perhaps to Economics, and that, I think, is already implicit in the term and therefore unneeded. Delete for original research. Geogre 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Using the reasoning mentioned in the last post would suggest that the term political spectrum be deleted also. It is just two separate words that are used in the newspapers and it has greater or lesser control by elected and government officials. Social class? An economic system spectrum is not a measurement of social class. If there is a reference to a political systems spectrum in an encylopedia, shouldn't there be a reference to an economics system spectrum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005
  • Check out the link I posted above - "Vietnam Deaths Spread Over Economic Spectrum." This was saying that US casualties in the war ran the full gammot from poor to rich. That's how the term is generally used. If you think that a discussion of various economic systems as a spectrum is needed, then if you find some good sources to cite go ahead and add a new section to Economic system. If that section gets big enough it could become its own article with a title like "spectrum of economic systems." Also, a note could be placed on the "social class" article to the effect that "economic spectrum redirect here - see blah-blah-blah for other uses..." Blackcats 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless "adopted" by someone who promises to find citations, and to bring it back here if they cannot be found. "Economic Spectrum" in the sense of the gamut from poor to rich is not encyclopedic; neither is this unreferenced and (in some places) POV essay that appears to be a variant political spectrum. If some significant writer has actually used this term in a manner parallel to "political spectrum" to refer to a range of views about economics, or something similar to that, fine, but I see no evidence of that. (Some of the material in this article may belong elsewhere in Wikipedia, if it can be cited.) - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete seems borderline, but not encyclopedic. Would need a lot of work. maybe a copyedit tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator1 (talk • contribs) 13 Dec 2005
• Delete Original research, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• An economic systems spectrum is unverifiable? A market economy is unverifiable? A command economy(centrally planned is less biased, in my view) is unverifiable? The same query applies to the ideologies of conservative, liberal, and socialist. On the rate of change spectrum running from radical through liberal and conservative to reactionary this is considered as inappropriate? A political spectrum is proper but, not an economic spectrum expressing the range of economic systems available? These terms are not new. The analysis is not new. Isn't Wikipedia an opportunity for accurate information to be presented in a manner that the average citizen can understand? There is much confusion about distinctions about political and economic systems. Note the effort to try and make any discussion of economic systems spectrum a discussion of social class or rich and poor. Why? That is not the subject. How to make sense of the different meanings of these terms is the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs)
  • There is no indication that anyone has ever used the word "economic spectrum" to refer to the economic system present in a country. Please read WP:V. There is also no indication of the concepts put forth in the article anywhere in the literature. Do read WP:NOR. Pilatus 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Where a country is located on an economic spectrum is the proper way to use the concept of an economic spectrum. Of course it is not proper to use the term economic spectrum to refer to the economic system present in a given country. What is useful is to have a range (sometimes visual) that gives expression to the relative position of various countries of the world on the economic spectrum.

                   Command economy_______________________________________________ Market economy
                  (planned economy)                                               ( free market economy)

Where should the UK be placed on this spectrum? The US? Sweden? China? Haiti? Wouldn't this be valuable information for people to have access to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 December 2005

• Delete The topic should be covered, but there's nothing redeemable here.--Bkwillwm 07:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced original research. Tagged for references, none provided. WP:V is firm policy, as is [{WP:NOR]]. Where can I verify this from neutral secondary sources? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Firehosing

Dictionary definition combined with a little bit of unencyclopedic personal opinion - squibix 13:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the unencyclopedic personal opinion. Dunno what to do about the dictionary definition part - Scott 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't you just love the irony if we vote to delete it? The question is "Is this slang?" Deferring vote. If it is slang, then it needs to be deleted; if not, it might be worth saving, but I don't know right now. B.Wind 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Doing a google search on the term didn't bring up very much. I found it referenced on some sites on leadership/management ( ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ) and for video panning ( |ex. 1, |ex. 2 ) What is interesting is that in both cases they appear to use the term as if it is commonly accepted term. (i.e. they don't use expressions like "some people call this firehosing", "sometimes known as firehosing", etc.) Scott 13:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The article needs some editing, no doubt, but at least the video-camera-related definition given in the external link looks to be something interesting that can be talked out. Maybe if it has a more common name, merge into that. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a dictdef. If someone later wants to write a great article on the history of it as a videotaping tactic then they can feel free at that point. At present it's a dictdef, and the hypothetical great article I mentioned in my last breath doesn't exist yet, so delete. Tempshill 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Tempshill YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly transwiki to Wikitionary. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki if appropriate as above. Movementarian 09:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. The links provided above have convinced me the word is real. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, Ironically I use this term all the time but not with either of these meanings. Rather, it's used to denote giving too much information too fast to be assimilated. But a dictdef, even with multiple meanings, does not an article make. ++Lar 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang, dictdef. Eusebeus 12:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jargon dicdef. / Ezeu 14:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Dictdef of jargon, and therefore not a Wiktionary entry unless it gains traction. Geogre 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic.Gator (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Perfect square. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect square factor

This article contains (almost) no information. It says that a perfect square factor is a factor that is a perfect square and it gives one example. It has no ingoing links from the main namespace and it was created on 26 September by an anonymous editor, so I don't see any potential for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessary article as both perfect square and divisor (factor) already have articles. The term "perfect square factor" comes up with regularity only when discussing simplifying square roots. B.Wind 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I've attempted to improve and wikify the article, but I don't feel strongly enough about its merit to vote keep. Gandalf61 10:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As mentioned there are articles on relevant concepts such as perfect square. We can take any similar concept and make it a factor, e.g. triangular factor, pentagonal factor, etc., but they don't deserve their own pages. The term perfect square factor is not of enough importance on its own merits. --C S (Talk) 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to perfect square. All of the relevant information should already be in there. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Cyde. Harro5 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Cyde YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only because redirects are cheap. would say Delete otherwise novacatz 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- no significant infoirmational value.(Sorry to the author) --Simon Cursitor 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - are we going to have entries/redirects for even factor? odd factor? single-digit factor? Theres an infinite number of properties a factor could satisfy, and I don't see why any of them deserve an article or a redirect. --Pierremenard
• Redirect per above. This term is regularly used, so it is reasonable to assume people typing this expect to be redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to perfect square. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect implemented as per general consensus here. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen of Troy Faustus

Fragment of source material, delete or transwiki. +sj + 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No votes recorded. Relisting to generate discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's source material with no analysis. Tempshill 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copied wholesale from The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus#Famous Monologues -- Taiichi «talk» 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Simon Cursitor 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia.Gator (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uncited and copied source material --Krich 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not unsourced or uncited: the opening paragraph is primarily a source citation. But it is just a straight copy from another Wikipage, absent of any real context. -- Taiichi «talk» 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I may not be familiar with Wiki conventions on this, but if the words are copied directly from a secondary source, with no reference to where it came from, I consider that uncited. The opening paragraph *was* a citation in the orginal Wikipage - here is is uncited and the source material copied. But this is semantics, and I mainly reply to learn more about Wiki practice in this area. Thanks. --Krich 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, ok, I see your point now. I think it was really unintentional. My "delete" vote was more to the point that the page was, IMHO, a newbie's test page that was done without malice (which is grounds for speedy, actually.) -- However, this does make for an interesting situation. While the page is copied directly from another Wikipage, The play text is itself public domain, and sourced by the preceding paragraph. This leaves the preceding paragraph as the uncited material. Thus, we have text which is primarily a citation for something else, that is itself not properly cited - oh, the irony! -- Taiichi «talk» 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Stifle 10:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominationMadman 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Witch (album)

Album from band not meeting WP:MUSIC The Land 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The band does meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. AMG entry, and a pretty big album. Label as a band stub. Harro5 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Among other things, Angel Witch were an important influence to both Metallica and Megadeth. (See Metallica's "Cliff 'em All" video.) foot 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Angel Witch certainly qualifies for WP:MUSIC -- Taiichi «talk» 06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons stated. Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berwick Bandits

• Article was created in November 2005, has had no edits (other than mine) since then. Is sloppily written and seems to be mostly of a commercial nature. DeleteTheRingess 00:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn sporting club. Harro5 00:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems ok. -- JJay 02:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article makes no sense. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if Wiki-fied. Established English speedway club --Simon Cursitor 08:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Seems notable enough for a speedway club -- fan-sites and all that... -- Marcika 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as nn. Sorry.Gator (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Given their near-forty-year history, they get my "ten years from now" nod. Denni ☯ 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and {{cleanup-rewrite}} to remove POV. Stifle 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as meeting notability requirement. Turnstep 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bitter Twisted Evil Guys

It's a gaming clan. They have an IRC channel. Wow. 175 Googles. Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The JPS 10:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Airumel 11:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gaming clans aren't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. StealthFox 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as this handful of guys doesn't even seem to be a gaming clan anymore. (OK, I only glanced at the website, but there are no forums and it looks like a blog, with four users.) --Habap 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as totally nn and unencyclopedic.Gator (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a gaming clan would have to do something really impressive to become notable. --אריאל יהודה 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• "'Delete'" per nom. --86.135.144.67 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Krich 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ronabop 09:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rusted Dawn

Typical AFD fodder - a non-notable high school band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Harro5 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Theres only 2 people in high school in the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.188.106 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rusted dawn have a massive fanbase which is constantly growing, keep the article —the preceding unsigned comment is by 142.167.27.24 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 December 2005
• Delete, they really don't meet WP:MUSIC Pilatus 03:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also vanity. Ifnord 03:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , simply because of sockpuppetry YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of compliance with WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rusted dawn? I smell napalm in the morning. Delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as nn band and vanity
• Delete nn. --אריאל יהודה 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and vanity. --Krich 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Mëtäl härdcöre Dëlëte per nom. Ronabop 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band. Stifle 10:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This band is the most notable band in the area of Kings County, New Brunswick. It is also the most prominent example of Atlantic thrash metal (wherein Atlantic refers to the Maritime provinces of Canada). Soviet Dolphin 10:18 PM, December 15 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Lace (books)

• Article consists of one line (that seems to be very pov} and a link to a commercial website.DeleteTheRingess 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable imprint (and there are numerous imprint articles such as Target Books. If there's a copyvio concern, simply rewrite the line. 23skidoo 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - highly notable and popular - David Gerard 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Evidence of importance not presented, will change vote if someone presents a verifiable source citation suggesting this is important in, say, the way Olympia Press or Grove Press was. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a current imprint, along the lines of, say Target Books. It doesn't have historical important, but neither does Target or many other current imprints. 23skidoo 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's still a stub, but I removed the POV and ad-like copy. It's now a more straightforward stub. 23skidoo 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's (currently) a crappy stub but the line is notable. I have faith a one-handed typist will be able to expand on it eventually. Ifnord 03:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- as a subject it's probably valid, but this stub gives little or no workable content --Simon Cursitor 08:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - yep, though you wouldnt know it from the stub, Black Lace is definitely a notable UK imprint. They were rather groundbreaking, a decade or so ago, as a wing of a mainstream publisher bringing erotica imprints into mainstream bookshops. Here is an article explaining the background. Tearlach 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a stub, but it could be grown. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as long as notability can be proved and is demonstrated in expanded article. StealthFox 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Swanson

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Much as I would vote for you over Harper, I can't allow vanity. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• It could be vanity, but then again, adding references would solidify the article. I leave it up to our Canadian editors as to whether he's notable or not. Abstaining for now. B.Wind 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- We have to keep this one. Efforts to delete other candidates (even ones that had yet to secure a party nomination, such as [[3]]) have not always succeeded, and I don't think it's fair to delete some candidates, but keep others. Skeezix1000 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We keep some candidates because they satisfy the WP:BIO criteria on other grounds. Being merely a candidate for elected office is not one of the inclusion criteria. Uncle G 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That might be the theory, but it's not the practice. We should keep them all, rather than haphazardly deleting a random few. Skeezix1000 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is the practice, by and large, too. Don't draw inferences from just one case where this hasn't been so. Uncle G 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it is the practice, then it's not being implemented very well. I just spent three minutes pulling articles on candidates in central Toronto, where I live, and I've already located a number that likely don't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), unless having a job, belonging to the Lions Club, etc. qualify a notable. I'm just saying that balance and NPOV require that we either eliminate all articles that do not meet WP:BIO, or we let all candidate articles stand. If the former, then are you suggesting that we nominate potentially hundreds of articles for afd? And wouldn't fairness require that we do so fairly early in the election? Skeezix1000 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Keeping the articles on subjects that satisfy the WP:BIO criteria and not the ones on subjects that do not is exactly what many editors aim for. That the articles that you point to have never been put forward for consideration does not invalidate that. To see how ill-founded such a line of reasoning is, consider that we could equally argue that we should keep all articles on 13-year-old schoolchildren that fail to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, simply because some of the articles about such children have never been nominated for deletion, and "it wouldn't be fair to delete some and not the others". Clearly, the argument is flawed.

          Finally: "Potentially hundreds" is not the same as "hundreds". Uncle G 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

          • There's a big difference between 13 year old school children and candidates in the upcoming federal election, as only one pertains to a significant political process in Canada. Haphazardly and selectively deleting articles on certain candidates gives rise to accusations of political favouritism by Wikipedia in a way that deleting or not deleting articles on schoolchildren does not.

            As for the reference to "potentially hundreds", the election just started, and is not expected to pick up steam (so to speak) until after the holidays. Over the next few weeks, many candidates (or more likely, their supporters) will undoubtedly create additional articles on Wikipedia that will not meet WP:BIO, in addition to all those that already candidate articles that already exist. There are more than 300 ridings, at least 5 political parties contesting every riding, with numerous independent and minor party candidates. You do the math.

            Finally: I am tired of the lectures of how "ill-founded" and "flawed" my opinion is, so I am changing my vote to delete. I will, as suggested, nominate other articles for afd in an attempt to maintain some neutrality during the election. Skeezix1000 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

            • On the contrary: It is disregarding the WP:BIO criteria that is haphazard, not the converse.

              Secondly: Wikipedia has been been around through several major elections. (I was one of the many editors that participated in the projects to cover some of them.) Your dire predictions don't match past experience.

              Finally: As any New Pages patroller who has patrolled for a significant length of time will attest, if candidates and their supporters will be creating articles on Wikipedia about themselves telling the world how great they are and about all of their hopes, aspirations, and minor achievements, they are functionally indistinguishable from the 13-year-old schoolchildren that do exactly that too. Uncle G 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, cleanup, NPOVize, and check for copyvio. Stifle 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major party candidate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep of course. -- JJay 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article states that this person is a candidate, and has never actually won an election. People who have never actually won an election have to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria on other grounds, such as being the subject of significant press coverage. (That is why they are kept.) This article tells us lots about Mr Swanson's hopes and aspirations, if he is elected, but nothing to indicate that he currently satisfies any of the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Uncle G
• Delete. Copyright violation of his campaign biography see [9] Unfortunately, it has been here more than two days but allowing political candidates or their supporters to post campaign blurbs as encyclopedia articles is a clear breach of NPOV. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: also it is not from a commercial copyright provider, which makes money from the content that has been copied. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Since it appears now to be a copyvio I would have to say delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• If copyvio then Delete (speedy ?) --Simon Cursitor 08:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no no on the copyvio or else I might have said keep.Gator (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as functionally unverifiable after the election has finished. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT. FCYTravis 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarhukia

• Delete Article makes all sorts of claims, provides no supporting evidence. Only 1 edit (besides mine) from an anonymous user, so not likely to be high on anybody's list of articles to maintain.TheRingess 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Unverified and unencyclopedic. Borders on speedy. FCYTravis 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied - "Tarhukia" had ONE Google hit, and it was a Wikipedia list. I expect something that alleges blog notability to have eleventy billion hits, given the way blogs are now. FCYTravis 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per Cyde's astute observation. FCYTravis 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tempus (band)

This article has many anon editors, and I can't tell if there's a reasonable point to revert it to. I think possibly all the authors are just having fun with Wikipedia. Unless notability can be established for this band, the article should be deleted.-Mr Adequate 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• The link to the article at Tempus (disambiguation) should be removed if the article is deleted.-Mr Adequate 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - The article is mangled crap. Even the "references" are just links to porn sites. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, borderline..seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Rx StrangeLove 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screw 32

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability; notability is not claimed. Tempshill 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another NN bunch of amateurs thinking they're making profound statements about capitalism. The JPS 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Wezzo 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Come on. If you checked AllMusic, if would tell you that they released two albums (one on Fat Wreck Chords). Punkmorten 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as another nn band trying to advertise.Gator (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • They're not nn, they meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as they seem to *almost* meet our indie release category (two albums on *notable* indie labels)... If Wingnut was notable (aka, had a good roster, a major influence, etc..... right now, Wingnut looks very much like a short-lived 90's indie label, maybe defunct now), maybe keep, or if Punkmorten can provide documentation on big tours or other ways to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Ronabop 09:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ronabop. They have two albums but not on major labels, fails WP:MUSIC on the information given. Stifle 10:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm pretty sure they do meet wp:music, but they appear to be defunct and there doesn't even seem to be enough information out there to make this into a respectable stub. Flowerparty■ 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by Flowerparty, funnily enough. They may or may not have brieflyt scratched the surface of notability, but since they now appear to be no more they become, to a large extent, unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Punkmorten. Recorded notable bands deserve to be here -- JJay 11:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bra boys

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Useful information as the (predominantly 'Anglo') Bra Boys group are reportedly in discussions with the (predominantly 'Lebanese') Comancheros bikie gang in order to bring an end to the recent racial violence seen in Sydney
• Merge - It sounds to me like they're involved in this latest scuffle in Sydney, Australia over Muslim race relations. I say merge this into a relevant article on the rioting. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - they're notable enough. See this SMH article, where they are involved in negotiations with Muslim leaders. Borofkin 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and notable especially as some have blamed them for involvement in the rioting although they are denying it. 12,000 hits for Bra boys including the Sydney Morning Herald [10] 73 Google News hits for "Bra boys" see [11]

Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - notable.--Russell E 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• ?? - I can't tell you why, but it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I bet you could come up with 1,000+ Australian gang names if you tried hard enough. On the other hand, that their name is cited in various sources is irrefutable. Keep - after reading the latest edits to the article I've changed my mind - notable enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is going to get a whole lot bigger in the next few days because of the riots. - G^t 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lankiveil 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep sadly. I'd be glad never to hear of them again, but I'm not that optomistic. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Their significance is largely as an example of media hype. The article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, based on the depth of media coverage despite the attention. --Zigger «º» 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the unsupported inflammatory allegation from the article. Had that allegation influenced any previous opinion here? --Zigger «º» 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to the article on the riots. Won't be notable outside this context. Harro5 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Dont merge - The Bra Boys 'involvment' in the riots are questionable --bacco007 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The group/gang has been in the media a bit recently and I wanted to read about them but was disapointed that wikipedia didn't have an article. Australian Story ran a programme on Koby Abberton, the founder(?) of the group a few weeks ago. He is very famous in world surfing circles apparently but was charged with murder and manslaughter. He was recently acuitted of those charges but found guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice (or perverting the coure of justice or something - don't quote me). Then, just this week, we're hearing about them again in the context of these events in Sydney. I think they are notable enough to have a TV documentary made about them, and are notable because of Koby Abberton's involvement. (There should probably be an article created about Koby Abberton too). -- Adz 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Koby was not the founder, and was not charged with murder and manslaughter. --Zigger «º» 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

His older brother was charged with murder of a founding member of the Bra Boys Anthony Hines and was later acquitted. Koby Abberton is being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice see [13].

• Keep, should not be confused with the riots issue--A Y Arktos 07:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'd really like to see it expanded somewhat. It still offers only a limited explanation of who they are and why they are important. It doesn't mention what they do (other than surf).--cj | talk 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per other votes; important enough to deserve an article though expansion is certainly required. - Wezzo 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Can anyone add some significance to the article, or perhaps it should be merged into Maroubra, New South Wales? --Zigger «º» 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nn as of one week ago, but not anymore. Things change.Gator (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This gang is well known, and is frequently mentioned in Sydney media. 203.9.33.2 07:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* They're even pretty well known here in the USA.
• Keep I've been reading about the troubles back home and went Wikipedia to see who they are. reason enough to keep them. I have to agree that I was hoping to find out a lot more about them. I remember when I lived in sydney that the gangs in Maroubra had a fearsome rep. Steve
• Comment (again). I've expanded the article to list what they're famous for in Sydney, at least in the popular media. If others think this can be the basis of a bigger article, I'll butt out. Hopefully Australian beach and surfer articles can also be expanded. --Zigger «º»

• Keep Merge with Maroubra. Not only notable due to their "suspected" involvement in Cronulla, but have been part of Sydney culture for a long time. Most Sydneysiders would of heard of the Bra Boys at one point or another. In fact, easily the most famous gang in Sydney. Chanlord 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite sources for any alleged involvement at Cronulla. For (unfortunately) more famous Sydney gangs, check out the "Milperra massacre". --Zigger «º» 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Hours earlier, about 200 men had assembled outside Lakemba Mosque - some armed with Glock pistols - and dozens more gathered at Campsie. They were preparing to travel to Maroubra Beach, where up to 300 locals, many armed with crowbars, waited for an arranged fight, according to "Bra Boys" at the beach."[14]

These events took place on Monday night and were heavily reported in the Sydney press. This was supposedly in retaliation for the events at Cronulla.

Sunny, Jai and Koby have made media appearances to contradict "supposed" involvement, as recently as yesterday's Daily Telegraph (14 Dec, pg 4). I doubt that the "Bra Boys" at the beach meant to suggest that a fight had been arranged by the group. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, if anyone thinks it can be expanded beyond a stub. Should non-events be the basis of an article, despite excited media coverage? --Zigger «º» 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Bra Boys involved in Cronulla was non-existant and purely media hype. Perhaps an alternative can be to Merge the article with Maroubra, until such a time when more information is gathered about the gang. Amending vote Chanlord 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. They're not just another non-notable street gang. I had heard of them well before the last week's events. Dmharvey 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very significant players in the 2005 Cronulla riots. Cnwb 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable gang. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They are widely known in Sydney. It has also been in the papers for the last week. Jmd, if you are living in Australia, you must be ignorant or have your eyes closed, hands over your ears and shouting "lalalala" at the top of your voice. If you are outside of Australia, don't try to delete stuff that is not pertinent to you.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent

No name yet exists for this video game. This is just fan speculation. An article was already started at Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4 anyway. Both of which may fall under crystal ball. Since posting on AFD, it has been confirmed [15]. I performed a move/delete of Splinter Cell 4 to this page. Change vote to Speedy keep. K1Bond007 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its the official title of the Splinter Cell 4 now. Obviously the SC4 article needs to be moved here. Thunderbrand 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If this goes, so should 2006. Matt Yeager 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldn't Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4 bemoved to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent instead of here? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just called Tom Clany's Splinter Cell: Double Agent. It doesn't use the number 4. Thunderbrand 13:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until the game is released the article is nothing more than a placeholder and speculation. Still have possibility of becoming vaporware. Peyna 13:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The name has been confirmed, and the Splinter Cell 4 article has already been moved there. Mushroom 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The page is nothing but fan speculation as Ubisoft hasn't officially disclosed complete details of the game. Wiki doesn't need to become a GameFaqs board. TotalTommyTerror 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't we delete 2008 Summer Olympics then? Isn't that speculation? We have even 2020 Summer Olympics. The game has an official site that is linked from the Ubisoft site and an official name (now confirmed). If we deleted this article we would have to recreate it in a few months. Mushroom 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Because on the game's page the information there is completely fan-speculation. It's just what people have been conjuring up on fan forums as opposed to say, The Olympic Committee releasing details on an upcoming event. If Ubisoft had released any more official information on the game then I'd vote for a keep. TotalTommyTerror 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Then we could just keep it and remove any non-official information. The article already references [16] which is official. And the Game Informer preview linked below can be used as a source. It can be improved, there's no need to delete it. Mushroom 10:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All information contained on the page is offical, most of which coming from press cuttings based on interviews with Ubisoft staff. The latest edition of Game Informer containing a preview of Double Agent is good evidence of this, along with the latest single player trailer for Double Agent. Scan of Game Informer, [17]. Latest game trailer, [18]--Factorylad 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article clearly states that it may contain "information of a speculative nature". This includes the title of the game, as well as plot details, etc... The game has been officially announced so there is no reason to delete the article at this time. SnakeSoldier 16:03 , 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jedi6 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep additional slippery slope comparison. if we delete this, why not delete Book of Revelations because that is speculation. plus, the game, called Splinter Cell: Double Agent was on the front page of one of the recent Game Informers. --Phil 01:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Name recently reveiled, appeared in various magazines. 70.224.93.190 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FFT Clan

It's a twofer - Clancruft *and* bandcruft all in one. Band has no releases and the clan has 116 Googles. Nuke it. FCYTravis 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Pound with asteroids YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• They say the FFT stands for Final Fantasy Tactics, but I'm not buying it ... I think it stands for Fast Fourier Transform. Either way, delete!! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - cruftilicious. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, vanity. The JPS 10:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band fails WP:MUSIC (especially with hits that didn't chart), and gaming clans are otherwise non-remarkable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the band has never released a song, and I don't see any evidence that the clan has ever competed in any organised tournament (which is after all what clans are supposed to do. I believe that clan articles are wikipedia-worthy, but only if they do what clans are actually suppose to do e.g. have competed in the CPL or other tournament which itself had a wikipedia article. Cynical 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with Cynical's reasoning. Well said! --Habap 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Krich 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete with a suggestion that we re-think the rules of WP:MUSIC about what qualifies as a "half hour broadcast on a national radio" network, with maybe adding some notation or explanation that podcasting, and self-published internet radio, are problematic. Ronabop 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, off we go. Stifle 10:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magiran: All Iranian Magazine

An advertisement Bill 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa says 147,220, which puts it into the top3 most popular farsi language websites. However, that's still not close for WP:WEB and there's no other claim for notability, just an ad. Wikipedia isn't a web guide and anyone looking for that kind of trivia can look it up in alexa. - Bobet 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Alexia puts it into the top 3 most popular Farsi language websites, absent any information otherwise, that's worthy of keeping it. And why do you say advertisment? It looks like an entirely normal stub.--Prosfilaes 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Horrible article lacking content. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Being a thin article now doesn't make the topic itself non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'd be happy to consider this notable, but the article lacks content. All it says is that it lists magazines and is searchable (like most other sitest). It really doesn't make any claims why the site should be deemed remarkable. I'm happy to reconsider if expanded. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be (and looks like) a mere advert for a webiste. Could be bonafide, but due to language disparity I cannot tell (anyway, it clears less googlehits [19] than my personal website). I say, judging by what the article looks like at the moment (a screen dump and a nondescriptive sentence), delete.--Ezeu 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Nv8200p talk 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Gag (BDSM). Owen× ☎ 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gag_snob

This doesn't seem to be a term in widespread use - only 127 hits on Google for example. The page appears to have been set up purely to rant about people who make such comments about gags on discussion boards. Mdwh 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - Sorry, I really don't know enough about the subject area to know if this is made up or the real deal. We need to get some fetishist in here before we decide on the article. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Gag (BDSM). I am somewhat familiar with BDSM terminology but hardly an expert. I have never seen this term before but it looks valid. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above Renata3 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard this term before, with almost 20 years of SM experience. This seems to be a joke by someone with a POV. --Krich 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Gag (BDSM), lest we have paddle snob, horseplay snob, etc. Ronabop 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Ronabop. Stifle 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge This term is used on forums. Bedroom Bondage's forum used it (Lorelei mentioned she was not a gag snob), and I see it used a lot in "small time" forums, such as AVGDID and Brian's Page (brianspage.com). It's common enough that I've seen it a lot. And yes, I am a bondage fetishist, so I am the type of person who would have experience.
  • comment This unsigned comment was by 69.248.236.62 (talk), (the only person ever to write or edit the Gag_snob page). I searched and could not find any mention of it on any forum, but even so - the fact that one or two individuals have used a made-up terminology does not make it ligitimate or note-worthy. It still appears to be a localized made-up term that almost no one in SM has ever heard or used. --Krich 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I would assume. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gag+snob%22 yields plenty of results. Note the contexts its used in fit what the article describes, so I would imagine the article is telling the truth. --CGally81 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that plenty - I've certainly seen pages with many hundreds of results being proposed for deletion (can't remember off hand if they actually were). It really isn't that hard to get a hundred or so results at all - I mean, a pseuodnym I use and is unique to me gets 647 results, but I don't think that's worthy of an article! A piece of software I wrote gets 1,570 results, but it's yet to get a Wikipedia mention let alone an article (and rightly so). (Of course, Google hits isn't the only way of rating how widespread a term is, but I've not yet been persuaded of any other reason why this term is notable.)

Also to be exact, although the term exists and may be worthy of documenting, the information in the article is certainly incorrect (the article takes the way it would be used as a derogatory term, and presents that as fact - and claims like "has a difficult time being aroused by bondage imagery unless it contains a gag" look just like insults). I don't mind if the article stays - if so I'd delete most of what's there and document its usage as a derogatory term - but thought I'd propose for deletion here as it doesn't seem to be used much at all. Mdwh 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (8/1). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haun Saussy

Obscure, possible vanity, orphan Mecanismo 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the google test shows the wikipedia's article as the top reference and there are onlyh 20 articles listed. Besides, the page is orphan. Possible a poor vanity page. --Mecanismo 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, is a real professor at Yale [20] with 3 books released. feydey 12:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 3 books passes WP:BIO. Stifle 10:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see what there is to discuss, it sounds like he clearly meets WP:BIO. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- JJay 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep (but cleanup/expand). C'mon, stop the d**n anti-academic bias. He was Stanford chair with 3 solid books (now at Yale, but not chair). Admittedly, books read by narrow audiences, but apparently genuine contributions to human knowledge. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are similar articles too. The JPS 10:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I know very few tenured professors that haven't published at least this much. Peyna 13:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Professors at major research universities are notable. u p p l a n d 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crossed Realmz Echo Realm

Kobra's Realm (AfD discussion), Crossed Realmz 4 (AfD discussion), and this were created by VoodooKobra (talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. No-one else has published anything about it at all. There is no independent evidence, apart from the author's sole word (see also this edit and these edits), that the game even exists, let alone what the details of its geography are. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete together with other 2 Renata3 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• powerful vibrations should rip it apart Most links dead in this (and related) articles, seems like a total fantasy project. Ronabop 09:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, get going per Renata3. Stifle 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and burn the remaining bytes to prevent resurrection. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kobra's Realm

This, Crossed Realmz 4 (AfD discussion), and Crossed Realmz Echo Realm (AfD discussion) were created by VoodooKobra (talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. The same is true of this web site. No-one else has published anything about it at all. The only things written about it are trivial web directory listings such as this, which are worthless for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article. VoodooKobra stated in this edit and these edits that the reason that there are no sources for this article is because the web site is down, and that the way to verify the content of this article is to have been a "member of Kobra's Realm throughout the history of the website". Compiling a firsthand history of a web site from direct observation is original research, which is forbidden here. (The place to do it is on the web site's own "history of this web site" page.) Furthermore: Readers are not expected to have to repeat the entire research of the original author in order to verify articles. This web site thus fails to satisfy the primary WP:WEB criterion. Creating anything but a web directory entry ("Kobra's Realm is a web site with domain name D that was registered by N on Y.") for this web site is original research and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an article ABOUT a website. Why did you have to type all that BS? You're looking into it too much... if there's some BS technicallity here or there: FIX IT. Don't just delete it. That's censorship. Quit being so imperialistic! Kobra 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Anytime someone who is named after the website comes to its defense, I have to be skeptical. And it sounds like these guys didn't have an offsite backup plan at all (in one fire they lost everything). And they don't seem notable. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Long live imperialism! Jasmol 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this mess Renata3 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete forked article. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Orlowski (journalist)

This is a verbatim copy of the existing Andrew Orlowski article with the text of the now-deleted article Wikifiddler inserted verbatim. It is possibly the most textbook case Wikipedia has ever seen of a bad-faith POV fork; DannyWilde (talk · contribs) did not want to abide by the consensus he thought the community might come to (which they did) to delete the contents of Wikifiddler, so he merged the contents to Andrew Orlowski. When that act was opposed, he took Andrew Orlowski (journalist), which should not have existed unless there was another notable Andrew Orlowski to differentiate from, and instead of making it a redirect, made it his own private version of the article, the way he wanted it. I have seen a number of POV forks in my time at Wikipedia, but never one so blatant, or so blatantly in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WITHOUT MERGE per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Act per nom --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to deter wikifiddling. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia being criticised, but this kind of bad faith POV bullshit has to stop. Reyk 06:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No gaming the system. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andrew Orlowski, do not merge. Copy-pasting Wikifiddler to another article is trying to cheat its AfD process. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No question on this one. --Krich 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chick Bowen 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neier 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this fork. Stifle 10:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phaze II

Another unverifiable and non-encyclopedic gaming clan. So they participate in online games. Wow. Few relevant Googles. No assertion of broader interest. Nothing that makes them different from the eleventy trillion other clans in the universe. FCYTravis 01:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with phazer and per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable. Thunderbrand 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as looking at their own forums, they seem to be pretty inactive. Nothing here asserts any notable, verifiable accomplishments that separate them from the eleventy trillion other clans in the universe. I think we should have articles on online groups, but this one just isn't very significant. --Habap 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another gaming clan... yawn. --אריאל יהודה 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Krich 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Phaze III = Delete Ronabop 09:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AnimalesSinHogar

Made by owner of organization (look at the username, it's something like blabla@animalessinhogar.com), and thus invalid. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete : Not-English novacatz 02:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Babelfish translation: Animals Without Home are a civil association without aims of profit with the following objectives: To offer to information related to the well-being animal, to sensitize the society and to foment the responsible possession. To stimulate the left animal adoption. To obtain transitory homes for left animals, avoiding of that form the overload of the protectors. To make necessary campaigns of shelter harvesting, medicines and other articulos for the animals in street situation or that live in protecotras. To diminish the animal overpopulation by means of castrations in districts of low resources. Our main tool of communication: <site link> - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotion of non-profit organization. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think it could be speedied Renata3 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Stifle 10:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty ct

Delete: Definitely unencyclopedic and possibly advertising.

• Delete and quick. Renata3 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, advertising novacatz 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Although the thought of the guy in that pic having anything to do with software programming was hilarious. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move to WP:BJ. --Mareino 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with a possible BJAODN. Not a speedy delete because it is not about a person. Stifle 10:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kundi

This is a pointless article and is spam. --King of Hearts 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - looks like nonsense to me. novacatz 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've removed the nonsense and made a stub- looks like real Pashtun tribe, so Keep. -- JJay 02:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Punkmorten 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay Dlyons493 Talk 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after the work JJay did on this. --Krich 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Punkmorten deserves credit too for cleaning up my first attempt. -- JJay 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, good article on a good topic.Gateman1997 06:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, shall mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. Congrats to JJay & Punkmorten. -- JLaTondre 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idiki

Website is non-notable. When I created a user account there I was user number 15 (!). Page was initially created by anon one month ago and not updated since. novacatz 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Interwiki it! Errr ... just kidding, delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. What's unclear about Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine? -- Marcika 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Marcika. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Krich 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Marcika. Stifle 10:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Much of the core contect is on the Daily Show article already Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clarey

Article about an intern at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart who committed suicide. Tragic, but not notable. Gets 1 google news hit. Renata3 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This was added by 61.68.110.44 at the end of Renata's post above, I've moved it to here: Now he gets 3 pages of hits. IT MADE THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. the entire NYC TV community is talking about it. Turnstep 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio Renata3 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, I didn't even hear about this news until I read it here, and I'm a pretty big Daily Show fan. Anyway, Merge into Daily Show - Bill Clarey isn't notable as a standalone biography but the suicide of an intern is probably notable on the show's page. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it, as tonight's show was dedicated to him, so it's helpful to have a page to find when searching.
• After watching the show I searched his name and the article came up. It was informing, as I did not know who he was or what had happened when John Stewart dedicated the show to him.
• Agreed, keep it. I saw the show was dedicated to him tonight and immediately did a wikipedia search for him.
• Merge and redirect as per Cyde. I'm sure lots of people are going to be curious as to who he is after the Daily Show's dedication to him on the 13th; however, sadly, he isn't notable on his own. --Chris Love 04:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. As stated above. Duff 05:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I think we should redirect this to The Daily Show's page, or keep the article at least for a week, as it will be very useful to people searching for his name after the Daily Show airing. --User:fuchikoma
• Merge and redirect Agreed, nice to be able to find something about him after seeing tonight's episode. (With the Howard Stern interview it will likely be reaired) --Duozmo
• Merge and redirect Yes, heard about it when the show was cancelled and again in the epilogue when I watched it this evening. If it could be determined why then perhaps a link to the right article on causes of suicide might be worth adding. --Clem Holloman
• Merge and redirect Agreed also, I immediately searched for it when i saw the show, keep for a week then relate to daily show page --null
• Merge and redirect I also searched for his name after watching the show, agree with keep for a week then redirect to Daily Show. --Mac4drew 12:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect after the interest has died down Say, a few days to a week.
• Delete. If he killed himself as a result of something happening on the show, that would be notable, but we have no information as to this. If he killed himself due to problems from his own life, then sorry, it's not particular noteworthy. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect He may not be notable on his own, but is certainly part of the history of The Daily Show. I, too, came to Wikipedia to find out who he was after watching The Daily Show of December 13. Haakon 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it I came looking after the dedication and found my answer. Appreciate it's existence, sort of an obituary as well. Wouldn't fit as well as a merge, but should be a link from the Daily Show page.
• Keep it The detail in the article is difficult to find elsewhere. I, for one, am curious to know why he died. Based on the article and his interests and the "Moment of Zen" dedicated to him, I wonder if he was gay. It's interesting that the show dedicated to his death also said some positive things about South Africa's decision to allow gay couples to marry. I caution that I have no knowledge of Bill Clarey's sexual orientation, but gay suicides of young people are very common, and if it does turn out to be the case, it could be a public reminder of this. (Matthew Sheppard's death initially was not focusd on his sexual orientation either.) In any event, I'd keep it, with a link to and from the Daily Show. And I, for one, will check it periodically to see if anyone comes forward with additional information.

Comment to the two anonymous "Keep it" votes above: You cannot vote anonymously. Please sign in to your users and sign your votes if you want them to count. Haakon 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep/Merge Google is up to 472 hits on a quoted name [21]. Keep if more data rolls out, merge if this is all we can find out and source. Ronabop 10:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it It seems to be a topical issue in New York at the moment. It apparently really upset alot of the staff at TDS because he was so popular there.((User:Mkelleher))
    • Comment down to 195 hits on google now, FWIW. Ronabop 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: This search query results in 299 hits on Google. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect pertinent content to The Daily Show, as per other voters. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's obviously useful to a lot of people (such as myself) looking for more information on this guy after seeing the Daily Show dedication. Wikipedia was the first source I looked to. The fact that this article is here, that this many people are interested in reading it, is enough evidence that it's of some pertinence and use. People who aren't interested in it, don't have to read it. Ario 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep young people in particular are trying ti find out who this guy is. (Mkelleher 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
• Keep per above. zellin t / c 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I see much of the data from this article has already been incorporated into the main Daily Show article anyway. 68.233.42.115 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. If people are really concerned about this, merge is somewhere in a few months or renominate for AfD. Turnstep 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge This can be considered a notable time in TDS history. I believe that this is the first time that they cancelled a scheduled show for any reason. Jon dedicated a Moment of Zen to the man, for chrissake. He never does that for anyone unless he wants to offend them. Keep it or merge it in. ACEBROCK (NO ACCOUNT)--4.131.134.166 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, per others. WP:ISNOT a memorial, or a news site. This is of interest solely in the context of the show. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge This is not a memorial, this is TDS history. (Mkelleher 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flee the seen

Fails WP:MUSIC - Renata3 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Renata3 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, fails WP:MUSIC. -- Marcika 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Love the band, and these guys are friends of mine, but I do have to say that they don't meet the criteria of having a Wikipedia entry (yet). Not to mention, whoever wrote this article has no idea what they're talking about... —the preceding unsigned comment is by 207.192.213.5 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity, how many of these do we have a day? Stifle 10:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with all above. --Bad carpet 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Ozarka

Not encyclopedic, this is a vanity page. --Aude 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ---Aude 02:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. - orioneight (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - marked as a7. Chick Bowen 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thewhackedband

Non-notable band. Google for the 'definitive' album gives no relevant hits. Looks like vanity article novacatz 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN, vanity. The JPS 10:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Googling for the band gives me a hit for Garageband.com which has the exact same copy of their bio. Clearly a non-notable garage band. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Note, is also copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• copyvio tagged and bagged. Closing AfD. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Division theorem aka Division algorithm

Not worth keeping --Quarl 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, that's not how we name articles. Gazpacho 04:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - bad name, POV fork (of math, mind you), all redundant (and wrong) information. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- rambling nonsense. Reyk 06:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - inconsequential fork of Remainder, not even worth a merge/redirect. --Zetawoof 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - first half of the article is on Remainder, as has been pointed out; second half is complete nonsense. Pierremenard
• Delete - a superior article on the same topic exists at division algorithm. B.Wind 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Did the Chicken...?

NN Bachrach44 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Croat Canuck 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• ... cross the road? To avoid being deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this, but suggest making this title a redirect to Joke, which is where Why did the chicken cross the road? redirects to. Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then recreate as redirect to Joke, per Smerdis of Tlön. Saberwyn - 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Asked to revisit. Although available worldwide, has to be ordered through a small number of websites. No 'real-world' sales points internationally, and none in the handful of random United States I checked. 14,700 Google hits for "Why did the chicken...?" game -"cross the", of which 330 are unique, and after the first page or two it degenerates into forum posts and vaiants of the "Why did the chicken do this? gag. No change in vote. Saberwyn - 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's just not an online game, it's a commericially available game and world-wide available as indicated here. It does need de-spamming, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Availability doesn't translate into notability, however. It needs to be deleted so someone can provide a spam-free version of the article if the game's notability can be objectively demonstrated. B.Wind 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bearon Von's

• Delete. Fabricated (unverifiable). [22] –M^T 02:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Computerjoe 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless meaningful external references can be provided. Edgar181 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 00:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Korean Communications Overview

Wikipedia is not a howto guide Bachrach44 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Daniel Case 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki. Is there an Etiquette wikibook? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you guys for not notifying me so I can edit this page, now I must edit AND re-submit instead of a simple edit online. Please use the tools to notify authors to edit pages instead of deleting pages within minutes of their posting. -Adam
  • I'm not sure exactly how you think this process works, but there's two things you should be aware of. First of all, the page in question has not currently been deleted. All discussions for deletion are left open for 7 days for people to discuss, vote, and revise. If you revise the page such that it meets wikipedia criteria and policy, people who have previously voted for deletion may even be inclined to change their votes. Secondly, the AFD tag at the top does nto prevent you from editing the article in the same way you would have. The only thing we ask is that you not delete the box at the top which indicates to the viewer that the article is being discussed for possible deletion. Lastly, you can click on "watch" at the top of any page and any changes to that page will appear in your watchlist. --Bachrach44 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. (Wikibooks has said previously (in a similar article for Japan) that they don't want these. It could possibly go to Wikisource though.) Stifle 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_Arcand_Group

Non-notable spam cruft novacatz 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, attempt at marketing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more than advertising. Edgar181 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising, side note: they are not even well known in the Orlando area. Das Nerd 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and possible copyvio. Stifle 10:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep what copyvio? preceding commment comes from same poster who created article

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Lady in the Water. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lady in the Water

I look forward to seeing the movie when it comes out, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bachrach44 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This movie already has an imdb entry[23], currently in post-production (which means it could do with an entry even if it didn't have a distro date--which it does[24]--July 21st. Perhaps we should just delete 2006 if we throw this out.
• Speed Keep and Redirect to Lady in the Water. The article is well-sourced. Carioca 04:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Verifiable information exists on this but article is speedy deletable at the moment for little or no content. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Boldly redirected to Lady in the Water. That oughta handle it; before blanking, the article didn't appear to say anything that the proper one didn't. --Zetawoof 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Zetawoof. Capitalistroadster 08:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per others. Scoo 09:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect looks fine. The other article has enough verifiable info to be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. If you're oppsed to an A7, how 'bout an A1? -R. fiend 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Model 38

Non-notable band. Web presence is slim; cannot find them on AMG. Merovingian 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and expand A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN The JPS 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A1. Stifle 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet WP:Music
• It was tagged for speedy and I speedied it. Was well within the spirit of the law if not the letter. If you disagree, sue me. -R. fiend 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied on what grounds? An A7 for a band? It's wrong to misuse speedies. -- JJay 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Meh. Like I said, sue me. -R. fiend 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astrobhadauria.com

Looks to be original research by a guy from the site in question. The site isn't notable with no alexa rank and google shows no pages linking to it. If someone can get anything useful out of it, please tell.

• Delete - Bobet 03:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ---Kyknos 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Edgar181 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Covered in Dust

Does not pass standards of WP:MUSIC. No Google results for "Covered in Dust""Jonathan LeShana". Chick Bowen 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and expand A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity --אריאל יהודה 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and do not expand anything. -- JJay 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and expand A7 per Jeffrey. Stifle 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the sentiment, folks, but please let us not debate policy on AfD subpages. Thanks. Chick Bowen 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabrina Maria Magdalena Preiner

Delete. Non-notable or non-existant person Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Notability is irrelevant. This person is unverifiable. The article is one sentence long, and from that sentence I am unable to find out who the subject of the article actually is. My hypothesis is that some teenager in Winden, Germany, is in love. Speedy delete. Uncle G 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Unverifiable and nn-bio as per above. -- Marcika 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - A1 and A7 JoJan 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CustomerVision

This article was speedied thrice as spam, but these speedies weren't really valid, and were reversed by WP:DRV. Since two people actually deleted it, it seems reasonable to give consideration to the deletion option here. The del review debate is here. I do not find a great many Ghits nor anything on Google News, but apparently they serve some clients you've probably heard of; whether they import notability from that or not is for AfD. -Splash^talk 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Searching, I find things that look independent, being located on web sites that have no immediate connection with the company, but that all have first-person statements ("We often start out helping a customer ...", "Our Solutions enable content creation ...", "We believe ...") somewhere. I cannot find any published works about this company that are from sources other than the company itself. There are no independently sourced books, consumer reports, "in depth" magazine articles, news coverage, or journal articles. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. There is no way to write more than a business directory article here. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. android79 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 04:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete was redirect --Gbleem 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) On the talk page I suggested redirect to wiki software. Kinda like redirecting kleenex to tissue.--Gbleem 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, kleenex doesn't redirect anywhere. (It's also a product, not a company as the subject of this article is.) This is because the trademark satisfies the WP:CORP criterion for having become genericized. Uncle G 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't actually look up kleenex obviously. I was just thinking someone hearing about CustomerVision might want to see wikisoftware. Why not put in a redirect? --Gbleem 05:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Putting in redirects for every company in existence would make Wikipedia into a business directory by the back door. Uncle G 12:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Oops I voted more than once. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep assuming tht it is a notable company, it could stand to be written in English (not marketing speak). DeathThoreau 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Stifle 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Entry apears to be nothing more than advertising a product. Ambix 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have updated my original entry for CustomerVision. Please review and consider the hopefully much improved version. I am trying to quickly learn how to craft an article that meets the community standards and I would appreciate a chance to get this right. I have tried to use other entries in the same "List of wiki software products" as a guide. Also CustomerVision is both the company name and the name of the software and I've tried to focus the article on the nature of the software. bkeairns
• Delete, Non-notable and advertisement. Deletion Review participants, please see my comment here, thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was convert to disambiguation page. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Road

Article is likely as large is it'll ever be. And I generally dispute the idea that an individual track from Mario Kart is notable. Locke Cole 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Mario Kart and Delete. —Locke Cole 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. To finish a merge and retain the edit history, one needs to redirect. Merge and delete cannot be combined. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess I didn't see the need for a redirect since it's doubtful many people will try to go directly to an article for Rainbow Road. As far as the attribution is concerned, if it becomes an issue the deleted history can still be viewed (with specific information viewable by an admin). In any event, I've modified my suggestion. —Locke Cole 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On the Kelly Fleming AFD, it was deleted and recreated as a redirect. Why the edit history wasn't preserved is my question... Hbdragon88 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Individual track? Either you haven't actually played Mario Kart or you've only played one game in the series. There are multiple Rainbow Roads (each of which is different) and each one is the final course of every game, as the article says. --Evice 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've played them all except for the newer Nintendo DS version (haven't had time). The article, as it is now, says all it's pretty much ever going to say. The content there would be more appropriate as a section in Mario Kart. —Locke Cole 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I added Rainbow Road into the main Mario Kart article because I felt that it was significant enough to be put in the main article anyway. I also put it in because I was thinking about making Bowser's Castle as another article (but have been more hesitant since seeing this go up for AFD. Hbdragon88 05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Make this page a disambig. The phrase "Rainbow Road" is pretty notable, and gets over 100,000 google hits [25]. The page should deffinately mention and link to Mario, but I don't know if that merits it's own page. A couple others that should deffinately be included are the song by Joan Baez [26] (just link to her and/or the album if no article is written about the song) and the book [27]. Blackcats 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good research. Uncle G 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig per Blackcats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig as above.--Ukdan999 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Expand. Perhaps a listing of each Rainbow Road track from each game, with a mention of what was notable about it (or something like that)? Maxistheman 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig per Blackcats. Stifle 10:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig. Ditto. SFT | Talk 06:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig as per above. Agree with Uncle G, nice work! —Locke Cole 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig seems like a good idea to me! --ParkerHiggins 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi Against Sith

This looks like a non-notable web group. I count five active members, and the group gets less than 600 google hits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The group may get less than 600 google hits, but there are few people playing this game currently, as it is a "classic". more than five active members thank-you. and its forums at http://www.newjedix.com/jas serve as a hub for several groups of this specific gaming community. from the forum stats: Number of posts: 726 Posts per day: 3.37 Number of topics: 106 Topics per day: 0.20 Number of users: 36 Users per day: 0.79

the group IS active, and would like to be accessable to more people who have an interest in this game as it is increasingly diificult for newcomers to find gaming groups in this game as "Zone.com" the original multiplayer hub when the game was released was bought out by Microsoft and the websites support of the game was dropped. I believe this is worth keeping on the wiki, as a service not to the group, but simply to people looking for gaming communities of this game. Colt 38 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, according to the consensus developing at Wikipedia:Websites, a web-related article should meet certain criteria to be included as a Wikipedia article. Firstly, it should be the subject of at least national-level media attention, which, although may be there, I am having trouble finding. Secondly, a forum or group must have 5,000 plus active members, or have a significant impact on the wider community; by your admission you only have 36. Thirdly, the website must have an Alexa rating of 10,000 or better. The domain that hosts your clan's page (at clubs.battlestats.com) rates in at over 4 million. Your forums (at http://www.newjedix.com/jas/) just don't even rate. You're all probably a bunch of very nice people, but I just don't think an encyclopedia-level article can be written about you guys. Delete - Saberwyn - 09:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Saberwyn's crushing attack. Advice to Colt 38: move into your own userspace before your article is deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn. Have fun playing the game, guys. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Saberwyn. DeathThoreau 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Saberwyn. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Master Saberwyn. Croat Canuck 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Darth Saberwyn... B.Wind 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laser Thinking

This reads like a get-rich-quick grow-your-our-business marketing/motivational pitch. Fplay 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure if we looked hard enough, it'll turn out to be a copyvio anyway. Either way, exterminate. The JPS 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Acronym cruft. The article doesn't acknowledge that LASER is actually an acronym, so ... delete! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neologism. DeathThoreau 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete And also, it's incorrect. Unless laser thinking operates in a vacuum, it will diffuse like a flashlight beam also. Just over a longer distance.
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[talk] 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote tally was:

• 21 delete -- 55.26%
• 10 keep (8 keep + 2 keep/merge) -- 26.3%
• 5 merge (3 merge + 2 keep/merge) -- 13.1%
• 2 keep/merge -- 5.26%

[edit] List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

This article was deleted in this AfD. A debate at WP:DRV was concerned that there might have been more particpation if this were re-listed (though note there is no quorum for AfDs). So here we are: the orignial nomination read: "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful.".-Splash^talk 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to closed DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful." jucifer 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the most notable titles to Daily Show; some, not all, of these segments are memorable within the show, as per WP coverage of SNL. Xoloz 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; it's fancruft, but that doesn't make it unusual - Guettarda 04:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep could be useful for someone. -- JJay 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I pity that someone. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll let them know. -- JJay 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. This list is referred to by several articles, so keeping it would be the easiest solution. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To be precise, it is listed by two: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ludicrous fan-cruft. I love the show, but this is a running gag that could be generated by a computer (Subject: "Media" Output: "Senior Media Correspondent"). Utterly pointless list. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. About as useful to fans and others as lists of who has been reading the news on television each and every day. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge into Daily Show if you have to. Proto t c 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscrimante collection of information, for the reason articulated very clearly by Sjakkalle. If there were something interesting about some of the entries in the list, then that can be mention in a "Trivia" section of the main article on the show. We don't need an information-free collection of newsreaders' names. (Note that although I nominated, that was procedural.) -Splash^talk 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete A good short list of examples appears in the Daily Show article, but if the list page could be improved: remove the redundant titles, that is, list each title only once, I might be convinced to change to a weak keep. D-Rock 14:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Daily Show space, i.e. Daily Show/List of correspondent titles. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no "Daily Show space". Sub-pages are a bad thing. They are sometimes used for structural reasons on project pages but we have intentionally disabled their use in the article space. See Wikipedia:Subpages#History of subpages for more. Rossami (talk)
• Delete. A few mentions of memorable titles are appropriate in the main article. Attempting to create a comprehensive list of every such title is beyond the scope of even a paperless encyclopedia. This list is so large (and will continue to get larger as long as the show continues) and the contents so trivial that the list can not be effectively protected from subtle vandalism such as the introduction of plausible but inaccurate information. Yes, in theory it could be protected. But in practice, we have a continual shortage of informed and responsible editors. "Merge and redirect" is, in my mind, unnecessary since the contents of this article came from the main article. History of the original attribution is already preserved there. Rossami (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I share your concerns, but if "likely target of subtle vandalism" was a deletion criterion, we'd have an awful lot of deleting to do. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The standard is not "likely target" of vandalism but whether the article will draw enough informed editors to protect it from the inevitable vandalism. George W. Bush is among the most vandalized pages on Wikipedia but we have lots of reputable editors with deep and specific content knowledge who verify recent contributions and are able to quickly find and revert the vandalism. Rossami (talk)
• Delete - I listed it the first time, and my opinion hasn't changed. One quick question, did I screw up some policy somewhere that prevented the original VFD from getting listed in all the appropriate places? AFAIK, everything was done properly. Not sure why this is being relisted, other than someone being unhappy with the outcome. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The concensus of the Deletion Review discussion was that there was a good faith request for relisting to gather more participation in the debate. As far as I can see, you followed policy correctly but we allow exceptions from policy when the community thinks that might be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk)
  • Comment - There was no hint of criticism for the way you handled the AfD, only concern that no-one who edited the article's content participated in the AfD. We have one article editor so far in this AfD, so it's improved in that respect... --- Charles Stewart 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful." As he says. Pilatus 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's not have the "it wouldn't be found in Brittanica article. Given how Wikipedia has been under fire lately, don't you all think that gems of articles like this are really where Wiki shines?Moveapage 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • new user created since the discussion began. contributions
• Delete or merge some examples into The Daily Show. Edgar181 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and return to sender. listcruft.Gateman1997 23:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. One of the more notable parts of The Daily Show is their parody of news correspondents, and this is basically that in a nutshell. karmafist 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless list that's basically just listing jokes that aren't funny in this context. Just about every day they come up with a new title for someone, based on what's currently in the news: "Senior Crips on Death Row Correspondent", "Senior Iraq Death-toll Correspondent", "Senior Wikipedia is Unreliable Correspondent", etc. No real value. Why not just make List of stuff on TV some of us thought was funny and put all lousy eggs in one basket? -R. fiend 06:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 15:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wow this article really is crap. What is comes down to is a list of bad repetitive jokes made on a TV program. This has no place in wiki. It is total BS. jucifer 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• That means Keep, right? -- JJay 01:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I don't like deleting obviously well-constructed articles, but the encyclopediac merits of the article that have been argued for are sufficiently slight that they do not outweigh the concerns raised by Rossami. --- Charles Stewart 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous fancruft. --DDG 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Juicifer. David | Talk 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Considering how thorough the first is right now, I have no worries about it becoming corrupted by vandals or falling out of use. Plus, these sorts of data-intensive articles are precisely Wiki's advantage over paper encyclopedias. --Mareino 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an undiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--nixie 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Smerge into Daily Show. BD2412 T 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this *is* encyclopedic. It's a completely verifiable collection of related information about a very important part of culture (a television show in this case). Turnstep 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I do find it notable and easily verifiable. 69.136.243.80 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The above keep is myself... I somehow got logged out. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to win-win game. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Win/Win

Appears to be a test page, original text copied verbatim from a copyrighted weblog entry and does not describe an actual theory Rcade 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• mark it copyvio and take it to WP:CV. either someone will write something good or itll be deleted anyway. BL kiss the lizard 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Boldly redirected to Win-win game. Bring it on. Proto t c 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Still in need of a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joaquin Maria Gutierrez

This article was previously deleted in this AfD. Some questions on the help desk lead to this deletion being reviewed. Some new information was found that may justify keeping the (restored) article e.g. [28] [29] [30]. -Splash^talk 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The prizes look borderline notable, but ultimately a talented high-schooler looks non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and rewrite. The article is too poorly written, giving the impression that he's just one more un-notable kid in the world. It's not even up-to-date. Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|^(Talk)]] 07:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs a rewrite and sources, though. Lupo 12:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The maths prizes are not a reason for inclusion, winning national grade/high school music competitions aren't either in my opinion. Solo performances in front of large international audiences might be, but I don't see nearly enough evidence for exceptional talent and fame as a prodigy on google. -- Marcika 13:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Vanity. Proto t c 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the kind of problem I am talking about. The article is so poorly written that the importance of his achievements don't come through. He did not win a school competition, it was a nationwide competition, in all instances. What constitutes a prodigy, may I ask? Is it Google sources? If you want some more evidence, may I direct you to [31], which is a government archive. It clearly states in one section that President Arroyo awarded Gutierrez an Achiever Award. Personally, I think that for a single person to attract the attention of a president, in whatever nation, he has to be quite talented or skilled or notable or whatever word you'd like to use. I do not think this is a vanity article or anything similar. This kid is fast on the rise, and sooner or later, somebody's going to write him in here, whether you like it or not, so what's the use in deleting it? Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|^(Talk)]] 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps you could be bold and rewrite the article, as you are clearly well informed on this young man, and so would be well-placed to reshape this abhorrence into something that can convince people the article should exist. His being 'fast on the rise' is not going to convince anyone that an article should exist on him now. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. Proto t c 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not well written, but competing in the International Math Olympiad as a 12-year-old is probably notable. Weak keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite the heck out of it While I don't like overacheivers as much as the next guy, they're here to stay. International awards, national prestige (you know, for a violinist) and all of that are notable. The article is rambling and needs to be fixed up. DeathThoreau 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• It looks notable enough to be kept, so long as it is rewritten, and fast. I say give the boy a chance. Perhaps we give Don Diego around a week to write? And if it's still in shambles, then delete. {{User:JMBell/sig}} 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try my best, but I'm not the best of writers, and I only have limited information. Give me more time! Don Diego^(Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When his career gets going, he can come back and write another vanity page. Eusebeus 15:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Any editors from the Philippines chiming in on this? I hesitate to say that the Filipino violinist is nn because of relative lack of exposure to someone who could be quite notable in his country. Take five and see if his countrymen, if possible, can tell us about this person's notariety (or lack thereof). For every one page of promotion the Philippines disseminates in the international media, the United States puts out at least 20,000. If the article is kept, a rewrite is in order, but at least it's salvageable. B.Wind 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as incredible vanity/fiction. Jake013 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Racist ranting removed. Lupo 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Oh yeah, the original VfD nominator Jake013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). No edits since October 18, and then comes back just for this racist rant? Gimme a break! Lupo 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see what's so racist in saying that I don't believe that a 15-year old can do math and music and come from the Philippines at the same time. It's a fact of life that even competent adults, much less teens, cannot balance their time so that they can study two entirely different fields and still be good at it. And I do not know anybody talented from the Philippines, which I think is currently embroiled in a corruption scandal, correct? I simply cannot begin to comprehend how a "prodigy" can come from such an un-nurturing country. And even with proof of his "achievements", I'd still be very skeptical. Jake013 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably notable, as per B. Wind. Wellmann 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Lulu. Stifle 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another Ivan Cherevko?  Grue  20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think not, otherwise he wouldn't have all these decent sources. That's what I think. Don Diego^(Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Deaththoreau. Sp@rkplug 13:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. I happen to know Master Gutierrez personally, and I think he does deserve an entry, after all he's done (though it is in dire need of rewriting). I don't think it would be fair to cite a lack of sources as proof of non-notability. After all, some of the articles written in the Philippines aren't online, and some are real old or have been erased from archives (which happened to some reviews I've been looking for), so it wouldn't be fair saying that a lack of Google sources justifies his non-notability. While it is true taht he still has much to achieve, it is also true that so far, he has already achieved much. Chosen One 16:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • New reference. (Philippine Star) Chosen One 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny. Usually people write vanity articles themselves, or at least about themselves. As far as I am aware, Mr. Gutierrez has done neither. And I have yet to see his defending comments on this page, if, as you claim, he is the original author of this abomination. Chosen One 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rewrite per DeathThoreau and Chosen One. H.J.Potter 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Neutrality. Jamie 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life date

Neologism, completely not worth moving to Wiktionary. Renata3 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Renata3 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypnogog

NN band. Jamie 04:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, NN The JPS 10:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. No AMG entry, only a MySpace page. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more random bands Stifle 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Likos

This ammounts to a project announcement by the Wikipedian who wrote the page. Fplay 04:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A google search for likos linux turns up nothing relevant except Wikipedia and a brief mention on what appears to be the article creator's blog [32]. The article states "Website: In Development". -- JLaTondre 04:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - If I had a dollar for every proposed Linux distribution I would be able to afford the 540 pc. Craftsman toolkit from Sears. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Column (journalism)

Dictdef Jamie 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --אריאל יהודה 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. Stifle 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Good topic for an article. -- JJay 11:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Forge World. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Cottrell

Nominating for deletion as Games Workshop-cruft. I believe this man would fail WP:BIO, even though he is one of the minds behind the Forge World modelling company. Saberwyn - 10:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Forge World. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per Andrew Lenahan. Movementarian 09:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per. Leave a redirect, natch. Proto t c 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge concur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Andrew Lenehan. Stifle 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastian Wyclef

Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but merge content into The Heroin Addicts if latter survives AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn musician from an nn band. Stifle 10:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big boy tomato

Fails WP:MUSIC as far as I see. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. Delete. Proto t c 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well, according to the article, it has one member who is part of KMFDM, which is notable, and thus qualifies under WP:MUSIC. However, the drummer for KMFDM is En Esch, not someone named "Blads". There is also an AMG entry for Big Boy Tomato that's empty. Meanwhile, PIG is composed of one person, Raymond Watts. Interestingly enough, the AMG entry for the Yo-Yo's, a British punk band, notes that Tom Spencer is the vocalist (like this article claims), but he came from a band called Sugar Snatch, and the drummer is "The Mad Bladder" (could be shortened to Blads). Regardless, the Yo-Yo's and KMFDM don't seem to have any connection. All in all, I believe this adds up to a hoax. Thus, delete. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Howcheng's excellent analysis. Stifle 10:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:FCYTravis. Jamie 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page/Moral responsibility

wierd title, self ref and dicdef all in one go! delete! BL kiss the lizard 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip McLachlan

Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but merge content into The Heroin Addicts is latter survives AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Lulu. Stifle 10:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Interiot 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ani-pock.net

• Delete, almost completely non-notable. Alexa pagerank has no data for it. Of all the Google searches I could think of, the most I could get was 147 hits. Interiot 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have 1.7 million hits though!
• See also http://extremetracking.com/open;unique?login=pockyrev

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tempo tantrum

Non-notable band, no Allmusic entry, possible hoax elements. Band does have a Website at [33]. Klaw ¡digame! 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Beat me to it. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks like they released one CD in 1995 [34] [35]. Despite the state of their website, I don't think it's a hoax, but they still may not meet WP:MUSIC. --Interiot 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How do we start a proposal for a WP:CSD rule for NN bands, in the same vein as {{nn-bio}}? There certainly seem to be a lot of these.Jamie 10:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and go to Talk on WP:CSD and start a section. Leave message on my talk page if you do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete ^ i'd back such a proposal... _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 10:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Merovingian 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digital death

Some hacking group, but I don't know how well-known they are outside of their circle. Merovingian 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Should be speedied under an expanded A7 - everyone aggrees A7 should be expanded, the language should just be changed, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intertech Satellites

Advert for non-notable company. Found at most 715 google hits, though "Intertech Satellite" itself gets only 98 hits. Interiot 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertisment Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Spondoolicks 15:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- JJay 11:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vicious Party

Band does not seem to be verifiable, at least not notable enough to be verified via Google; basically just a vanity garage band article Bumm13 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity. --InShaneee 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, especially since "there aren't many information about componentes" of the band. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lm-diagram

Original research, sadly (linguistics). Fplay 05:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research. I was confused, until I spotted the piped link to a User account. The JPS 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete interesting, but original research. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gpl-violations.org

There's no reason why this web site should have its own article rather than being mentioned in GPL (if at all). Delete. Catamorphism 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then the correct thing to do would be to merge and redirect. I have no objection to that, but since I was the one who created it earlier today, I think it should stand as its own article, about a (by low wiki standards) notable group, so keep. Thanks, Sdedeo 06:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nah, not-notable. Make sure the URL is in the external links in GPL and delete. Proto t c 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - the URL is now in the external links in GNU General Public License. Proto t c 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Proto. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep and expand --Kyknos 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge one or two sentences, maybe the link, with GPL. Jasmol 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Agree with Proto. Eusebeus 15:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks ok. -- JJay 11:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FireFox 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May Lee Yang

NN activist - 49 hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Borderline notability, if expanded might establish notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; Notable, if barely.Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, looks like a little more work would get this article into the Minor Notable category. Word of advice, when searching for information to verify noteability, search also for '"May Yang" Hmong' (which will return info on two May Yangs, this one and another). KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete so far below notability threshold you need binoculars. Eusebeus 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to MuggleNet. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mugglenet.com

NN fansite. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't exactly think it's non-notable. They have a podcast which is continuously in the most popular podcasts list on iTMS and they were involved in the red carpet premiere - as reporters and as people going in to see the premiere. Between The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet (which both work together on occasion) they have the large majority of the Harry Potter fan audience - which is not small! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to MuggleNet. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mugglenet. Capitalistroadster 08:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect to MuggleNet. No Brainer. Jtmichcock 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recipe 7

NN Game in development. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It will be notable, and this will be a great reference to its creation. --Nick H. 12:26, 13 December 2005 (EST)
• Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment : AfD tag removed by User:Nickmunstr (apparently Nick H., above). Please do not remove AfD tags while the AfD discussion is in progress. Humansdorpie 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Regforafd 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "It will be notable" = "It is not notable now". "This will be a great reference to its creation" = "This is being used to publicise it". Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Adams

NN racer and web designer. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. vanity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity The JPS 10:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wish we could speedy, but it makes too many claims. Jamie 10:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Bard

NN baseball prospect. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as {{nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. Jasmol 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wait till he's drafted. There are too many "prospects" in baseball that never see the major leagues. --אריאל יהודה 00:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I updated the article to assert notability. Bard is projected by reputable baseball organizations to be among the top five or ten draft picks in next year's major-league draft. As such, he is currently one of the most notable college baseball players in the U.S. Please reconsider based on the revised article. Sawney 06:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When he gets his first big league AB, you can try again. Eusebeus 15:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia requires major league notariety and notability. At present, his notability is in Class AA. B.Wind 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - There are plenty of players who never played in the majors who are notable. Brien Taylor, drafted No. 1 overall by Yankees comes to mind. (Note: Unsigned edit by User:Santvenk)-Colin Kimbrell 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Both of these statements are simply incorrect. According to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, the following may be included in Wikipedia (italics added):

"Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States."

Thus, there is no specification that only major leaguers may be included in Wikipedia.

I'm not sure where the Class AA reference came from; Bard has never played in the minors. (The Cape Cod League, referenced in the article, is an amateur league.)

The original article, which I had nothing to do with, didn't particularly make a case for notability. I came across the article while scanning AfD and felt that it was an easy matter to improve the article to show it belongs in Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the time to do even a little Googling will realize that Bard is considered one of baseball's elite college players. His awards, play, and reputation among major-league scouts, front offices, and organizations such as Baseball America confirm this. Barring injury, he will likely be among the first several players chosen in the 2006 major-league draft, and he'll receive a signing bonus of likely one or two million dollars in addition to his salary. Nonnotable baseball players simply don't happen upon this type of situation.

Bard, in fact, has already been drafted once; the New York Yankees drafted him as a high-school pitcher in 2003, but he elected to attend college instead. So if having been drafted is your criterion for inclusion, he's already done that. If verifiability is your thing, every last fact in the article has, as its source, one of the accompanying links. Sawney 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Playing at the top professional level is one way for an athlete to get over the notability bar, but not the only way. Bard's awards and honors are, in my opinion, enough to establish him as a notable amateur. That said, creating an article for every player ever drafted is an unreasonably broad standard. -Colin Kimbrell 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now. There is a chance that he will would never play in the Majors. We can't create articles on every amatur or minor league players. Until he makes the major leagues we should not have a article on him. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I would argue that point on the general case, as well as the specific one. Someone like Kip Bouknight is unlikely to ever play in the majors, given that he's a 26-year-old putting up middling numbers at AAA, but I'd support an article on him for his college accomplishments, which include the Golden Spikes Award and the Rotary Smith Award. To cite a similar example from a different sport, athletes Clint_Frank and Nile Kinnick (among others) are in Wikipedia despite never playing sports at the professional level, because both received prominent collegiate honors (i.e. the Heisman Trophy). -Colin Kimbrell 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WP:BIO allows for prominent college athletes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like another in the series of sadly misguided AfD noms. -- JJay 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - One doesn't need to be in the Major Leagues to be notable. He's part of a major US university and distinguished himself within that realm. Jussenadv 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spinach artichoke dip

WP:WIN a cookbook. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, even though I love the stuff. Can't make an article of every recipe. BD2412 T 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a cookbook. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete recipe. Isn't there a project on Wikibooks for this? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Drini as CSD A1.

[edit] Ringgold high school marching band

NN marching band. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Could we merge this level of info into the related school article (which doesn't seem to exist)? Would we want to? Delete as a bunch of kids who play instruments, with no claim to fame. Saberwyn - 09:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question... Would WP:MUSIC apply here? Saberwyn - 09:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• First choice, Delete. Second choice, move to Ringgold High School to jumpstart that article. 14 displayed hits--clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, altho' I'm not sure that should be applied to HS bands. Garfield and Roosevelt HS Jazz bands are probably notable (at least if any HS bands are), but not per WP:MUSIC. 24.17.48.241 10:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm working on the article. There's a lot more to come... with over 50 years of history. I can understand the fact that it needs improvement. But, please don't say that's it's a bunch of kids who play instruments with no claim to fame. That's just a little rude, don't you think?

Jsu5198m 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment - I see from your user page that you were a part of this group in high school. Although there is no official policy about such things, a good rule of thumb is that you probably shouldn't create articles that you are personally involved in - whether it's an article about yourself or a group/club you were in. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if WP:MUSIC doesn't apply, I can only imagine about 10-20 high school bands nationwide could justify stand-alone articles. Should be - at most - a one-paragraph mention in the high school article. But I'm not even really a fan of that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Article has been blanked by Jsu5198m, who created it and did virtually all the editing on it. Would I be correct in interpreting this as an indication that the user would prefer to have the article deleted without further unpleasant discussion? All of the material in the article would be perfectly appropriate for Jsu5198m's home page. It is also possible for a user to create "subpages" simply by typing "User:Jsu5198m/band" into the "Go" box. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or the WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 19:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LUElinks

Delete--68.253.230.111 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) NN website. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: POV fork. Not the article, mind you ... the entire site is a POV fork of Gamefaqs.com --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of Lueshi, LUEshi, and a couple of other variants. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Duh, maybe I should actually *read* the article first. Still, delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Site is only accessible by members, making this article original research and unverifiable. —Cryptic (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, and not notable even if it's real (earlier versions have said it doesn't exist). Doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the main GameFAQs article. Has been deleted 8 times before, though the content was different (most were A1 speedies). Delete per WP:V and WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Starblind the entire "does not exist" thing is a long running joke between GameFAQs and LUELinks.Toffile 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - great website, but not notable enough for a wiki entry. You might want to protect it to...as someone will probabaly remake it for a 10th time.Toffile 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - It has had a large enough influence to have its place upon Wikipedia, and its influence will only grow, not shrink. It is worth keeping. Mystalic 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit.--Toffile 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is notable; it has thousands of members. We must share information about it. Cowpowder 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 8 edits. --Toffile 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The article just needs to be cleaned up. A lot. Toad King 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. --Toffile 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from recreation. -Sean Curtin 06:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nah, I'd say it's a notable site, even if it is closed registration. Yes, it does exist. And I'm sure there are people who go to it who are also Wikipedians, it's difficult to verify anything about it unless you're a member of LL itself. It's probably the most comprehensive links database on the net, even if it is a wee bit hard to get on to, and it is large enough to make a contribution to the internet's over all culture. And before anyone puts a snide little note below this post, I know I haven't made many edits. Thank you for noticing, and have a nice day. LupusCanis 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 17 edits since (apparent) ergistration in May 2005. 2 in article space. --Toffile 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am an individual expressing my opinion. --Statikeffeck 18:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 6 edits.--Toffile 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per Gtrmp's "delete and protect" Hbdragon88 01:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB (by a long way), and is utterly unencyclopaedic to boot. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Hobbs

NN author to be (?). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wait until his books become the next Harry Potter, and then we can have him. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and put him out of his misery. The JPS 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as {{nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy but good luck to him with his future writings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Homey 16:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Nutter

NN student activist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not only is he a Ryan Nutter, he's a religious nutter! Har har! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as {{nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--MONGO 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Almost an A7 speedy but not quite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Hunter

If we're gonna include any person who founded a website that's only mediumsized, Wikipedia will soon enough have more than thousands of articles of websiteowners of whom little can be said. My opinion is that articles like this one are non-notable and should therefore be deleted. -- SoothingR^(pour) 06:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, vanity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete this and use as redirect to Jeffrey Hunter? BL kiss the lizard 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as {{nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 10:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is definetely not non-notable up to the point where CSD A7 would apply, as there is a certain claim of notability..I'd day -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN and redirect to Jeffrey Hunter. 23skidoo 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Two of the three keep and expand votes were disregarded; the first one was counted, but probably shouldn't have been - it's inclusion was immaterial to the result. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation: Cliff Clavin

nnbio on an unknown defunct band Reid A. 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as NN. The JPS 10:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand I don't know much about the band, but the ideals and beliefs of the band go against the definitions of notability that Wikipedia uses. That does not mean that they are not a legitimate band. They put out several records, and their members are all still active in the folk punk scene. Superradjoe 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand As has been stated on behalf other Plan-It-X bands nomintaed for deletion, I do not believe that this is a significant enough deviance from those provisions to warrant deletion. The band has done an internetional tour, as well as countless US tours and released several albums. Those provisions actually work against a band like this who choose not to become "notable", so to speak, due to their personal beliefs about music and life. They are very prominently known among people in the underground punk scene and have a sizable national fanbase. thejer 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand This band is a huge source of inspiration to DIY punk around the world. Just because they don't fit into the cookie-cutter description of success that you have does not mean that they were not successful. WikiPedia is about providing information to the world, and taking this page down would be counterproductive to those goals. allergic 15 December 2005 (UTC)

-*Comment-seems like sock puppets to me?-Reid A. 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not too sure about that, since the punk scene has been rejuvenated in the last few years. As for the AfD, I'd suggest waiting two weeks to allow for possible expansion, and if nothing substantive arrives, then delete it. As it is now presented, this is not an article... and I doubt it would qualify as a stub. Two sentences do not an article make. B.Wind 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martyr Machiavellian

Dramatic movie that was written by User:Chensiyuan, who also authored the page. Not in IMDb. -- Fplay 06:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, promotion of user's own non-notable movie. Note that Chensiyuan also removed the AfD tag from the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, i understand where Fplay is coming from. With the subject of the article related to the contributor, it can't avoid looking like some sort of vanity. i trust that this is not Chensiyuan's intention but Fplay's got a point that not being listed in IMDb, the movie is somewhat of a "non-notable". Note: This unsigned comment was made by Plastictv at 14:38, 18 December 2005. --Spondoolicks 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

'non-notable movie' - well, your non-notable existence is even a greater source of humour. if you're so righteous, why do you not delete your own user page and save wikipedia some funds. you pretend to administer neutrality but contribute nothing to knowledge, that is why wikipedia is suffering from an image problem. another typical bigot. 70.26.180.74 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say the imdb tag is inaccurate. Apart from that however, I am unsure what constitutes a 'notable' movie to you. How would you know, apart from making that inference due to the fact that I come from a small country? How about you let Singaporeans decide, is that fair? Chensiyuan

• Delete No evidence of notability. Apparent vanity article.--Spondoolicks 15:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: the above two comments by Chensiyuan and Spondoolicks were deleted by 70.50.65.88 at 23:18, 18 December 2005, and replaced with offensive remarks. --Spondoolicks 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and burn, per above comment. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And per Special:Contributions/70.26.180.74. Thanks to the CVU team (I think they are all members) who speedily unblanked my user page after thus repeated vandalism. The problem was fixed before I even saw it! What service :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barelas and Barelas 13

A really ugly page about a nn street gang. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral for the moment. Waiting to see if someone can demonstrate verifiability and notability. The present article does neither. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless verified and notability is established. I've been unable to find anything on Google that indicates a presence outside of Albuquerque and the article claims the gang has spread to other cities. -- Kjkolb 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do the people anywhere but Aberquerque give a rat's ass? Thought not. Denni ☯ 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral: I'm a high school teacher in an area with a high gang presence, and the more I can learn the more it helps me know what to look for. However, there isn't really that much useful info in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.48.5 (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005
• Delete as no evidence of being anything other than minor local groups. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known street gang based on news coverage. -- JJay 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autopsy/Images

A blatant shocker article with no encyclopedic value. Agamemnon2 07:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and cremate without autopsy, and make sure to get the (copyvio) images as well. --Zetawoof 08:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm all for not censoring Wikipedia, but I'm sure we could have autopsy images with a little more taste incorporated in the article. Articles are NOT galleries, and these have no qualities apart from shocking the reader. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for copyvio - All the images are just taken from Ogrish.com. Also, I'm not sure what Wikipedia is not, but I'm sure it shouldn't be a photo gallery. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:NOT and also for copyvio. 23skidoo 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per the above. Durova 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No squeamishness about image, but far too small for any usable purpose and only a link. 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete It's just a link to a small image now because I edited it that way. Get the page and the images off of Wikipedia. There's already an autopsy article, and that's enough. Someone who needs more visual detail should go to a medical library or become a doctor. -Barry- 04:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reading the full autopsy article, I notice it references those pictures, in that they were not presented in the full article because of their graphic nature. Personally, I don't think one needs them presented in that context, the textual representation of the autopsy process is sufficient for our use. --Agamemnon2 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib

Please compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba. It's kind of a zero-sum game since there is no need for both articles. (my reasoning below). gren グレン

This article is created in respons to a revert was in the Ali article. IMHO, the article is pov in both content, form and title.

If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the Ali article. If it is representing a pov, that being Shi'a pov, it must be merged into Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.

The whole content is basicly saying this:

• Shi'a are a minority
• Shi'a love Ali
• Shi'a belive Ali was born in the Kaaba
• Shi'a quote Sunni sources, not implying that Sunni belive their own source.

(a direct lie, since i have proven in many talk pages and dialogs with Zora that Sunnis belive in that also)

• Sunni say he was born in his own house.

(Again, i direct lie, Zora presented a page she belive contained that information, but in fact, the site contradicted her by stating that there is a consensus that Ali was born in the Kaaba. No matter, the site was unprofesional and would not constitute evidence even if it contained what Zora belived it contained. Zora has not presented any source at all that has contradicted or even comments negativly on the credibility of that specific narration.)

• Sunni have a alternative candidate, whom they hardly mention.

(This part of the article is given unfairly little attention)

• No academic historian supports the Shi'a claim.

(Implying that Shi'a and Sunni scholars are not academics. I have proven that a Sunni scholar regarded it as authentic)

Now, compare it to this article: People reported to be born in the Kaaba.

1. That article clearly says it is "reports", not mentioning factual credibilty.
2. It mentions both cases separatly
3. It gives clear reference to both cases
4. It gives the pov of Sunni, Shi'a and non-Muslims on both cases
5. It does not try to discredit the information of one of the cases by first giving a rant about why shi'a whould be biased to beliving in one version.
6. It contains a NPOV title, "People reported to be born in the Kaaba", instead of the a pov title focused on one of the two.

Lastly i want to repeat myself:

If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the Ali article. If it is representing a pov, that being Shi'a pov, it must be merged into Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.

• Delete --Striver 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (read Zora's comments here). I am going to put up Striver's article for deletion (i.e. perging other part to Hakim) since I believe that is the article of the two that should be deleted. Either version would need work, of course, but this naming scheme is better in my opinion and it doesn't create an article relating the rather unrelated subjects of the birth of Hakim and Ali. gren グレン 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge this article with People reported to be born in the Kaaba. Either keep the title of this article, or come up with another title. "Report" is a POV-pushing term when applied to 200-300 year old oral traditions. Zora 08:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Having read User:Zora's comments, I suggest holding this vote over for 5 days to allow her to clean-up the page as she offers, then re-list for a fresh discussion. I see no need for two articles on the same subject (if that is what these are): but (if these are 2 subjects, then each should be dealt with on its/their own. --Simon Cursitor 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is my first VFD nomination, if i am not misstaken...--Striver 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from the editor who created the article -- expanding on a comment on the talk page of the article.

My first entry on the talk page said that the article was a placeholder and not very good. On looking at it again, I agree that it needs a lot of work. I had just forgotten to come back to it. However, I don't think it needs to be deleted. Give me a day or two to work on it and I'm sure I can improve it.

Striver is trying to get this article removed so that his version of this same controversy, People reported to be born in the Kaaba, is the only one left standing. Clearly, the two articles should be merged. They should not be merged under "People reported to be born in the Kaaba", as that is ungrammatical. Nor is it a good representation of the controversy.

The use of the term "report" suggests eyewitness reports. But the "reports" were in fact recorded 200 to 300 years after the supposed event, after having been passed down as oral traditions for hundreds of years. Moreover, they were recorded at a time when the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam were "settling out" as religious sects rather than political parties. Proto-Shi'a were already making extensive claims for Ali's exalted status, birth in the Kaaba, semi-divinity, etc.

Hadith are a vast corpus of contradictory materials. Even Muslim scholars agree that many of them are not reliable. Non-Muslim scholars treat them as so much fable, or use them with extreme caution. By treating 200-300 year old rumors as "reports", Striver is pushing his Shi'a POV, in which Ali is a perfect human being, without sin or error, and must therefore have been born in a way befitting his exalted condition.

What Striver is NOT saying is that many Sunni do not believe that the hadith reporting Ali's birth in the Kaaba are reliable. We had one Sunni editor who flatly contradicted Striver, saying that he did NOT believe the tradition. But Striver has already forgotten that and is again accusing me of lying.

Striver is also being less than candid in not reporting that the "birth in the Kaaba" tradition is not included in any of the sira literature. It seems to be a late tradition, not an early one. Nor is Striver mentioning the contemporary academics who don't even mention the tradition, having dismissed it as a myth that doesn't even merit refuting. I'm perfectly willing for Striver to have all the room he needs to lay out the Shi'a position and list all the hadith said to support it. I just want him to let other views have equal room -- and for him to let proponents of other views state their own positions.

When I picked the title "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib", I was trying hard for a non-POV title. I think the title I chose is non-POV, in that it doesn't take any stand on where Ali was born. If other editors can think of a different, better, title, I'd be OK with that too.

If the two articles are merged, the resulting article is going to be the scene of intense controversy and many revert wars, I'm afraid. But I suppose that's OK, since what I was trying to do was take the controversy out of the Ali ibn Abi Talib article, where it has been simmering ever since Striver started editing there. If the controversy has its own article, there should be room to lay out all the arguments, references, etc. Zora 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Ali ibn Abi Talib unless the article is significantly expanded and NPOVed by the end of this week. Blackcats 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Clean and Merge I don't know what this article says, I don't know what it's about. It seems to be sort of a hearsay piece. I don't see the point of this article, put it in the man's bio (including reference to scholarly debate). DeathThoreau 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with putting the issue in the bio is the issue is so contentious that it completely hijacks the bio. Putting it in a breakout article makes room for discussion, for all parties to lay out arguments, etc. I'm not adamant about this, however. Particularly as my tactic of trying to keep the bio neutral and put the controversies into their own articles has been completely undermined by an influx of Shi'a editors determined to turn the article into hagiography. It's rather like the continuing struggles over the Jesus article. Zora 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment As it stands I'd support the deletion of this article, but I'll hold off on voting since Zora intends to work on it. Clearly there is an issue here worth treatment, but I'm still not sure that it can't fit into the Ali article. While I appreciate Zora's comments in that regard, in principle I really don't like the idea of creating separate subarticles for controversial issues that aren't justified by the amount of valuable content in them.Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People reported to be born in the Kaaba

Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge I'm the person who started the competing article. I don't think we need two articles, and I don't like the name of this one. However, I'm willing to give up the name I chose for my version if other editors can think of a better name. Zora 08:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Keep as a parent article of the fenomena, since the fenomena of reports of people being born there is unusual. Complement with more about the actual event of people being reported to be born there.

Name is NPOV in my opinion, but Zora does not like "reports" since it implies eyewitnesses. I do not agree with her, "reports" is NPOV. A "report" can be false, as Shi'a belive the Hakim "reports" are fabricated. Zora wants to remove the possibility of the "reports" even having the possibility of being true, and that is the POV of Zora and those believing all event related to it to be a fabrication. "Claim" is POV, implying "they claim it, but there is no evidence", "Belived" is even worse. There are documented reports of the claim, some people beliveing the reports to be false does not make the word POV, only needs to be represented in the actual article, as it already does.

If the material of the individuals is moved to other articles, this articles still needs to stand and link to all those other articles, exept for elaborating on the actual scenario of people being born there. --Striver 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The point of the article is very muddled, it would seem that certain sects of Islam believe different things. I don't think that it really needs its own article since this could easily be covered by the bios of either Ali or Hakim, or in the article about the Kabaa. Perhaps there could be an article about how various Islamic Sects percieve the Kabaa. DeathThoreau 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• comment for the first, the topic is to broad to be included in a biographical article, it would get unproportionaly much space, and distract from the main topic. For the second, why split the information all over the place, when it is closly related? --Striver 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Kaaba. I'm not at all convinced that either this or the birthplace of Ali article really needs to be an article on its own. I am also dismayed but not surprised to find that we have an article entitled Reports of unusual religious childbirths. Palmiro | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP--Khalid! 12:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Stiver --Ya Ali 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Chelman 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comments

I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [36], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.--Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too averse to that... although it throws off the relative importance of births in the Kaaba as compared to other things if the section is too long. gren グレン 08:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading Moojan Momen's history of Shi'a Islam right now (thanks to dgl) and it expands a fair bit on the various Shi'a sects and their conceptions of Ali -- some of them turned him into a semi-divinity. I don't think the discussion of this tradition belongs under Kaaba, it belongs under Ali and Shi'a Islam. It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism. Zora 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right. The way Sunnism and Shi'ism played off of each other in history is very interesting and something we fail to discuss well at all. The Safavid / Ottoman split where they formed their identities contra the other to an extent. In all honesty with the breadth of information we could cover I'm not sure how we can have it all in an orderly, readable, and well weighted fashion. Having millions of articles and not relating them is not the key. There needs to be some incentive for expertise around here. gren グレン 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont get this? Why does nobody tells Zora to stop lying when she says stuff like "It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism"? Look at this SUNNI site: [37].

Im used to her bigotry and her incapability of accepting evidence that falsifie her view, but get very provocated when people start buying her nonsens. Again:

• Sunni site:

Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born. Ali had thus the unique honor of being born in the House of God. This unparalleled honor has endowed Ali with a halo of sanctity, which has become the subject of many legends. A hundred years later, Zain-ul-Abidin a grandson of Ali (son of Husain) met as Arab woman at Najaf who told him that her grandmother had helped on the occasion of the birth of Ali. She narrated that according to the account of her grandmother, the child was beautiful, a smile played on his lips, it did not cry like other children, and its birth did not cause any pain to his mother. [38]

• Zora bull****:

"It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism".

Zora, Don't be a dense dick --Striver 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not make personal attacks such as calling someone a liar and a bigot on the AFD forum. --Gurubrahma 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, it is fact. Zora is a bigot. Loot at the article: Bigot:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of narrow-minded.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, nationalism, and homophobia. Bigotry is not just intolerance, but rather extreme and unreasonable intolerance.

That describes Zora perfectly. She IS a bigot.

I redid Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib to include that site, Witness-Pioneer. It doesn't right out say that it's Sunni -- in fact, it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both. I can't find any information on who owns and edits the site. I'm not sure it represents a trend. Have you found any more Sunni websites (outright Sunni sites) that accept the born-in-the-Kaaba tradition? Zora 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:

• Naration is for sure only Shi'a (Because i say so)
• Anyone accepting it is Shi'a
• hence, that site is Shi'a

Try this:

• From the source books that have come down to us, we do not have a proper account of the activities of Ali during the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Unfortunately most of the accounts that are available are colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations. It appears that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr for some time and he remained aloof from the state politics. It appears that after the death of Fatima, Abu Bakr tried to console Ali in his grief, and win over his goodwill. It appears that Ali took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr some time after the death of Fatima and got reconciled to him. When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr.

would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!

Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?

• The married life of Ali and Fatima did not extend beyond nine years. It was a happy union. Nevertheless there were differences between the pair occasionally. Once, after having quarreled with Fatima, Ali went to the mosque, and lay on bare earth. That made the Holy Prophet call Ali by the appellation of Abu Turab, Father of the earth. At one time, Ali entertained the idea of marrying a daughter of Abu Jahl. Fatima complained to the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet felt annoyed, and while addressing the people in the mosque he said that verily Fatima was part and parcel of him. [39]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

• (Ali is claimed to have said Abu Bakr) had been with the Prophet more than any one else, and your love for Islam was superior to others.[40]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

• Khum Ghadir: There is a good deal of controversy about the Holy Prophet's address at Khum Ghadir. But the fact is that the sayings of the Holy Prophet are a continuation of his life-long message and struggle in the light of the teachings of the Holy Quran the final Word of Allah. Whatever is compatible with it is only to be accepted. [41]

PURE non-sense, Sahih Muslim says "Quran and AHl al-Bayt", there is no controversy whatsoever! Now, this guys try to claim there is a controversy about the words, and try to spin it to "quran and Sunnah". Now, HERE in Ghadir Khumm you see a disclaimar abouth "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", when there is totaly concensus regarding what was said!

Is this what you call a joint Shi'a Sunni site?

• Khalifa Abu Bakr

  Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab

  Khalifa Ali bin Talib

  Khalifa Uthman bin Ghani [42]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

• Consequences of the Martyrdom of Uthman [43]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

• To Uthman belongs the unique honor of having married two daughters of the Holy Prophet, one after the other. For this rare distinction he was called "Dhun-Nurain" the possessor of two lights. [44]

PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?

Zora, is this what you are trying to claim is a joint Shi'a-Sunni site?

The site reiterates sunni pov, and when it must sayin established sunni pov that benefits Shi'a pov, its gives disclaimers!

Zora, where did you get the idea of them being a joint Shi'a-Sunni site from? Did you even bother to look for five second around before labeling it a "joint sunni-Shi'a site"?

Again: Zora logic:

• Ali being born in the Kaaba: "It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism". (Because Zora says so)
• Anyone accepting the narration is Shi'a, because Zora says so.
• That site give that narration, hence, it must be Shi'a, or maybe joint Shi'a Sunni.

Get your head out of your bigoting ego and start doing some real reserch!

Its feels like:

• Zora: "The earth is flat"
• Striver: "But this guys says the world is round"
• Zora: "He is Shi'a, it doesnt count"
• Striver: "But they are Sunnis, they belive in the four Sunni Caliphs"
• Zora: "It does'nt mater, then they are joint Shi'a Sunni. The earth is flat, end of discusion!"

She is totaly incapable of accepting a defeat or even entertain the thought of being misstaken. This is not a new argument, i have tried to make her realise that this Sunni site says he was born in the Kaaba, but she goes on with her fingers in her ears sayng it a "distinct Shi'a belief". She is truly unique... --Striver 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I think you've seen me apologizing for mistakes numerous times. As to Witness-Pioneer -- I said that I'm not sure of what to make of it. I paged rapidly through the narrative looking for the usual points of controversy, and it seemed to me that the author of the work was trying to make nice-nice to both sides. Frex, here's a quote about Ghadir Khum:

When all people, over one hundred thousand in number had assembled at the pond in the Khum valley, the Holy Prophet addressed them. The exact text of the address is not available. There is a good deal of controversy about the contents of the address, and both the Sunnis and the Shias have their own versions of the address. [45]

And after that, the author doesn't take sides! If this is a Sunni site, it seems to me that it's not a typical Sunni site. Now that wouldn't at all be important if there were a dozen other Sunni sites, or books, anything, giving the Ali-born-in-the-Kaaba story. But I haven't been able to find them. That's not to say that they don't exist. I'm perfectly willing to believe that some Sunni accept this story. It seems utterly implausible to me (I'm religious, but I don't believe in miracles) but millions of Sunni Muslims believe other things that I'd regard as implausible. But it is really not clear just how widespread this belief is among the Sunni. I have a few books written by Sunnis (Zakaria and Lings) and they don't mention the story at all. More references would help. Zora 12:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, you know that it is standard issue for the sunnis to not talk about that. They dont want to "take side", since there is only one side, only one version of the text of the event, the one saying that Muhammad left the Qura'an and Ahl al-Bayt and saying Ali is the Mawla of everyone. That is authentic by all Sunni scholars. Yet, Sunni biographies dont want to touch it. That is not NPOV, that is POV to the point that they dont even want to admit their own POV.

And further, you remeber this? [46]

A Sunni answering "somone" that asked if Sunnis belive Ali was born ther with:

Indeed Ali was born in Kaaba, but he was not the only one born in Kaaba. From time of Ismael & Abraham the people born in Kaaba amount to 100 thousand. It was the custom for pregnant women of high statue to spend the last days near Kaaba hoping they deliver there. There were two people contemporary with Mohammad and Ali who was born in Kaaba. He was an Infidel and ran from Mekka when Prophet entered the City. He was wanted by the Prophet. He was later pardoned and converted to Islam. Also, many many Arabs had the Name Ali at the time of Mohammad and before him. So, I don't know what is the big deal about these two matters.

Shi'a belive only Ali was born there, that sunni guy belived half the world, inclusive Ali, was born there. You know this, you have read this, yet you are doing something that can be nothing else than lying by writing thins like

"It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism".

Zora, stop lying. --Striver 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say "A pox on both your houses." There is no room in Wikipedia for personal attacks on either side. It's clear we have divergent POVs here; so I'd suggest relying more on verifiable references that don't prefer one side or the other. If the protagonists in this soap opera can't take a step back, then the most prudent move to make is to Userfy until they can resolve their differences and work jointly on ONE article. If userfication is not an option, it might be best to delete both as vandalism magnets if the persons involved cannot show self-restraint. B.Wind 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papoose (rapper)

Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO standards. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC - both on "Has been prominently featured in any major music media", and "Has won or placed a major music competition". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papoose (which is just below). Proto t c 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I already voted keep on this one. LOL. This is a bit confusing. Can we just speedy keep both of them and then deal with the articles to avoid confusion? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • PS Here is what I wrote there (although this article has less in it than the Papoose one did). - he has an allmusic.com entry. His "notable song", "Alphabetical Slaughter" has hundreds of google hits: [47]. He's been talked about a fair bit too, including on message boards [48], hip hop communities [49], and has almost 50 singles released [50]. He has also won Justo's Award for Mixtape Artist of the Year in 2004, hence meeting another requirement of WP:MUSIC, as featured on MTV [51]. He meets the notability requirements quite comfortably. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I re-added a lot of the stuff that was previously at Papoose (before that article was made to be about Papoose the thing rather than Papoose the rapper), because the original Papoose article had a lot more info than the rapper article. I have also added the references, including his 50-part discography and him receiving the MTV award. Considering the other names at that MTV award, and considering its MTV, I think it is safe to say that that counts as a major award. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to satisfy notability requirements. -Colin Kimbrell 17:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papoose

Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO standards. Has been deleted thrice now and been through afd once already May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• A listing on allmusic.com still doesn't qualify for listing on the basis of WP:Music or WP:Bio requirements if you are unfamiliar with them please read -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Also this page has been repeatedly deleted and has been through AFD'd once before per nominator -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd just like to comment here that this was a good faith attempt at an article. The user who created this page was not doing so for vanity, and genuinely believed that Papoose was suitably notable for his own article. It was written by a newbie, and hence is written in a newbie way. The author didn't cite the references very well, and it is poorly written. But please remember Wikipedia's policy of "Don't bite the newbies" and also to WP:AGF assume good faith. I have seen the comments made by Susan Larson about this, including refusing to allow the author to make their voice heard, which is really a bit unfair. An author is permitted to have a vote. The sock puppet issue comes in if they try to make 2 votes. Whilst I don't know what happened in the original article nomination, I just think that we should be working more towards helping newbies rather than automatically suspecting them of evil deeds. We were all newbies once upon a time. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The claims of the edits being a good faith do not hold true in the face of the facts that the creator removed various {{db}} and {{merge}} tags several times from the article without any reason: [52] [53] [54] [55] even after being told not to do so on his talk page. Therefore, I cannot believe that the edits were in good faith.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Also note: First nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Papoose. It was speedy deleted as an attack page. Hence this second version of the article, which is clearly not an attack page, does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as it is not the same article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody has nominated this article for speedy deletion now so your so your concerns are unrequired.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, See above. See also Talk:Papoose -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Dont delete it ! why would you do that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravediggah (talk • contribs) Gravediggah is the author of this article
• Keep - he has an allmusic.com entry. His "notable song", "Alphabetical Slaughter" has hundreds of google hits: [56]. He's been talked about a fair bit too, including on message boards [57], hip hop communities [58], and has almost 50 singles released [59]. He has also won Justo's Award for Mixtape Artist of the Year in 2004, hence meeting another requirement of WP:MUSIC, as featured on MTV [60]. He meets the notability requirements quite comfortably. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, and re-created deleted content (?) The JPS 10:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually no. The original version was an attack page, this is not. So it is not re-created deleted content, and speedy delete does not apply. 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've excised all the stuff about the rapper, and replaced it with the actual definition of a 'papoose'. Put a dab on papoose, linking to Papoose (rapper), which is where the stuff on the rapper should live. Proto t c 14:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That seems like a good idea. However, from memory there was more in the Papoose article than in the Papoose (rapper) article. Would you mind merging some bits in to the rapper one? Or maybe working on on more stuff? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't see much that wasn't just opinion stuff, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. However, the history has everything in it if you want to recheck this. Proto t c 16:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the new, rewritten article, which should be expanded with an extended discussion of the folklore (?) that has Native American women bundling their infants and carrying them on their backs. It is no longer the same article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - OK it exists, Proto, and well done for retrieving it, but it's still a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strange, I see etymology, and two differing objects the term refers to (a small Native American child, and the a form of bag or holdall). There is most definitely sufficient there for a stub on a notable topic, with a very good chance of expansion. You should not vote to delete an article because it's a dictionary definition at the moment. Instead, perhaps you could consider tagging it for expansion. It should only be suggested for deletion if there is no possibility of expanding it beyond the dictionary definition. Here you could have the history of the papoose bag, manufacture techniques, manufacturers, market conditions, periods it was popular in fashion, why the bag is called a 'papoose', and so on, and so forth. Proto t c 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, you persuaded me. Keep it is. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep as rewritten. Any discussion about the rapper should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papoose (rapper). — JIP | Talk 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We already had discussion, and were pretty close to a consensus for keeping it. Can we move the comments over to that AFD or is that not allowed? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done, Proto. I have expanded the article further as has someone else. It is more than just a dictdef now. Capitalistroadster 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as CSD G4

[edit] The Dark Channel

"A poorly written article that provides no references.DeleteTheRingess 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- More importantly, site is nonnotable, article is vanity and self-promotion/spam. DreamGuy 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Center for Paranormal Investigation Association

This article was created by a new account named after the site, who has put multiple links (one main domain name and one that forwards to the first) to the article on multiple articles... It is clearly nonnotable, vanity, self-promotion spam. Besides linkfarming and now creating the pointless article, the editor also created several redirects, including CPIA, Center for paranormal and Center for paranormal investigation association. All should be deleted as an abuse of this project. DreamGuy 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, google gets 278 hits (incl wikipedia). Non-notable. --Squiddy 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - advert by user of same name. - Tεxτurε 16:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio and nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Wardle

Nonsense Mreini 08:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oblivion Communications

Some kind of company of some sort. NN. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless cleaned up into a decent stub. Harro5 08:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no signs of meeting WP:CORP --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NetCMD

Unnotable and inoperative service. Haakon 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Article lacks context to define notability. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable company --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Johnstone

nonsense, unnotable Mcfly85 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (isn't this speedyable? nn-bio). --Squiddy 09:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't speedy CSD A7 because it claims that he's famous for some stuff. Of course these claims are Complete bollocks, but I think we still have to AfD... Jamie 10:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victory Day (Malta)

The contents of this article where transferred to Victory Day. The contents in the latter page are merely a copy of Victory Day(Malta). Maltesedog 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep & Expand. Victory Day is meant as a little more than a list. Description for the 'Victory Day' in different places are meant to be brief. We can use {{Main|Victory Day (Malta)}} there. Victory Day (Malta) would be a good page for details about Victory Day in Malta as well as pictures of people in Malta celebrating. Someone just have to put in the work. -- PFHLai 09:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The celebrations on Victory Day in Malta are limited to solemn formal celberations. There is not much to expand. Maltesedog 12:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - per PFHLai. Blackcats 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move to Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Mechanized Corps

Too generic article name. Difficult to merge into Battle of Stalingrad and similair. Orphan article Scoo 09:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The text below originate from my botched attempt to nominate yesterday (12 Dec 2005)

Delete, article has a too a generic name (4th Mechanized corps), the content is non-existent as of now, dubious whether enough info could be gathered for an article of its own. Battle of Stalingrad would probably not need a list of individual participating units. Scoo 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; likely to cause confusion. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment If the article title is confusing, than a move to a new title is appropriate. The title shouldn't be grounds for deletion. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but we have a number of decent articles on different military units (based on the unit's history and not one battle). It is possible this could be expanded to that level, but I don't know enough to know to one way or the other. unsigned by JLaTondre 00:48, 16 December 2005

Oops! Thanks to Scoo for fixing... -- JLaTondre 13:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway I agree that the best thing to do would be to keep, move and expand, but at the moment deletion would be most suitable IMHO as the article should be moved and written in a standardized way. I've contacted someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soviet_Union for advice but it might take some time to get organized (to format guidelines etc). Finally, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history don't seem to have any guidelines on how to treat units, only battles. Scoo 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. wrong title, wrong body. -R. S. Shaw 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps—I don't see any reason to delete this—Soviet units are very neglected in Wikipedia. It's likely to remain a stub for a long time, but that's okay. —Michael Z. 2005-12-16 16:55 Z
• Move and expand as per Michael. Scoo 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Have a look at these articles to see where this one would belong (the list is sketchy so far). This one should probably be renamed Soviet IV Corps or Soviet IV Mechanized Corps to be consistent with others (on the other hand, someone has linked Soviet 4th Corps). —Michael Z. 2005-12-16 16:55 Z

• List of military corps
  • III Corps
  • IV Corps (still unwritten)
  • List of military corps by number
• Soviet order of battle for invasion of Poland in 1939
• Corps#Soviet Corps

I've looked over my one measly source and done some Web searching. It looks like a few sources use the conventional roman numeral notation, but most would write Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. —Michael Z. 2005-12-16 17:18 Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, material is in Wikibooks. Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric pressure demo

This article fails a number guidelines and policies. It is written in the wrong tone and it describes how to do an experiment (Wikipedia is NOT an HOWTO guide. It also doesn't explain the experiment (which would make it more encyclopedic). I've added a more general link with a number of other movies (as well as the one linked to) to Atmospheric pressure so this has no more value. Delete (perhaps transwiki to Wikibooks, but I have a feeling it's already there). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I found a wikibooks module about the experiment. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casio EV-4500

Unless anyone knows about a category or list of similar articles this can join, there seems to be nothing remarkable about this portable TV. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a catalogue. If there are similar articles about TV models, then that's a different matter... The JPS 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nice TV - I got one after being hit by hurricane Katrina and used it after being hit by hurricane Wilma - but it merits an article about as much as a Texas Instruments SR-50A calculator. Delete B.Wind 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Punani. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pum Pum

One view of women in Trinidad and Tobago. Hoax / original research. Zero Google hits on, for example ' "pum pum" aleong'. -- RHaworth 10:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, some sort of personal research. — JIP | Talk 10:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete weird original research/essay. Dealing with women gives men fever and rashes, which are then cured by holy water?? Confusing almost to the point of being nonsense, and certainly not an encyclopedic treatment of any topic. Delete per WP:NOR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to pussy - It's a schoolboy (?) essay about human sexuality. Just in case it wasn't obvious, "pum pum" = "pussy" (to translate a Jamaican colloquialism into an American one). Guettarda 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note - if this is deleted, would the deleting admin also please delete Pum pum, which is where the article was originally placed. Guettarda 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am confused why you used that specific google term. I would have thought that Pum Pum and Trinidad was more logical. And yes, it is confirmed to be true. The essay looks too detailed to be a hoax anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, it's a real word. But this is appears to be a personal essay. It lacks any encyclopaedic content. And the title is nothing more than a slang term for vagina. Guettarda 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can provide a cite. The google search above doesn't seem to lead anywhere relevant, unless I overlooked it. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable, mildly interesting. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Here is your cite [61]. I will quote the relevant part, "PUM-PUM a woman's genitals (6) ". It is the Trinidadian equivalent of punani apparently. Another cite here [62] and here [63]. It is in extremely widespread use, but, as you can see from the google links I provided above, it has come to mean more than just a woman's genitals. It can refer to a type of sexy close-fitting shorts (worn by women) called "pum pum shorts". It can refer to a woman herself "a bunch of pum pums are dancing". And it seems to have other meanings as well. It also seems to be a Rastafarian word, not just Trinidadian. Oh, and here is a cite giving its meaning as "vagina" or "woman" [64]. And, whilst this is slang, it is clearly in widespread use in Rastafarian areas with 14,400 google hits. As for whether the current content of this article is correct, that's another matter entirely. But the title "Pum Pum" does seem to mean what the article suggests. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, sorry, I should correct that. It seems that the word Punani, as popularised by Ali G, was derived from the rastafarian word Pum Pum (here). Ali G liked to pretend to be reggae after all. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting on punani - I know it as a Trini word long before pum pum (a J'can word) came into common usage. Given usage I assumes that punani had hindi origins. As for "pum pum shorts" - the meaning is the same - it's shorts that are so small and tight that they show off just about everything. The alternate usage is a dicdef though, not really an article. Guettarda 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You should add that to the punani article then. Right now it just says that punani was invented by Ali . Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Problem is, it's just a word I grew up with, not something I have any definite knowledge of. But I should find out, if I can. Guettarda 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to punani and it could possibly have a small paragraph in that article. Capitalistroadster 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that they mean the same thing. Historically, maybe, but currently no. Punani only means vagina. Pum pum can also mean women. They also have deeper meanings that differ. I am beginning to think that I should have left the essay in there. It looks like that explained everything nicely. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• I got a link to something that traces the history of the word pum pum here [65]. I am not sure how reliable the information is, but it seems that they are suggesting that Punany came first, and Pum Pum is a "dirtier" version of Punany, since Punany eventually came to be more polite. But apparently now even Pum Pum is not derogatory anymore. By the way, the Punani article is really inaccurate if it credits it to Ali G, given this evidence. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Its actually a bit confusing, since it seems to be both derogatory and a compliment at the same time. I guess its similar to slut in that way, or perhaps ho. It'd be interesting to find out what its deeper meaning is, and its place in rastafarian culture. Oh, and apparently since Punany/Punani is now Americanised, Pum Pum is now the preferred term in Rastafarian culture, since they now view the definition of Punany as being Americanised. It'd be an interesting thing to look in to. Pity if we have to wipe something that's enormously popular and in widespread use with cultural significance before we've had a chance to write it properly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not too sure about your use of "rastafarian" - it's a "mainstream" word (crude, not polite, but not limited to a single subculture), in Jamaica, Trinidad, and almost certainly the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean. As for Americanisation of punani, etc., what's your source for that assertion? Guettarda 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I listed the sources there in the article. Go fix the article then. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO (patent nonsense). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Adeyemi

Non notable person, probably vanity. Chrislee 11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as {{nn-bio}}/CSD A7 Jamie 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)