Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Saw Such Things in My Sleep and Trains to Brazil

Albums by Guillemots (band) (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Singles from a band whose article was deleted for being nn.... Delete. These can be recreated (with the band article) when the group gets more than regional notoriety. B.Wind 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the band's page is gone, why are the single pages still here? --Thephotoman 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the band was deleted, the albums should also go. Punkmorten 10:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Thephotoman and Punkmorten. IanManka 15:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the band's page looks spiffy, and according to AfD, the band is notable in UK. I vote to keep, and strike out my previous vote. I also made an attempt to fix the link for the AfD (it is now on its second vote). IanManka 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I cant seem to fix the link for the second AfD. Anyone know how to do that? IanManka 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I apparently can't read. The links are fine as displayed. IanManka 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Guillemots (band) has now been listed on deletion review; you may want to weigh in there and/or hold off on commenting here. —Cryptic (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the Guillemots page will pass deletion review (there's even content there right now), so hence my keep vote.--Aleron235 23:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We can't be keeping every album by any group.Madman 06:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the band is notable, these albums are too.  Grue  14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought deleting the band writeup was unfair but these can surely go / be merged into Guillemots. Two EPs is not substantial content worth splitting. (guest)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] State of the Art PC

Inescapably (admitted) POV article about the "Wikipedia interpretation" of the best possible computer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Someone's Christmas wish-list. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No content of use to anyone but the article's originators. Only one Wiki page links to it and it links to no others.--R6MaY89 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• stay the entry is not finished in 5 minutes, makes it better Mr.Do! 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete is silly, we have enough stuff to own State of the Art categorie, for CPUs, medical technology, engines and many other things, PC is only the first entry here. Every range of products has on evolutionary point somewhere. Mr.Do! 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per OwenX. —Brim 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• "The State of the Art PC is a Wikipedia view [...]" — Wikipedia has no views. This article is both non-neutral and original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • this was former, all to grumble so much, however, why improve nothing? there is certainly still a better memory somewhere! Mr.Do! 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I may have mis-read it, but think that Mr.Do! is pointing out that in response xe changed that to "The State of the Art PC is a Wikipedia NPOV [...]". Changing the sentence into something that now doesn't actually make any sense at all doesn't alter the fundamental problems with this article. I've no idea what the final sentence of the above means. Please clarify. Uncle G 09:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • State of the Art is a slogan of many companies. But in the reality purely subjectively. Alone the Wikipediauser can evaluate which that is! Everyone knows something, and the sum of all parts is a new realization what the State of the Art is, the truth is not outside by Dell, Apple, IBM or somewhere otherwise as enzyklopical fact! Mr.Do! 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • We don't create new realizations here; nor do we do truths that do not exist outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is not only pointless, but the person who wrote it obviously could not have come to a consensus with the rest of the Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. To say that something is state of the art as of 2005 might be okay in an article about a specific technology, but to make an article about a hypothetical computer is just pointless. --Thephotoman 06:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The actually State of the specific technology, example the Parts in the HydrogenCar is never not hypothetical pointless in the state of the art, then this is always a today's estimate out the quality sales. Mr.Do! 14:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but make a page for Wikipedia:Recommended hardware requirements if we don't already have one. Firebug 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & others. Billbrock 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic, per Uncle G, Thephotoman, and others. –Sommers ^(Talk) 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sommers. IanManka 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gimme! r3m0t ^talk 16:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Firebug Jcuk 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think someone can figure this out if we just link to State of the art, we don't need a seperate page for PC's. VegaDark 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, change page to a redirect to State of the art.--Aleron235 23:16, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolay Volkov

• The article remains untranslated after too weeks of it's entry on Pages needing translation; multiple editors are in consensus that the content is of little or no value. Should be deleted. - Introvert ^talk 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  A few excerpts from the discussion WP:PNT#Nikolay Volkov:

  Russian, and deletable. Has nothing to do with any Nikolay nor Volkov. Content is "after the law about the Jewish autonome district was cancelled in 1993 [that's a real district in Russia], which originally passed in 1981, the district was in a strange situation. No new law had been passed, and of the five autonome districts that existed in the Russian USR, only the Jewish one remained (four had been granted the status of republics within the Russian Federation). All five previous autonomies were a part of bigger federation subjects". Jewish Autonomous Oblast has the relevant and verifiable information. Solver 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  [...] It appears that Nikolay Volkov is in fact, the governor of the said Jewish autonomy (since 1991!). It probably won't be too hard to find the governor's bio, but this piece now surely looks like an anti-governor rant... and perhaps should still be deleted. There's no article about him in the Russian wikipedia too, if that's going to help to make a decision. ? - Introvert ^talk 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm with Introvert on not being telling if it's upside down or sideways, but from the transliteration Rich provided I'm pretty sure it's just the name of the said autonomous oblast: Yidisher="Jewish", "avitanama"="autonomous", "gegnt"="oblast". A rough google search confirms this, too. All in all, nothing of value there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  This is two weeks old... Since there's still an active discussion here, I figure I'll ask first: Any objections to moving this to WP:AFD? It looks like we have a consensus that this is not worth translating... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)}

• Comment. I'm removing Nikolay Volkov from WP:PNT, per usual practice. If you want to see the original discussion on, you can read it in this revision. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and disambiguate, as Nikolai Volkov is a name for both a notable professional wrestler from the 1970s through the 1990s and a notable Russian actor. B.Wind 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, disambiguate, per B.Wind . IanManka 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per B.Wind--Aleron235 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but rewrite about the governor of JAO.  Grue  14:48, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poliqarp

From WP:PNT, been there since December 4th, with little attention. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

possibly Russian --Melaen 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish. About a piece of software. Solver 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is decribed in English here. Feels as quite important but the article is so small and the topic so esoteric that it may wait years before someone takes care of it. A more dedicaded person will create better article later. It is not yet present on Polish Wiki. Pavel Vozenilek 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly tell author about the Polish Wikipedia, where this entry would be more appropriate. --Thephotoman 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep translate and enlarge. Dont see why this would be more appropriate on Polish Wiki, btw Jcuk 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk. --Aleron235 23:20, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superior Wealth Creation

Advertising MNewnham 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. josh (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Thephotoman 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Bkwillwm 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pile on, spam xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have removed the links from the page, they can obviously be replaced in the unlikely event that this passes AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• WEAK Delete unless the article can be rewritten in a non advertising manner Jcuk 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not hard to rewrite to be factual.--Aleron235 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as there is no notable information other than the (now removed) references. —Onlyemarie 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:21, 23 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whatmough's planet types

John Whatmough's classification system is not entirely scientific, it is an extension for artistic purposes of the Sudarsky classification system. In addition some of the material on the page is dubious - there are no known Vulcanoids, Mercury Venus and Earth are not jovian type planets. The place descriptions are also vague and possibly untrue for a given planetary system, e.g. if the closest planet is in the water zone. Chaos syndrome 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; Whatmough seems possibly borderline notable; an article on him or his work might be welcome, if he does meet the standards for notability. Or maybe a mention on another relevant page. Anyway, this is too specialized. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. It appears that Whatmough died in September. I haven't found any information about his qualifications or work besides his website. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Notability isn't the issue. The article cites no independent sources, and I cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever acknowledged this system of classification. (Sudarsky, in contrast, not only had at least two co-authors on his paper, but had the paper published in the Astrophysical Journal.) I was going to write "anyone apart from Whatmough", but upon reading this page (which makes no mention of classifying Venus, Mars, and Earth in this way and does not even contain the phrase "sulfur jovian") it appears that not even Whatmough acknowledged the system outlined in this article. As far as I can tell, Whatmough used the Sudarsky system. This is simply not a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, I should have been more specific. By notability, I meant that it hasn't been accepted. Even if it was obscure, yet accepted, I would have voted to keep. -- Kjkolb 08:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and comments. --Thephotoman 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This term is not only neologism invented by the creator of the article, but the article is also wrong (as if the original classification system wasn't already very speculative). Although I'm a great fan of Mr. Whatmough's website, there is no option but to delete this article.--Jyril 21:52, 23 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenie & Shades

nn webcomic. It was created by a new user "Greenie". A search on google returns almost nothing except the author's own "visit my site please" postings[1]. Unless I'm missing something, this is a delete. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy - nn. Daykart 00:49, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi

Non-notable. Only 102 Google hits. The page is also a collection of linkspam. --Khoikhoi 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly a vanity page. --Thephotoman 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it is a vanity page, and an article on this chap's organisation (also by him) has already been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bay_Area_Shiite-Muslims_Association. --Squiddy 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pepsidrinka 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page by a linkspammer. Well, he's stopped linkspamming, so far as I know, but still ... Zora 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it This is not a vanity page. There are no links to it. It is not advertised. It is harmless. It is not a link spam as it is about a person. There are people inquiring about this person because of his positions. This page tells a little bit about this person. In fact, this is the purpose of wikipedia: provide info about things! Besides, why are you so eager to delete something harmless?? (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Please read carefully: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Some of the people involved here with Wikipedia are most certainly "elitists," rude, bitter, hostile, and inauthentic, especially those who choose to label others or break the very policies of Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia policy: "New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Ok, but now you know that you can't write articles about yourself unless you're notable enough. --Khoikhoi 18:01, 22 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chess blogs

Unencyclopedic; we can not have pages describing all the possible topics that can be found on blogs. Article is orphan. All relevant links in the article have been added to the main chess article. Delete Schutz 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Why not? Is there an article number limit I haven't heard about? CalJW 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This actually is an interesting phenomenon, and could become a valuable article if cleaned up. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per The Hooded Man. -- JJay 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a list of nn blogs is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Chess. Doomed to be a stub forever or a dictionary definition. It is simply about blogs that are about chess. What more is there to say? Logophile 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoe. Blogs aren't usually notable. karmafist 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT a Web directory or collection of external links. FCYTravis 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - will always be just a dicdef + a collection of links, neither of which Wikipedia "is". (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Chess. --Thephotoman 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--Bkwillwm 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I approve the merge comments, but since I copied the relevant links to the main Chess article (see nom), I think the merge has effectively already been done. Schutz 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I wouldn't say delete if there was something special about chess blogs; some sort of unique software intended specifically for them or an organization devoted to them or really anything to indicate that a chess blog is anything more than a blog about chess. Snurks ^{T C} 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! I though we had nixed the last of these with Poker blog. Blog cruft however you look at it. - Randwicked 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete list of nn blogs, now doubly unnecessary due to the work done above by Schutz. Eusebeus 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, or else delete, as per the many wonderful arguments above. Chess blogity does not stand as a notable subject on its own. Lord Bob 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Chess's "external links" section, if it has one, classifying the said blogs into its own sub-heading "Blogs," with a brief description of each; if no section exists, create one, and label "external links." IanManka 15:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As the "external links" section already has multiple sub-headings, a merge with Chess would substantiate the need for a "Chess blogs" sub-heading within "external links". IanManka 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Chess blogs contains 4 external links; only 1 is a blog, 3 are indicated as lists of blog. In the "external links" section, I have cited the one blog, and one of the lists which contains most (if not all) links from the others. I don't think there is a need for a new sub-section; the current sections are split according to topics related to chess (programs, organisation, etc), not by technology used by the website which provides the information. Tell me if you think that this is enough to consider that the merge has been done. Schutz 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It looks good; I call it a day. I am changing my vote to delete. IanManka 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep article seems to be about a genuine phenomenon. NN is irrelevant as it is not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No matter how many times you say it does not make in any truer than the first time you said it. NN is very much Wikipedia policy. Do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Whilst I have no desire to get into a slanging match (which will do neither of us or more importantly Wikipedia any good) I do feel strongly that the statement "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." found on, for example Wikipedia:Biography page says it all. Jcuk 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:BIO is a guideline on what is covered under WP:NOT, speficially "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a link repository", and WP:NOT is a policy. --Last Malthusian 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry I dont see your point. WP:BIO specifically says that what is on that page is not policy. It cant possiby not be policy on one page and policy on another? If that were so, some serious clearing up would need to be done to remove the ambiguity.Jcuk 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • See WP:CSD#Articles, which is official policy, under "Unremarkable people". Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
        • It is not policy that people who don't meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO don't meet notability criteria. It is policy that notability criteria exist. If you say 'I believe that this person is notable even though he doesn't meet WP:BIO', that makes sense if you justify it. If you say 'This person isn't in any way notable but I don't care', then you're ignoring policy. --Last Malthusian 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd have to say that WP:CSD#Articles being official policy, and WP:BIO NOT being official policy seems very odd. If according to CSD notability in Bios IS official policy it's ludicrous to then say it's not in BIO. However this is getting way off the mark, as the vote here is about Chess Blogs. Jcuk 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not really. We have the CSDs to avoid cluttering up AfD with articles that have no chance of survival, including blatant vanity articles. We have the WP:BIO and similar guidelines so that Wikipedians can give exact, precise, quick reasons for why the subject is notable or not by referring to the appropriate guidelines, without having to explain their reasoning over and over again in separate discussions. Two separate reasons, both perfectly valid. The reason one is policy and the other not is because an article that meets a CSD has no merit whatsoever, while an article that doesn't meet WP:BIO etc. may have some other virtue that we overlooked when creating the guidelines. --Last Malthusian 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of external links, and we don't need a billion articles on subject + the word 'blog'. There is precedent for this - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poker_blog, which resulted in a delete. --Last Malthusian 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth noting the opinion of one of the voters on [[Poker blog]s: "Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)" It just struck me as funny, that's all -- and it might be worthy in this debate. IanManka 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--dev1n 02:38, 19December 2005 (UTC)

  vote actually by 69.231.19.30 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • • • • • comment this is bat sh*t fu**ing crazy, this much trouble over a blog about chess?--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:31, 24 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She Died In June

Claims release of a single, a google search pulls 2 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Should check http://www.Shediedinjune.com and http://www.myspace.com/shediedinjune for obvious release of said single.

• Delete - as per the WP:NMG. The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion, sometimes seem a bit rigid, but in this case there's just not enough notability. --ParkerHiggins 01:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really hate band vanity pages. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn band. Two sentences do not an article make. Wikipedia will welcome them once they get more exposure. B.Wind 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn band. --Thephotoman 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep They exist. Nuff said.

"The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion."??? A guideline is by definition not a rule, therefor there are no rules per say for inclusion. Even if you accept WP:NMG, it itself states that just because a band or whatever does not pass its test, that is not automatically cause for deletion.Jcuk 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete-per both B.Wind and Thephotoman.... if all local small time bands were to be considered encyclopedic there would be no room on the servers for anything else-Reid A. 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Agnte

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 {chat} 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Moulton

Author and bike builder of rather questionable notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Built pro racing bikes- has published a novel. -- JJay 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per nom. Only one booke whose Amazon rank 1,378,054 is low. Keep Vastly improved rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems a vanity page. --Thephotoman 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per re-write. --Thephotoman 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only low Amazon rank, I got 1,864,385 Keep not the most notable person ever, but probably worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Article is much better after rewrite and no longer looks like vanity.--Bkwillwm 07:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite to avoid NPOV problems that seem to exist with the page at the moment. Notability irrelevant, not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep (Changed due to Crypticfirefly's rewrite) (although I'd suggest moving the page to the name of his company, if any, as that's the notable thing, not him personally) Notability doesn't have to be policy - it's a shorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopedia - that's not a subject for policy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the name of his "company" was his own name-- he apparently operated the buisness as a sole-proprietorship-- there is no "company" name. "Fuso," etc. were just trademarks that he used. I did put a reference to him on the "Fuso" disambig page, which may help. I should add also, that he did most if not all the work personally on the custom frames that he was most famous for. Crypticfirefly 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• commentshorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopeadia. Pretty much leaves me open to suggest every article I dont like gets nixed simply because I dont like it. There has to be a better criterion, personally I think verifiability is it. Jcuk 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dave Moulton has definite credibility with certain bicycle enthusiasts. A 'Google' search confirms this. (Pick out entries related to bicycles.) Richard D 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Found an interesting article about the guy in the May 8, 1989 issue of San Diego Business Journal, may add more info myself. Crypticfirefly 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've rewritten the article. Though I had never heard of the guy before, I can make the following arguments for "notability": (1) in the mid-70's was well-known in professional bike racing. Many photos of British pros of the time can be found with their bikes prominently marked with Moulton's name. If nothing else, people might want to look him up for that association. (2) He was well known enough that people were ordering his bikes from other countries-- namely, the U.S. (3) News articles refer to him as a well-nown "guru" of frame-making or as a master frame-maker. Recent articles about other bike makers mention Moulton's association with their business. (For example, Masi apparently is still commenting on the fact that he worked for them.) Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very nice job. Moulton is an interesting guy. Thanks. -- JJay 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep verifiable and reasonably notable within a limited locus; also to disambiguate from Alex Moulton and Moulton Bicycle. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:09, 23 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley the Republican

"...the first popular conservative woman podcaster." Weasel words aside, so what? Podcasts are a dime a dozen. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment How about we see some independent verification of any of these claims. I say, give it a little bit, and if they can't come up with any of that, then my vote is for delete.DeathThoreau 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending some verification. -- JJay 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 493,000 google hits for "Shelley the Republican" and the early ones are all about this, and in a wide range of different places. CalJW 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Gee, that's funny, I get only 105 unique Google hits. Try putting quote marks around the phrase. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, JJay's vote is odd -- what, we're supposed to keep all nonverified stuff? That's not the way Wikipedia works. And I have to question CalJW's counting skills, as I get 26,500 Google hits for "Shelley the Republican", only 94 unique. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I meant that the nom has not shown that this is not notable or unverified. I don't have time to google every nom and also don't feel that I can fully trust the nom's judgement. Since we have tons of podcasts/podcasters on the site, how am I supposed to decide which ones stay or go. Therefore, I have to default to keep pending some verification that Ms. Shelley Republican is not notable. I was hoping that editors with some expertise in this area would help guide that choice. -- JJay 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I share your same concerns, only because some of the other nomations made by Mr. Gustafson earlier today looked a bit hurried. I am assuming good faith, but I hope that he reconsiders and voluntarily withdraws some of his other noms, such as the AFD for Khalil Beschir. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, I agree. I can't run the risk of throwing away potentially valuable information. In this specific case, how can one judge the notability or popularity of a podcaster? Are there ratings or awards? Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Maybe google hits are not the answer. -- JJay 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment So, are you saying that lacking verification, your vote above is one for a Delete? You're right, Google is rarely a good source when it comes to Websites, [http:/www.alexa.com Alexa] is far superior, but can't be used in this case since the Alexa rank will be for [http:www.blogspot.com Blogspot], Shelly's bloghost. Maybe we should ask Shelly why she's any different than the hundreds, if not thousands of political pundit bloggers out there. karmafist 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I thought this woman was supposed to be a popular conservative woman podcaster. Is podcasting the same as blogging? Does Alexa rank podcasts? I do find Ms. Shelley nominated for Texan of the year along with a bunch of other famous people [2], or mentioned in a Guardian book review [3], but am still quite unable to judge her notability. Also, my vote right now is Keep. It might change to delete, at which point it will be two letters longer with a different pronunication starting with the letter "D". -- JJay 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. My Google results are similar to that of Zoe's, but with 100 more for some strange reason ("Results 1 - 10 of about 26,600 for "Shelley the Republican". (0.06 seconds)"). [4] The difference of 100 hits might be because I have filtering disabled and am allowing for any language, any format, anytime and anywhere in the advanced Google configuration. This seems notable enough though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your search still only shows 94 unique hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not know how to explain our strange discrepancy, but when I perform a search for this name using the link I provided above, it returns 118 unique hits on page 12. In any case, I believe that this person is notable enough for inclusion based on these results. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator and Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - EVERY SINGLE LINK past 210 is a link to "Podcastpickle.com." Linkfarmed and linkspammed to boost results, obviously. Non-notable. "First popular woman podcaster" is also unsourced and unverified. FCYTravis 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa check is impossible since it's a blogspot blog, blogs/podcasts are generally not notable and this one hasn't proved otherwise, or really anything about how it doesn't violate WP:NOT/Propaganda Machine. karmafist 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per FCYTravis and karmafist. - Randwicked 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with above. The linkspamming is out of control. Eusebeus 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Good example of why Google is a guideline when determining encyclopedic notability, not a strict rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You want to be anonymous and then spam everywhere in sight? Bah. Non-notable. Ifnord 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability Irrelevant, not official Wiki policy. Jcuk 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Untrue. Notability is one of the specific criteria by which biographies can be speedy deleted. That is official Wikipedia policy. And please do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Notability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and therefore a valid reason for deletion. Durova 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be spamming; absolutly no sourced claims of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Podcasters are a dime-a-dozen. Hells bells, even I've started one. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is relevant. Why? Apart from it being the basis of WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc. etc, notability is relevant because the community damn well says it is. Wikpiedia is not a bureaucracy (that's not in WP:NOT, but it should be) and community consensus ranks over the lack of 'policy'. --Last Malthusian 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to counter left-wing bias.  Grue  14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per FCYTravis Agnte 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per FCYTravis - FrancisTyers 16:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although you know the liberal jewish media is out of control *wink* wink* I was tempted to vote keep, but then I didn't--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:34, 24 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 University of Minnesota. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superblock (University of Minnesota)

School dorm block. NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Interesting stuff. -- JJay 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: does that university have an inode table (University of Minnesota) as well? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to University of Minnesota. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Zoe. The part about "multidude of social activity" sounds interesting from a dudeinal standpoint. Hamster Sandwich 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to University of Minnesota. --Thephotoman 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Zoe. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and or Merge as per Zoe Jcuk 20:46, 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. I probably would have no consensus-ed it, but the lack of references at the time I closed this makes B.Wind's comment count as a delete, bringing it over the threshold. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Best Syndrome

31 hits. Neologism. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - DavidWBrooks 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This term has been bandied about in music circles the last few years. Wait for references; if there is no independent reference (Internet or print) by the end of AfD, then delete. B.Wind 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Does need some references. --Thephotoman 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Doesn't seem to be in popular usage, and the page is sparse. Would be better as a paragraph in the Pete Best article (with a redirect) or just plain deleted, imho. --kingboyk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's easy to find references that disagree with the article[5], but hard to find ones that support it.
• Keep or possibly Merge with Pete Best article. Jcuk 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - feel free to recreate if independent references can be found. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep. I've heard this term quite a lot (ISTR first hearing it referring to Mick Abrahams on a documentary about Jethro Tull, of all people, in about 1990). Grutness...wha? 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:V unless someone comes up with a source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 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 Prolly shouldn'ta AfD'd in the first place... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Czech resistance under Nazi occupation

Essay-ish entry with material covered in other articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable, encyclopedic topic, well-written, not a copyvio (unlike what seems like most of what gets submitted here); if the opening seems a little thesis-like, it's not original research, but well referenced to historians (later editors can balance it out a little). I also wikified it/cleaned it up a little. CanadianCaesar 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also moved it to Czech resistance to Nazi occupation (What exactly were they resisting "under Nazi occupation"?) CanadianCaesar 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You might have said which other articles. I am not going to look for you. CalJW 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic with verifiable information. Well done Canadian Caesar for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but it wasn't really a rewrite, just some small fixes. CanadianCaesar 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable historical topic. Movementarian 04:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. --Apostrophe 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, historical, and can be expanded. Need to make the first sentence consistent with whatever the title is going to be. —Brim 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Canadian Ceasar. Nice work! Hamster Sandwich 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Strongest Possible Keep. Wikipedia articles are, by nature, essays. What is not allowed is Original Research essays. Logophile 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is this even on AfD, as per above? --Thephotoman 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good historical article. Baffling nomination. --Squiddy 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting historical topic. Could be expanded in some way (for example mentions about Munich agreement - the psycho-effect of this betrayal of allies for Czechs) Szalas
• STRONG KEEP In fact I dont think I've ever felt a stronger KEEP vote coming over me!! The article is encyclopeadic, seems well researched and has a definate place in Wikipedia. (Delete nominator? ;-> ) Jcuk 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It covers only early years of war but that could be improved. Pavel Vozenilek 22:17, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of organizations with names based on word/phrase puns

Useless list, not really accurate, likely POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A number of popular names for companies are like this, I can't imagine that this list could ever be wholly comprehensive. Also, most of these are more portmanteuas than puns.DeathThoreau 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't see any reason to delete this. -- JJay 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The reason is that this list is ill-defined and probably unmaintainable. Most of the companies in that list are actually just modified acronyms. So they're not really based on "puns". mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good, interesting list. CalJW 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A silly concept. How can it be useful, let alone accurate? It's mainly a list of names based on portmanteaux and acronyms, not puns. At bare minimum, it needs to have its name changed. What's next, a list of companies whose CEO's open their cereal boxes from the bottom? Chris the speller 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete, nonsense list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Content can go on List of company name etymologies, or List of portmanteaus. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Overblown and unencyclopedic list. --Apostrophe 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's just advertising. -- Kjkolb 05:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not advertising or nonsense, but definitely silly and useless. Each company name can be explained in the article about that company. Logophile 06:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Impossible to maintain and pointless. FCYTravis 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per FCYTravis. FreplySpang (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless list. No reason to delete. Would possibly support a merge to list of portmanteaus.....possibly. Jcuk 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, silly. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all lists, especially POV nonsense like this.Gateman1997 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Does that include valuable non-POV lists that you submit, such as List of White Americans? Just want to know where you really stand. -- JJay 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I believe all lists of information that is better contained in cats should be deleted, but as List of African Americans and List of Native Americans are being kept for the sake of racial equality I believe it's only fair to have a List of White Americans. To do otherwise is racist IMHO.Gateman1997 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense listcruft --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin (Emulator)

NN emulator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- JJay 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nom succinct. Maybe important [6]. Default keep. -- JJay 02:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 163,000 google hits for "dolphin emulator nintendo". CalJW 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yikes, this is really notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:37, 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 KEEP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khalil Beschir

NN racecar driver. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Over 11,000 hits on Google, notable. Tufflaw 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A1 driver with team Lebanon. [7]. Did the nom check this? -- JJay 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Please read WP:BIO before nominating any further biographical articles. CalJW 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I regard that as a personal attack. CalJW 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or speedy keep if the nominator will withdraw; appears to meet and exceed the criteria set forth by WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarih ve Demokrasi

NN web forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Has the nom attempted to verify this? It looks potentially important in the framework of Turkish democracy. -- JJay 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Removing vote following relevant comments from Turkish editor hudd. -- JJay 07:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Verify This needs some validation. DeathThoreau 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please at least try to justify your nominations. CalJW 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question: Does this website meet any of the following criteria set by WP:WEB?
  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

  The site is in a foreign language which I do not understand, I would like to hear from the creator of this article, User:Csunsay, before making any kind of final decision. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no claim to notability like listed above, only 123 unique Google results.
• Delete, well: I'm Turkish, and this is the first time I heard of this site. Its not a forum, obviously some people (probably owners of the site) keep posting articles that will make Turkish right-wing angry (no npov intended, this is what it is). Not to mention description also says "we are totally npov", obviously takes side. Not a famous site (its not hosted on its own server, first of all), not a fair discussion over the Turkish democracy (not a discussion as well, more like some sides gathered together to promote their ideas), doesn't have 5000 users, not a subject to media attention, technically cannot be rated on Alexa. I'd sum up that it does not qualify as a Wikipedia entry, furthermore the article is exaggrating and misleading. It is a nice site, but has no place here, yet.hudd 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (edit: never got that left/right thing.. sorry)
• Delete as per Hudd. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN web forum Agnte 20:16, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin J. Blaser

NN profesor. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep President-elect infectious diseases society, published author on treatment of AIDS patieints, 92000 google hits on 'martin blaser infectious diseases' MNewnham 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very important Prof. -- JJay 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. is notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep Published over 450 scientific papers, lead researcher on Helicobacter Pylori, frequent TV commentator on the infectious disease du jour
• Keep Low quality nomination. CalJW 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, meets the criteria in WP:PROF. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Developers Digest

NN website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It's a Mediawiki site without which we wouldn't be here. CalJW 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• We wouldn't be here without MediWiki, yes. We do just fine without this pissant nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Absolutely a notable website. What's with the rampage against "NN websites"? Please verify before listing an article for AfD. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Um, what the hell? Just because a site runs MediaWiki doesn't make it notable. It's a wiki with SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. Yes, SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant. FCYTravis 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think this needs to be written in twenty foot letters: SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. What the fuck, actually. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant - what the hell, the category is called MediaWiki websites. The category description is Website that runs MediaWiki software - I believe my website falls into that category, no? --RossOliver

• Keep per arguments above. Also please refrain from foul language. Many younger editors participate in these discussions. Frustrations can be expressed in other ways-- JJay 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a website whose only claim to notability is that it runs a popular and well-known piece of wiki software. The wiki for a freakin' MU* that I play on has more than 68 articles, for God's sake! And yes, it runs MediaWiki. And no, I will not write an article on it because I'm sane. If 'runs popular software' is a criteria for notability now, should we vote to keep all websites that use HTML? Lord Bob 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Delete as advertising. Nice looking site but at this point in time entirely non-notable. Actually, I'd say speedy delete as vanity and advertising, if that's possible. The site's About page has been viewed a grand total of 98 times, and is one sentence long. The forum says 'Most users ever online was 6'. I rest my case! --kingboyk 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete as non-notable. I wouldn't call it a rampage but if every website knew we blindly accepted any free advertising they threw at us - we'd be in very sad shape.Ifnord 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per kingboyk's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.TheRingess 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is irrelevant as it's not official Wiki policy, just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to edit.Jcuk 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that's what they are doing here - why does something not being policy make it "irrelevant"? That trees grow toward the sun is not policy, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Are not policies the rules by which we decide whether or not something should be kept? Jcuk 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Christ - I didn't realise a website had to be popular in order for it to be listed on the 'MediaWiki websites' page. If it's that big of a deal, delete the article; I obviously misunderstood the use of that category. No need to slander my website though. --RossOliver
  • I can see how there'd be a misunderstanding, so I'll try and explain as best I can. Categories are not intended to list all things that fit into that category, merely to list all things that fit into that category and qualify to appear in Wikipedia as per the policies and significant precedent that have been laid out. Lord Bob 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough, I misunderstood and I apologise. In fact, I even went as far as to politely apologise to this guy when he first listed my page for deletion and for him to come back and call my website 'pissant nonsense' isn't really on. --RossOliver
      • I agree, as that violates our civility policy, and assume good faith. Mr. Oliver, we sincerely hope that your site does develop great interest in the future, and that someday it will merit an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd like to second that. This has nothing to do with the quality of the site (note to person below) nor about being mean or rude, but as to whether it currently belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say no it doesn't, but I hope that some day it will! --kingboyk 10:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't say I'm surprised you've been poorly treated here. The insults that are being tossed around are beyond the pale. You deserve an apology. That said, I voted keep and think your site is good and merits a page at wikipedia. -- JJay 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete running mediawiki does not make a site worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Agnte 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The JPS 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB.Gateman1997 18:21, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danville, Illinois, Ward 7 Alderman Election, 2005

Local election results. NN, delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Looks to be close election with recount. Could probably be expanded. -- JJay 01:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Of local interest only. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dlyons493. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Less than 1000 people voted and we probably don't have an article on the winner. If we did, the claims would be questionable under articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteas per Capitalistroadster. Hamster Sandwich 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, but I'm really curious as to that one write-in. Not too curious, though. Snurks ^{T C} 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Cap. PJM 17:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. NN irrelevant, not official Wiki policy, just a guideline.Jcuk 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to a local election page for Danville as such an election is and should be notable for Danville. Davewild 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is it notable simply for being decided by one vote? Do we have an article like "Elections decided by one vote" that this could be merged into? TMS63112 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• We do have Close elections, maybe this could be renamed Close local elections. -- JJay 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Deelte local intrest only --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:40, 22 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urindish

Neologism. There's nothing on google[8] about this. The author has removed the unreferenced template and left it with no sourcing. Seems highly unlikely that urndish is the 3rd most spoken language when its mentioned nowhere. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree, per nom. Tufflaw 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. I mean, if there's an English Wikipedia, a Hindi wikipedia and an Urdu Wikipedia, then one woudl think that the "third most understood language" would have its own. DeathThoreau 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Speedy if possible. Nonsense.Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whilst the controversy related to the religious connotations of Hindi and Urdu is a very real one (that has indeed caused a long-running edit war to exist on those two articles, and that gives the U.S. English/Commonwealth English controversy a good run for its money), there is no evidence whatsoever that people have adopted this idea in order to distance themselves from it. Indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that this idea even exists outside of Wikipedia. This appears to be the author's original invention. Delete. Uncle G 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non verifiable -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
• Comment: Just because you are not familiar with the term "Urindish" does not mean it does not exist. The usage of the term Urindish to refer to Hindi-Urdu language is slowly taking off and it is only a matter of time before it gains popularity. Author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjadfarooq (talk • contribs)

• Delete: Unreferenced, unsubstantiated term. Just because someone coins a term doesn't mean it is used in reality. --Ragib 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom Agnte 20:17, 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 No consensus Ral315 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodson Lateral Road

It's just a road. Nominating this for precedence more so than its non-notability, but either works. Stifle 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge urban legend stuff about ghosts/whatnot into Woodson, Arkansas and redirect. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and cleanup for tone if verified. I have no real preference about where this should be covered but local Urban legends of this kind deserve coverrage, although I wonder how a biker could die on such a straight road... - Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- JJay 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Good article on good road + what Jcuk said. -- JJay 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn road --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it is heavily marked for tons of cleanup I'd like to see it have a chance to be improved and refrenced, if not it can always be relisted. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. I wanted to find something notable, and I tried. I like any article with the word, "wierdness" in it. But, in this case, I don't see anything to save nor hope it'll improve even with every cleanup tag we have. Ifnord 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The M1 is just a road but it has an entry. Woodson Lateral Road is verifiable, non notability is irrelevant as its not official Wiki rules, just guidelines by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. Jcuk 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (feel free to Merge, as per Mgm). Notable means verifiable and well-known, and important, and liely to be looked up - what's irrlevant about that? "Some but by no means all Wikipedians" vandalize articles, but that doesn't make vandalizing either relevant or irrelvant to the usefulness of information in Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the deletion of this would not set a precedent, unless you're looking to form a precedent on urban legends. --SPUI (talk) 20:18, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MGcomics

Delete. Non-notable vanity web-site, according to Google only 13 other sites link to it. Tufflaw 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:WEB by a long shot. No offense, but it's very hard to assert notability with a sprite comic using other people's creative property.DeathThoreau 01:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It exists, is verifiable, and notability is just a guidline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate.Jcuk 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My nose exists, too. And I am one of the Wikipedians who choose to operate via notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • commentMy nose exists too, as it happens, but you're not likely to find the fact on Yahoo or whatever, therefor writing an article about my nose would be non verifiable. You'll have guess I'm not one of the Wikipedians who choose to operate via notability... Jcuk 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, vanity, doesnt meet WP:WEB Agnte 20:18, 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 Speedied by User:Zoe

[edit] Founder of Harbison Canyon

inappropriate entry--Schmiteye 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Userify While it's great when people want to learn about their family history, wikipedia isn't the place to do it. There are a lot of websites, although I'm not really familiar with any of them, however this isn't one of them. DeathThoreau 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied as an attempt at communication. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaffaria

From WP:PNT. Only been there a few hours, but consensus there is to delete as a hoax. Here's the discussion from WP:PNT... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

German. "Kaffaria is a modification of the write art of the Kaffkas. In this kind of the letter one needs four pins, between each finger one. Then one must learn with each pin another letter to write, if one created that can one whole stories much shorter time write. Already Homerie Hugold(1312 1363) had at that time a similar schreibart, but only with three pins. The Kaffaria completed the write art then." (Babel Fish Translation) I can't make much of this other than it does not appear to be nonsense, vanity, nor an advertisement. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strange... no relevant Google hits for "Kaffaria" nor "Kaffar", nor "Hugolt". Doubtfully, but could it refer to something really rare but still valid, in the history? - Introvert ^talk 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a more exact translation: Kaffaria is a modification of Kaffka's [sic] art in writing. In this kind of writing, four pens are needed, one between each finger [sic]. Then one must learn to write another letter with each pen. When one has done this, one is able to write entire stories in much shorter [less] time. Even Homerie Hugold(1312-1363) already used to have such a way of writing, though only with three pens. [The] Kaffaria subsequently perfected the writing art.

Surely this is a spoof? Kaffaria is a geographical designation in South-Africa, but there is no connexion with the author Kafka (single f). Homerie, as far as I am aware, does not occur, but has overtones of Homer. Writing with a number of pens at the same time, surely, is a game only practised by children? The associations with Kafka and Homer must be relegated to the field of creative nonsense, as must the entire entry. Bessel Dekker 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It surely does look like someone's gotten into merry spirits already, so I was just being one step extra careful :) - Introvert ^talk 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, too. Well, they've had their fun, which is a nice thought for the season :-) Bessel Dekker 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• So AfD as hoax? Or shall we let it sit here for two weeks first, just in case? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is the best the author can do, it must be a hoax. Letting it sit might be an option, but only because this is the merry (and merciful) season. Should you wish to give the author a chance, by all means. But to be honest, I can see no merit in this article. Just re-read my translation above (if you can bring yourself to do it), and try to picture what it purports to describe. Bessel Dekker 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I say speedy as {{nonsense}}. Come on, writing with four pens in one hand as a way to write stories faster? Kusma (討論) 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We go over this on WP:AFD all the time. If it is parseable English (or in this case, parseable German), it's not {{nonsense}}. If you can understand it, but yet it is complete bollocks, then it is definitely deletable, but requires debate on AfD. If fact, I think I'll AfD this article right away, since there seems to be consenus here on WP:PNT that it is worthless. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• (I'm the nominator) - delete per WP:PNT discussion. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I suspect it may have been inspired by Thea Alba, a German music hall performer billed as "The Woman with Ten Brains"; her act was to write on a blackboard simultaneously using ten pieces of chalk taped to her fingers. She's mentioned in Ricky Jay's Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women. Tearlach 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Translated it - I see someone's already done it above but I was bored. Very silly. --Last Malthusian 09:47, 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, no consensus as to where the redirect should point. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Laser

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. (The only Super Star Destroyer not in Imperial possession? Try Lusankya (eventually).) 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what looks here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-canon fan-fiction that doesn't even make sense. This ship couldn't've fought in the Clone Wars: there were no Star Destroyers at the time. Marblespire 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This ship is already well covered in Super Star Destroyer#Named_Examples. The experts that maintain that page will remove that listing if this ship is too far from the canon. ×Meegs 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose redirecting to the middle of the huge Super Star Destroyer article as suggested below. If there's to be a redirect, I'd support Laser only. ×Meegs 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Laser (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to laser Jcuk 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to laser VegaDark 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Marblespire. -LtNOWIS 21:02, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trandoshan Rifle

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. It doesn't fit with Boba Fett's history, and the reference to Ben Skywalker doesn't make sense. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is such a weapon as a Trandoshan Rifle in the SW universe. This isn't it. Even if the article was correct, it would not be 'significant' enough in the fictional universe to justify an article. Saberwyn 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to the Star Wars wiki. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't transwiki. The information is false, possibly fancruft. The article is in no way canon (in its current form). Saberwyn 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need tiny little articles about unverified fictional weapons, even if they are in the Star Wars univers. Madman 15:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would probably be notable if it were legit, but it's most likely not.-LtNOWIS 00:48, 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 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Z-98 Walker/Fighter

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not in any way SW canon. Delete - Saberwyn 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've deleted the other contributions of this editor, and all of them appear to be hoaxes. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebel New Bestine Infantry Transport

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is a stub about a fan-created star wars starship. Delete. Saberwyn 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:FICT Agnte 11:56, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tribi Works Inc.

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it doesn't give much information. New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm hearing chants of "fancruft, fan...cruft!" in the background here; or am I just going crazy. Saberwyn 08:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (for those not in the know, see Spam (Monty Python)) Saberwyn, thanks for a laugh. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:58, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aspirations Management

Self-promotion. Lincher 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NOR. Stifle 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Original research or vanity as author of article cites himself. Delete B.Wind 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Durova 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't exactly follow where the article is going, and the phrase only gets 284 googles, many of which are false positives (i.e. "...aspirations, management..."). -Colin Kimbrell 22:10, 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 Speedied by User:Zoe Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Pardee

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, reads like a resume. Tufflaw 01:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable within field, if asked, should be rewritten. JAD77 9:19, 18 December 2005

• • In all fairness, it should be noted that this is the original author of the article in question. Tufflaw 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no proof, not even an assertion that anyone ever took notice of him. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a "Who-is-Who". Pilatus 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability. Google wasn't much help either. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

S[eedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PESwiki

Incomplete AfD, completing nomination. This is actually an article that has been deleted before. Current form, it's a non-notable website, and the article barely exceeds db-empty criteria. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I was actually in the middle of nominating this. NN wiki. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete if it is simply the recreation of a previously deleted article. Agnte 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. The site exists and is verifiable.Jcuk 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:44, 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 No consensus. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SourceryForge

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please put more effort into your nominations. "NN" tells us nothing more than "I think this article should be deleted". Try explaining why you think something is non-notable, what steps you have taken to establish this, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 5,132,421 — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep pending further discussion. -- JJay 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 1800 articles, up to a thousand of them "seed" (empty) articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, that is pretty impressive. Is there anything else I should know? -- JJay 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN wiki. Agnte 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Notability is not policy, it is just a guideline by which some but by no mean all Wikipedians choose to operate.Jcuk 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn wiki --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fun name. -- Natalinasmpf 16:25, 23 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TerrorWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 496,111 — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Like what? You just proved my point! Notability and WP:WEB are all that matter here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable. -- JJay 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How? Did you go there (and see the only page: "Sorry, the wiki's been vandalized by spammers. I'm going to see if I can fix it")? Did you apply WP:WEB? Blindly keeping everything? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm quite surprised by your reaction. My comment was equal in length to your nom. As the nom, I fail to see why you withhold pertinent information regarding pages you nominate. Do you enjoy trying to make fools out of your voters? -- JJay 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not any more notable than your usual liberal websites. --Apostrophe 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Now a non-notable website like this being kept–that is terrifying. Okay, not really. Still should be deleted, though. Lord Bob 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not Wikipedia policy just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. This website exists (admittedly only just, but it does) and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Existance and verifiability are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. -Sean Curtin 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No real content on the site. I agree with JJay that including more info in nomination headers would be nice, though. -Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Quest Omnipedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 1,098,681. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Like what? WP:WEB is the ONLY thing that should apply. That and the main page has less than 5000 hits and there are less than 1000 articles. This is a joke. If we have a standard and then ignore it for no discernable reason, what is the point? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- JJay 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? It seems unique. How many other wikis focus on Space Quest? At the very least, the info should be merged to one of our space quest pages. -- JJay 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Space Quest Omnipedia is currently one of the links on the Space Quest page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Kimbrell (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work and thanks. I guess if the nom had merged and redirected it would have eliminated the need for this vote. -- JJay 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• As a passionate Space Quest lover, I am glad that I have discovered this website exists. That doesn't mean the website is encyclopaedic, of course! Delete, completely unremarkable. It is merely a wiki, not the Space Quest community's oldest and most cherished site or anything (that would probably be the Virtual Broomcloset...it's the oldest, anyway). Lord Bob 13:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails to meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:WEB is just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Existance and verifiability are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. It deserves an external link at Space Quest, but that's it. -Sean Curtin 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn .  Grue  14:54, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UniLang

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Not just a wiki. Also a website, which looks fairly significant in its field. Nearly 3,000 forum members, which isn't bad for an academic site. CalJW 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep maybe not NN. -- JJay 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep UniLang is most known for its forum. Its wiki may not be notable enough for an article but this isn't about the wiki this is about the UniLang site as a whole (the forum, the main site, the wiki). The UniLang forum has 2949 members which is notable for a forum. --Revolución (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears to be notable enough for inclusion, based upon my reading of WP:WEB. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems pretty prominent, considering the subject matter. -Colin Kimbrell 22:21, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiFAQ

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems important. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Inportant how, exactly? Because WP:WEB and it's whopping 177 articles dissaggree. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: You should have stated that with your nom. Given your track record (numerous speedy keeps) and complete failure to present a case for deletion, you left me no other choice but to seek to prevent the possible harmful loss of valuable information that might result from a reckless or foolhardy AfD nomination. -- JJay 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, given my track record? You clearly haven't a clue of which you speak. All my AfDs are good faith. Simply insinuating they are not based on nothing and then ignoring standards to spite me? We all need to invest in some more wikilove. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't mention your faith did I? I mentioned that you have repeatedly nominated and then speedily kept numerous articles that should never have come close to AfD. I won't list them here. I also won't discuss your habit of speedy deleting articles that do not fall within speedy guidelines. However, given that past history, I naturally tend to view you noms with some skepticism, particularly as you feel it is below you to justify them. -- JJay 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• A half dozen questioned deletes out of more than 1600 is not a "habit," and the accusation is unfounded and bordering on PA. Three reversals, coincidentally on the same day, out of 13 months of nominating articles is not a track record. You are judging a book based on the first few paragraphs, where you shouldn't be judging at all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm judging based on what I saw in the last few days. I thought, based on your noms, that you were a new user. I stand corrected. -- JJay 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So you not only judged me unfairly, you didn't even bother to check out my user page or past contributions or logs (where you would have seen that not only am I not new, I am an admin)?--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going by all those noms of the last day or two. I now know that I was being quite unfair. I take back and humbly apologize for my remark about your track record. That was wrong, and might be misconstrued as a personal attack. However, given that you are an admin, can you please end what is starting to look like a mockery of a farce at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno. Also, thanks for reversing (speedily keeping) your other recent noms. I respect your character. -- JJay 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The former I have speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation. You are a true gentleman and scholar. Furthermore, it is probably best to remain cautious on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno as the voting could still go either way and it may yet prove to be another in the unending series of classical music vanity scams I keep hearing about. -- JJay 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rest assured, the sarcasm of all your resposes here are frankly appaling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm? I won't accuse you of making personal attacks, but can't you have the good grace to accept a compliment or an apology? -- JJay 10:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The Site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My son has a website (hosted by my email provider) and it is verifiable. So what? mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oooh, I exist, for that matter. And it's verified! Who wants to write my article (so I can speedy it)? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By this standard every website on the internet should have a wikipedia entry. Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As an inclusionist Wikipedian, I'd have no problem with that. jc.
      • Woah, then you're the most hardcore inclusionist i've come across, congrats :) Agnte 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Dunno about that but thanks anyhow! *G* Seriously, if the article is verifiable, not scurrilous (spelling!!!), not obviously POV, I cant see what harm its doing by existingJcuk 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey, ah, but can we verify you exist by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia for doing so?! *G* Jcuk 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I could be a hoax... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• del. nn website. mikka (t) 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN website, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete utetrly nn.  Grue  14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The wiki community benefits from more wiki's gaining visibility within the community, thus i see no problems with it. Jeff, I notice you went through the entire Category:MediaWiki websites and marked most for delition. My guess is these sites only help to spread the proverbial word and improve the code that wikipedia runs on. - MEP
• Delete - "WikiFAQ states that they hope that by..." How about telling us about what WikiFAQ has done for us lately rather than what they want to do. Endomion 07:25, 23 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiHealth

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Need more info. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, this wiki has less than 200 articles. Less. Than. 200. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. So are you saying that's good? Because if you convince me it's not notable, I might change my vote. As in, my vote, could change -- JJay 09:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. It's also recent, being started on April. It's nice, but not notable. --Apostrophe 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wiki with 158 articles. It has been edited 11 times since December 13. Punkmorten 10:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Beautifully presented skin though, and I wish them well. --kingboyk 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Aggreed about the skin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:55, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MWUsers

NN wiki forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. -- JJay 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with what? Have you read WP:WEB? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do you really want to discuss your nominations? -- JJay 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --Apostrophe 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A forum with 135 users fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:56, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SailWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A sailing wiki. May be unique or unusual. -- JJay 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.Gateman1997 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Existance, verifiability, and uniqueness are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. -Sean Curtin 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:56, 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 No consensus. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S23 Wiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. useful. -- JJay 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• For whom, exactlty? It has less than 125 registered users, less than 5500 total pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly for the users of those pages. However, if these facts are pertinent to the discussion, why were they not presented earlier? -- JJay 09:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.Gateman1997 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is merely an opinion. Anyway, I think it's notable, so keep it. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course im biased, cause im running the wiki myself. But i just wanted to throw in google results. Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200 for s23+wiki | Results 1 - 10 of about 62,400 for is-root.de+wiki. (same place,different URL) Mutante23 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep MattisManzel 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC), another biased starter of s23-wiki.
• Keep Kunda23 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC), yet another biased member of s23 wiki, imploring those who have the power not to disassociate s23 wiki from the mother-meme-ship of Wikipedia.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SeattleWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Reasonably active and useful for its (large) locality. We should be encouraging other wikis. CalJW 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Recentchanges shows twenty edits in two days. By what standards are you saying reasonably active? For a wiki that boasts less than 500 articles to boot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Huge local interest. -- JJay 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Huge"? Okey Doke. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article, but I have no problem with it being an external link at Seattle, Washington. karmafist 06:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not voting, because as a participant in SeattleWiki I'm undoubtedly biased in its favor. However, allow me to point to a few examples of good work in that Wiki (much of it my own) -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC):
  • Last Exit on Brooklyn
  • PeaceWorks Park vigil
  • Seattle Hemp Fest
  • Seattle Coalition for Peace in the Middle East
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB.Gateman1997 19:40, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skwik

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Could be good home for all the band articles we delete. -- JJay 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. 571 Googles. FCYTravis 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 16:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:57, 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 No consensus. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infosecpedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Partly written by Jimbo Wales himself. CalJW 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So what? It's got a whopping 256 articles to it's name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. CalJW makes a good point. Has the nom checked these wikis out? Since the noms give me no info, I think I'll have to default to keep on all of them. -- JJay 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• EXCUSE ME? "Have I checked these out"? Are you applying accepted standards to these votes? I just said this wiki has 256 articles. I deleted 256 articles today alone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Accepted standards. It's funny you mention that. Where are the accepted standards for nominating race car drivers, award-winning violinists, and internationally-renowned infectious disease specialists to name a few of your recent choices? I would also be curious to know what standards you applied to your 256 deletions. I would hate to think that we might be excising vital submissions from new editors. Although, I'm sure that your speedies are only rarely overturned. -- JJay 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't forget top-tier college athletes who are nominated for deletion five minutes after article creation. Sawney 11:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. AfD is looking far too much like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey today. --Agamemnon2 18:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is well beyond the stage of innocent childhood games. The nom seems to feel he is defending the Normandy beaches on D-Day. He uses a machine gun to kill most incoming, then takes the wounded to AfD. However, like the Czech resistance fighters- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation - the underdogs will win out. -- JJay 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Its seems as if you're just voting keep to spite the nominator. Say what you will about other noms - this article doesnt meet WP:WEB, it doesnt even come close, so it should be deleted. Agnte 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• My original comment above explained it fairly well. -- JJay 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking [9], so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it [10] , and one of those is this wikipedia entry. Agnte 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a slow growth does not make a project unnotable. Paul Carpenter 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm an admin on Infosecpedia. The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam). — Matt Crypto 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A footnote at best. -Sean Curtin 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ErrantryWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Need info to judge notability. -- JJay 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• 281 articles. 281. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks Again. Again. Thanks. Is 281 enough? Seems like a nice start to me. Of course, if you think that's not notable, maybe we could merge the info from your wiki noms into a wiki list of some type. Lists are always helpful, I find. Don't you agree?. -- JJay 09:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN wiki, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This has fallen between the cracks, so I'm closing it myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering Wiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Might be notable. -- JJay 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Too bad it isn't: 121 articles. 121. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. 121 you say? Can you repeat that? It might still be notable. -- JJay 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• A better question is, do you believe that it is notable? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB, wikipedia is not a web directory. Agnte 13:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Closing this myself as this seems to have slipped between the cracks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 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. —Cleared as filed. 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OrthodoxWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Over 1,300 articles and accelerating. CalJW 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. How many Orthodox wikis exist? -- JJay 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable enough. I've went there and I think I've heard of it mentioned online several places.--T. Anthony 10:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep—I'm one of the project's sysops, so I'm biased (I still get to vote!), but I have heard it being talked about it a good bit even outside of the Internet. —Preost ^talk contribs 10:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, notability is official Wikipedia Policy, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I cant see anything on that page that says anything about notability. Verifiability, yes, but not notability. Jcuk 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is a proposed Wikipedia policy. —Preost ^talk contribs 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Granted, but as of right now its only proposed policy.Jcuk 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A well-maintained, informative place and with broad audience and editorship. Unlike the rest of wikicruft listed here it has notable context in wikipedia. mikka (t) 23:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per mikkalai. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- OrthodoxWiki isn't an obscure resource so its article shouldn't be deleted for allegedly being "non-notable". Critias 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not close to being notable, as based on WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for orthodoxwiki.org: 422,224 (not in top 10,000) [11]. 703 active users [12] (not over 5,000). No evidence that it has been the subject or national or international media attention. And having a few links from wikipedia doesn't demonstrate notable context. Agnte 17:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Heck, if Wookieepedia (Star Wars) can have it's own page, why can't this? Dumanov 01:28, 21 December 2005
• Delete nn.  Grue  15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Looks like a quality resource that can only become more notable in the future. --Pmsyyz 09:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this wiki is notable Yuckfoo 07:53, 28 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 FRIED. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fried human fucking

Delete. Patent nonsense. I originally attempted to speedy delete, but I respect Haukurth's changing to AFD. Tufflaw 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources providing notability of the idea are established. A Google search gives me nothing. I've added clean-up tags and contacted the new user who is writing the article. A pleasure to work with you, Tufflaw. - Haukur 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not even running a Google search on something like this. Author didn't verify his/her work with reliable sources, and for this particular case that satisfies me to vote delete. CanadianCaesar 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Patently patent nonsense if ever I saw it... KC. 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really seeing it. I've heard of cannibalism and necrophilia; these things exist. It is disgusting, though. CanadianCaesar 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, dear Lord above, delete. Someone needs to have a word with this user. - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 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 FCYTravis 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanborn UK

Non Notable forum (Alexa ranking 1,135,959). -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. FCYTravis 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - wikipedia is not a web directory. Agnte 13:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, nothing else to make it special. - Bobet 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 16:28, 23 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 O Keep after votes by annons and new users were discounted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O RLY?

Listed for deletion? YA RLY.

Another so-called internet meme which will be irrelevant in ten years, if not already. Denni ☯ 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Informative!!
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is such an excellent source of info about Internet memes (among other things, of course).
• Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O RLY CanadianCaesar 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I'm not sure exactly why that was closed as a consensus to delete; and it may have gained notability since. Abstain. CanadianCaesar 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it's a increadible meme spreading in the net. Keep this, is very interesting about speed of Internet memes.--Quackshot 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merging it with an some internet slang article would make it needlessly difficult to find. Kfroog 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• O KEEP Well written, informative, I've seen lesser articles on topics of much more importance. Agree with Kfroog. Tom Foolery 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• O KEEP. --Apostrophe 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it's a well rounded, informative article on something that has been bugging people all over the internet... 'what is this o rly owl?' --Anonymous This user's seventh edit.
• Keep O RLY is very popular and i've used this page as an explination. --Ryu 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This user's third edit.
• Keep NaconKantari 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - One of the Internet memes which deserves to be kept. It's an interesting, funny, sophisticated and interesting meme - compared to the utterly puerile, juvenile and offensive Brian Peppers meme. FCYTravis 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now because it is relevant today, per above votes. If it turns out to be irrelevant in ten years, I'll gladly vote delete then. Wikipedia is beautiful for its fluidity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep is relevant, probably should be referenced on the page on Internet jargon. --Thephotoman 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• YA KPY - It's a big enough meme. Darobsta 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was actually checking to see if there was an article on this. Was surprised to see it under VfD. Definitely noteworthy (especially as an indicator of how stupid internet memes can get -- ya, rly!). neckro 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• NO WAI! Keep. Cernen 12:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I found this helpful, really. This user's only edit.
• Keep While memes could still be considered in their infancy, who can say what sort of sticking power they'll have? If this is still a problem in 10 years, I'll vote for deletion then. Acelin 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This user's only edit.
• Delete. I disagree with all justifications detailed above and consider this to be an utterly unencyclopedic topic. --Agamemnon2 18:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Agamemnon2. Reyk 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Thirded! This is completely not notable and prone to vandalism and copyright violation! --DJH47 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. w00t. Pablo_Mayrgundter 8:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep This is a part of internet culture that should be told! There are many other internet culture articles that should go before this one. This user's only edit.

• The Internet doesn't have a culture unless you count clueless ranting, illiterate spam email and advertising banners. --Agamemnon2 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Keep That Is As Strong As Possible This is so important..people should learn about the internet, and its fads. This user's eleventh edit in eight months.
• Keep this belongs on its own page apparently...  ALKIVAR™ 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was just wondering about the history of the o rly owls and was happy to stumble upon this page. Without its wikipedia entry, I wouldn't have known what it was. I think most popular memes belong on here. This user's second edit.
• Keep This is a lot more popular than most internet meme's, and i see it everyday. so what if its not relevant in 10 years, isnt that what HISTORY is for? Logging such things?. Jragar 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Jragar's only edit, even though his contribs page turns up no hits at all.
• Keep Come on, its bloody brilliant. Which sycophant motioned for deletion? tut tut QrimmerQrimmer's 29th edit.

Comment: 29 edits, spread uniformly over a month? Works for me... -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant? You =do= lead a sheltered life. Denni ☯ 03:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; not encyclopedic (as is the case with nearly all "internet memes"). --keepsleeping say what 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Really, is it less encyclopedic than Kilroy was here? The only difference I see is in age. Kfroog 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete per Keepsleeping. WikiFanatic 03:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - graphics animation emblemic of pushing it past reasonable limits. [User:Metarhyme|Metarhyme]] 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for Academia I am currently using this article in my paper for Sociolingustics in my discussion on Language of the Internet, and that alone I feel suffices for reasons to keep this article. It contains information pertainate to my research. Nearly all article are prone to vandalism and that is not sufficient grounds on which to remove an article. As for those who claim it as unencyclopedic, I ask that you please give me your definition of encyclopedic. If you mean something that would someday appear in a professionally published encyclopedia, then I'm afraid I disagree with you on the premise of Wikipedia. The nature of internet hypertext over print is that it allows for a much larger base of information, so while this information would not be pertainate enough to justify listing in a printed medium, it contains relevant information that seekers of knowledge would care to know. As for the person who claimed that there is no such thing as internet culture, I beg to differ. Even among professional circles it is recognized that there is such a thing as internet culture. I may not be a lingustics major, and I'm taking this class for fun, but I do know enough to claim that the internet does have a culture, and that the language used within the internet does have a history. Slang has literary significance just like any other language feature, and that of the internet is no exception. If you're really desparate for proof that I really am using this for my paper, look up Professor S. Dart at Macalester College a few weeks from now after I turn in my paper and ask if I discussed O RLY. --D. Ly 23:35 Dec 18 2005 (CST) This user's third edit.
• weak keep... although I can't really see anyone typing this to find out about airports in Paris. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (it's a joke, ok?)
• Keep or speedy keep, exact search returns 204,000 hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• This should not be deleted, as it is a great example of a deversity of a langauge that has grown up on the internet. To say, it defines the modern genteralion, as teens use it for text, and even dome adults use it as well, if they are in a hurry. User:Tehmadbluebear This user's only edit.
• Keep this article! I was here specifically looking for this, becuase I see it at least once a day on the forums I read and was really boggling over question: 'what's with o rly thing?' ~Ari 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) This user's only edit.
• Keep - David Gerard 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Dumb but notable. If it fades into non-notability in a year then we can talk about deleting it. - Stlemur 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic, not notable, and banish the puppets. Agnte 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong KeepThe O RLY Owl is the best -- it's on par with All your base, etc. User:Tryndamere 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC) This user's fifth edit, of which four have been AfD votes
• Keep "notable" meme. --SPUI (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is genius because it providers a pretty reliable place where everyone can share knowledge or use it. Most of it is kept in real time and even if you have the littlest knowledge which may seem ridicolous and would never be ever needed, you can contribute. Since an encylopedia should cover pop culture, and this word is part of the rising Internet phenomenom, it should be kept as it can be useful to someone who is doing a report on the ever expanding and changing cyberworld. SandBoxer 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article could use improvement, but the meme is indeed notable. --c3o 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it's irrelevant in ten years I would think it should be kept for historical reasons. (internet phenomena and such).Garion96 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable internet meme. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 02:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not quite up to the level of All Your Base, but I'd say this is the most pervasive meme of this year. A 02:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• O NOES! EXTREME Keep! One of the biggest memes to hit in a long time. It will (unfortunately) be with us for quite some time. Might as well document it. --Froggy 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• SRSLY Keep. Rly. Rampart 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• YA RLY keep. Next we'll delete the entry on the US Constitution, since that's looking to be irrelevant in 10 years. --66.92.84.190 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• O COMMENT: can we BJAODN this discussion and then drag it out whenever we're taking ourselves too seriously? ^_^ Marblespire 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please erasing it does not make sense it is notable Yuckfoo 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as I agree with ~Ari, I found this article useful in figuring out what was meant by 'o rly' CMJ 08:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it should remain, as an example of a meme, since it is one of the largest to hit the internet, probably on par with the "Zero Wing". It definitely deserves to stay. axedesign 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pfctdayelise 13:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If All your base are belong to us has an article, this should too. Dan 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (Ya rly!) The article is good, and the topic is fairly notable, IMO. — 69.211.123.29 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ya, RLY. Article is notable and part of internet culture, similar to all your base are belong to us. Those who say it isnt notable or encyclopedic, should understand that Wikipedia is not paper. Mystache 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this was removed, Then All your Base should be removed by the same logic. --Theredstarswl 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 200,000 on google Zig 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• O KEEP wheres the vote botten, it needs to be expanded
• Keep Like others, I came here specifically looking for this entry. Few would say that internet memes represent a high point in modern culture but they nonetheless form part of the social background of the medium. --Mizake 12:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Where would people go to find out what these kind of, admittedly obscure, pop-culture references actually mean, if not WikiPedia? It is notable, and unlike other sources, the information listed; i.e. origin, meaning, history/evolution is encyclopedic. It may be a insignificant fad, but if it had no listing, how would you know?
• Keep I agree with Mizake, this is a wonderful article on an obscure subject. This is one of the key components of Wikipedia, IMO. Not only informative, but a bit wacky.--droptone 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The meme is established and wide spread. It gets an extremely high number of hits on google and is thus notable. The article is appropriately sourced and is worthy of inclusion. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As you guys can probably tell this is a really biased vote. I guarantee you most of the "Keeps" are users from YTMND. Let a group of admins decide on what to do with this. It's just silly. --Tykell 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice to see good faith is alive and well on AFD! Uncyclopedia:O RLY? - David Gerard 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's always fun to have your motives and background second guessed by someone who knows nothing about you. I've not cast aspersions on the motives of the 'Delete' voters, but then my interpretation of the vote here was not quite so cynical. Yeah, that comment annoyed me. Does it show? --Mizake 00:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggestion is inherently invalid in that the reasoning used to justify recommendation for deletion fails Assume Good Faith guidelines. Lumbergh 05:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (Delete?! NO WAI!) This doesn't seem to violate any policies or anything... Besides, it's a useful article with helpful information! Think about forum newbies asking what this O RLY owl people keep talking about is- This really is the ONLY really GOOD source on the topic. llamapalooza87 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Usage is currently widespread enough to be worth coverage. If that changes, we can always re-evaluate the situation later, as others have noted in earlier votes. -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It can be hard for those who only see the end products to figure out how trends, jokes, memes, etc. begin (Ever missed an episode of the Simpsons and subsequently failed to get a reference everyone else did?)- it's good to have an explanation. And it's a perfectly cromulent article. -- Jake 00:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's a popular meme. —Zazou 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Certainly nowhere near the league of AYBABTU, but at least deserves an article. Turnstep
• Keep a very large meme, definetly notable. Staxringold 16:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep? Ja, wirklich! --Kotjze 22:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please. Someone just said that in an internet forum another day, and I had no idea wath it meant. Keep please. 22 December 2005
• Keep The O Rly owl rocks. When future generations come to the internet, shouldn't they be allowed to do research on what an "O Rly" owl is?
• Don't Delete -- I fail to see the justification in whimsically deleting articles arbitrarily declared to be unencyclopaedic at the spontaneous and unsubstantiated decision of a small but loud group of misanthropes who do not understand the relevance of and importance of documenting the history and evolution of the internet. The O RLY owl is an important piece in the aforementioned history and evolution, and therefore ought to remain. Lumbergh 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article should be kept, O RLY is a quickly growing internet meme and the phrase has been around for quite some time. This article is especially important for communities such as 4chan where the O RLY Owl originated. richjkl 06:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' In 40 years people will want to know this stuff. Endomion 06:47, 23 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apptix

no claim of notability per WP:CORP WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and add links to article WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Palfrey 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 02:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Publicly traded Norwegian company [13]. -- JJay 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be legit. It is in Yahoo! Finance and Reuters [14] which qualifies "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Also as JJay has already stated, it is a publicly traded company in Norway. --J. Nguyen 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Movementarian 04:12, 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 and move to Le Bec-Fin. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Le Bec Fin

No claim for notability for this restuarant. Was previously speedied, but doesn't qualify under CSD. Delete Owen× ☎ 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Four Stars in Michelin is a claim of notability, and if it can be verified (and rewritten to seem less like an A4 speedy), then Keep. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and fix per Jeffrey. The original entry was a weblink placeholder; the current version is better but still an ad. I've left word with the user. - Lucky 6.9 02:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Google rank is very low. There's no such thing as a 4 star Michelin ranking - only 3 places in the world have 3 stars! Here's a list and they're not on there - http://www.homestead.com/andyhayler/files/3_Michelin_Star_Restaurants.htm Jgritz 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten by Capitalistroadster too.Jgritz 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are more than 3 restuarants with three star rankings, the link provided above shows something like 26 in France alone. However, this notability claim is false as Michelin does not rate restaurants in North America.

• Keep as rewritten by Capitalistroadster. Movementarian 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Michelin has started in NYC http://www.michelinman.com/difference/releases/pressrelease02232005a.html?source=4]. --JJay 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• That guide is not released until 2006 (I realise that it is fast approaching, but until it is released my previous statement is correct) and only covers NYC. This restauraunt is in Philly. Movementarian 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ok. Thought the book was launched because I remember seeing it on the news. -- JJay 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough. -- JJay 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable restaurant. Esquire magazine described it as America's finest French restaurant in 1993. Extensively referenced in books see [15] and Perrier published a book of recipes in late 1990s. I have expanded and referenced the article. Capitalistroadster 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Un grand merci à notre formidable homme à tout faire, M. Capitalistroadster. -- JJay 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Move I lived in Philadelphia during my college years, and can attest that Le Bec-Fin is extemely well-known there, and is something of a household word, given as an example of something expensive or high-class. There are not a whole lot of encyclopedically-notable individual restaurants out there, but this is one of them. Should be moved to Le Bec-Fin, its real name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. It exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Uchi

No Google hits at all. Hoax? Perhaps a typo, if someone could find a real name that corresponds to the contents of this article. -- Curps 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Honasan seems to be accepted as the leader. There's a list of related people at [16] but none look like Uchi. Dlyons493 Talk 12:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No hits on google on various spelling variations either, or just the first or second name with context. Smitz 19:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unverifiable. Agnte 20:24, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bob

Looks unverifiable and smells of vanity. Blue Man Group doesn't mention any such instrument, and anyway, the only claim here is that it's "similar" to what they use. CDC (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep It is a real instrument, just give me some more time to add on more to the article--Jakewater 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here is PROOF that it exists go to http://www.bluemanlibrary.com/instruments.php and scroll down to the TUBULUM and that is a picture of what is similar to the bob.--Jakewater 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either the page needs a complete overhaul, or maybe more substantial information can be provided. Looks like a vanity page to me too. le petit vagabond 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blue Man Group was there first, and have the advantage of being notable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not quite, the insturment just happens to be very similar to the one from the blue man group,i am using it to compare.--Jakewater 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, from your description it's closer to the PVC than the Tubulum anyway. The Tubulum has the rubber "reeds" on the end and is played with drumsticks; the PVC is bare pipe and is struck with paddles. And it's still not notable. Where would we have seen a performance with this instrument? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• At deerfield high school they make many preformances of the bob. Just give me a chance to put some more information on it, then once ive put all of the information on it, then you cna decide if you want to delete it.--Jakewater 00:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to deerfield high school. -- JJay 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merging would be absolutely idiotic! The bob is not the same as Deerfield Highschool. Just keep it the way it is now, and then after a while it will be edited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewater (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 December 2005 Note: This is user's second "Keep" vote.

• Ok, I've crossed out my vote along with your second vote. Neither of us want to be idiotic, right?-- JJay 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• i crossed out thing i said to, i should have worded it differently--Jakewater 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research unless outside references are provided. Movementarian 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable; reference to Blue Man Group appears to be desperation, for if the tabulum and the bob are the same instrument, BMG's prior use of it would give the tabulum name more weight. Only the high school band is referring to an instrument called a bob; the term must become much more widespread before entering here. B.Wind 04:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The fact that something is called "The Bob" in one high school band may be a fact, it may even be verifiable... but it is utterly and completely unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly insignificant. --Agamemnon2 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiableJcuk 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Insignificant, original research. Tom Foolery 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - This is a real insturnment and i am surprised that none of you have heard of it! I know there are some websites talking about the bob that i could put on in the article--Crstar20 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above user has only a handful of edits to his name, about half of which are vandalism. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Indeed, one the vandalized articles is the one under discussion, just about a week ago. [17] TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - dispite that fact, he still brings up a good point. It is a real insturnment. It seems as if the only reason that people are trying to delete this article is because of the name, if this insturments name was something like the "Jiolin" or some random name, people would agree that it is a real insturnment--Jakewater 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • No. Please read the votes. Whether or not it's real is entirely beside the point. And please don't separate my sig from my comments. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary - Unless more can be added this is a definition anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Except that Wiktionary also has standards of verifiability and notability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 22 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

[edit] Vigosegest

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, ZERO hits on Google. Tufflaw 02:54, 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 MERGE to New College of Florida. — JIP | Talk 16:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New College of Florida Police Department

The entity in question is non-notable...are we going to include every university police department? Nsb3000 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to New College of Florida. It is the police department of a public university and thus a government agency, however the main article is quite short and this article is merely a stub (and likely to remain so). Movementarian 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New College of Florida. B.Wind 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - per B.Wind. FCYTravis 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merte to New College of Florida xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Jcuk 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as per the others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable and verifiable. Pincus 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Good P**** H** 08:00, 24 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 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narcotics trafficking in the USA

Unsourced rant. I'd like to see some proof that Mexicans are the most responsbile for narcotics trafficking, because I don't believe it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - editorializing. B.Wind 04:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to War on Drugs. Capitalistroadster 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for glaringly unsourced info. I'm surprised that Kappa created this article. --Apostrophe 05:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As per xyr edit summary, Kappa was doing Wikipedia:Articles for creation work on behalf of an anonymous user. Uncle G 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination 208.54.14.17 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete And provide better article framework on drug trafficing 24.131.196.58 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - FrancisTyers 16:27, 23 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 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glitter's Cap-Page Board

Seems to be just advertising for this website (WP:NOT) KC. 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, message board with 276 registered users. Fails WP:WEB and has no claim of notability in the article. - Bobet 02:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. failed WP:WEB. Agnte 12:18, 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. howcheng {chat} 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Musopen

NN website promoting free music. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not to mention they forgot to add the external link to boot. Delete for certain; speedy as link spam if possible. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But rewrite if it sounds like advertising. Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup based on the national news coverage. -- JJay 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change to Abstain for now as Bobet has made a compelling case for lack of news coverage. -- JJay 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and don't believe everything an article says. To me, the whole mention of national media coverage looks like something cut and pasted from a wikipedia guideline (after it was afd'd) so that it could claim notability. 4 google hits for "musopen.com" isn't national news coverage, and the claim isn't even sourced. - Bobet 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• So you are saying that there was no coverage? I assumed it was true because the nom did not comment about it. -- JJay 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If there has been national media coverage, it's been in a country that has no access to the Internet. - Bobet 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom and Bobet. Agnte 20:24, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Findlay Village Mall

Non-notable mall Hirudo 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not only nn, but article has a POV problem, too. Lack of references and Wikification are additional problems. B.Wind 04:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. Madman 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite to remove NPOV issues. Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. Jcuk 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even though I go there all the time. Except for very large malls (and IMO no mall in Ohio is "very large"), they're not encyclopedic enough. -- Grev 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agnte 20:25, 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 merge and redirect to Cassava Enterprises. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casino on net

Totally non notable ± the adlike nature of it. Has ZERO pages linking to it. ((Comment later added to the AfC page): Alexa ranking in the 25 000s) 68.39.174.238 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this is one of the first and most well-known online casinos. Rhobite 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, there's a page on such things (Online casino) that could have a "History" section created if this is old enough to warrant discussion. I still maintain this does not deserve its own page unless there's something unique or lengthy that can't be better put on the general page. 68.39.174.238 05:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very easily in the keep category. Calsicol 11:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Well known company. On the other hand, it does seem rather adlike... but then that means the article needs to be improved rather than deleted. -Halo 14:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • HaH! That was easy! Just drop that second section and it's now almost wholly factual. Also, a poser for those who know this place so well: Is it "Casino on net", "Casino on Net", or "Casino-on-Net" ? I've seen all three and suspect only one's actually the real name. 68.39.174.238 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with 888.com into 888 Holdings PLC Cassava Enterprises. The specific websites that 888 Holdings PLC Cassava runs aren't as notable as the company itself, which is notable for its prolonged and expansive pop-up advertisement campaign. --Stephen Deken 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have boldly redirected this article to Cassava Enterprises, which I just created. --Stephen Deken 17:41, 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 Cassava Enterprises. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 888.com

Same as Casino on net, seemingly non notable ad. Also, has three things linking to it: A userpage of articels about websites, and Casino on net and Pacific Poker, both directly related to these people and ad-like. Casino on net is up for deletion (by me) as an ad, the other one was kept as somewhat notable. I don't exactly if these people are notable by relation. AfDing it to see. 68.39.174.238

• Keep, to quote the Financial Times "888.com, the world's largest internet casino operator in terms of numbers of visitors, aims to launch an initial public offering in London next Thursday that is expected to value the group at more than £700m ($1.3bn)." [18]. Also sub-200 Alexa rank [19] Kappa 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is notable I would think it'd not be so orphaned around here. If I get a flood of keep votes and see them before anyone wants to delete I suspect I'll withdraw it. 68.39.174.238 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:CORP. Kappa has cited a Financial Times article. This Ireland Online article indicates that the company has recently been added to the FTSE 250 on the London stock exchange see [20]. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounded like a 3rd party observer, but if it's legit, OK. Keep and/or redirect to online gambling. 68.39.174.238 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• As per Capitalistroadster and Kappa, the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria (and is a datum supporting the assertion that companies that are used to calculate stock market indexes will satisfy the primary criterion by their very nature). Keep. Uncle G 07:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reason given. Calsicol 11:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep easily meets WP:CORP. Agnte 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable online casino. Rhobite 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable online casino, although Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, satisfies the criteria set by WP:CORP. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Casino on net into 888 Holdings PLC Cassava Enterprises. The specific websites that 888 Holdings PLC Cassava runs aren't as notable as the company itself, which is notable for its prolonged and expansive pop-up advertisement campaign. --Stephen Deken 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment 888.com is the shirt sponsor of Middlesbrough F.C. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have boldly redirected this article to Cassava Enterprises, which I just created. --Stephen Deken 17:38, 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 - Izehar 22:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crispin Wallace-Ingersoll

Delete This page fails WP:V: it is not verifiable. While Rainer Maria Gerhardt was a poet, he died in 1954 [21] and is not indicated anywhere on Google as having a work called Metabolisme. If Metabolisme was published posthumously in 1956, how can it have been Gerhardt's first citation of the alleged nom de plume Crispin Wallace-Ingersoll? The article may well be a hoax; even if not, it has been flagged unreferenced since August 2005 and no one has provided references. See the talk page for further argument indicating unverifiability and possible hoax. -- JimR 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's had its 15 mins of fame. Hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 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 delete. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nusearch

Doubtful meet WP:WEB. No sources. pfctdayelise 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Its an advertisment! Does not meet WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for nusearch.com: 1,244,356 [22] Agnte 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in accordance with official Wikipedia notability policy, despite Jcuk's claim to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:47, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commision Junction moved to Commission Junction

Substub, adlike, of the two links at the bottom (Which comprise close to ½ the article) one is the subject itself, the other is a forum about them with ZERO posts. No Wikipedia pages link to it (The page). Should also mention they misspelled "Commission" ((Note: This was added to the AfC section after this page was created): Alexa rank in the 400s, but I'm still not sure of its notability.). 68.39.174.238

• Keep. Notable online marketing company. Among its clients are Yahoo and eBay. Alexa ranking of 431 Obviously it should be moved to Commission Junction. JoaoRicardo^talk 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Kappa 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also, I don't know if anons should be starting afd listings. Rhobite 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As a rule, no, but User talk:68.39.174.238 shows the record of a pretty trusted user. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Anons can't create AfD pages since they can't create new articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I'll settle for renaming it and letting it die of neglect > ; D! (Consider this a withdrawl if you want). 68.39.174.238 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do we really have to have pages for every e-marketing, click-targeting, advertising, sleazy spam scam on the internet? there are thousands of these companies.. google might be a place for them, but an encyclopedia is not. Jabo 07:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reason given by nominator, ie. Alexa rank. Calsicol 11:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanx to whoever rewrote it and moved it. As much as I dislike having "notable" articel that's unlikely to ever get very much larger then that, it's not such a blatant ad as to seem like AfD fodder. It's to late to withdraw though, based on the excellent point made above, though... 68.39.174.238 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is official Wikipedia policy, despite your repeated claim to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
    • No, it is not, unfortunately, though I believe it should be. See Wikipedia:Notability. It explicitly says: "There is currently no official policy on notability." JoaoRicardo^talk 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • See the official policy at WP:CSD in which speedy deletes can be performed on unremarkable people. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
        • Yes, it is a strange situation. Maybe we should discuss it more on some other place. I'll start a discussion about it at the Village Pump. JoaoRicardo^talk 02:17, 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 Speedied by User:Harro5 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Hoffmeister

Vanity. pfctdayelise 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Jamie. B.Wind 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyright violation of [23] biography of David from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, two speedy tags. I wonder what the Wikipedia record is for most CSD's legitimately satisfied by a single article.  :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:39, 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. howcheng {chat} 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bitscape

Seems totally non notable. Articel is a stub, gets no links but from some usrtalk pages. Also, Alexa ranking in the 1 000 000s. 68.39.174.238

• Delete per nom. No claims of notibilty, reads like an advertisment. Agnte 14:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per official Wikipedia notability policy, despite Jcuk's repeated protestations to the contrary. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Non-notable. Many sites exist and are verifiable - we don't need to have articles on all of them. utcursch | talk 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, nothing else in the article to indicate notability. - Bobet 02:41, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goals Soccer Centers moved to Goals Soccer Centres

Article on one not particularly notable 5-a-side football (soccer) organisation in the UK; reads like a website for the organisation Daveb 04:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Real organization, with facilities in 18 cities in the UK according to their website. Needs a cleanup. Should be moved to Goals Soccer Centres. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Easily notable enough in the UK. Calsicol 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate, however in this case I'd argue they ARE notable anyhow. The company exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite your repeated spamming of this untruth across Wikipedia, NN is very much official policy, as indicated at WP:CSD. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Whose spamming? I have a point of view. That point of view is that notability is not official policy, which is why I vote to keep things that are said to be non notable. I'm supposed to vote "Keep" without stating why? The reason happens to be the same, as I seek out so called non notable articles up for deletion. By the way, I cant see anything at WP:CSD that says anything about notability. However at Wikipedia:Biography it states quiet clearly that notability is a guideline not official policy.Jcuk 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I know it is not an official policy, but let me ask you something. Do you think that verifiability is the only acceptable standard for inclusion in Wikipedia? What if I want to write an article on my PC, or on my left toe, or on that day I went to the zoo when I was 8? Articles on these topics could be verifiable, but would they belong here? JoaoRicardo^talk 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • No, as there are accepted ways of verifying something, for example does it have X number of hits on Google. Therefor, whilst Iron Maiden would have multiple hits, Freddie and the Flintstones, who have had one practice session in Freddie's dad's garage would have no hits. Or maybe one if they had the nouse to write a website, but that would not count as verification. Jcuk 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Significantly notable in England and Scotland. The person who listed this article for deletion is located in Wales, thus isn't aware of its notability in England and Scotland and has failed to research into the matter. EnglishRose 11:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • That was indeed me, thanks for the info JoaoRicardo. Englishrose 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
  • Previous vote is actually by User:Englishrose. Please sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And remember that the wiki software is case sensitive. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siplian Gender-Changing Ritual

No sources, the "PhD" line makes me suspect it's possible original research, which would of course contravene WP:NOR. pfctdayelise 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This has got to be a hoax. -- JJay 04:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a hoax. Article has many inconsistencies (eg: there are no indigenous people in Antartica, clicks have been found only in Africa etc). JoaoRicardo^talk 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete As per Joao. DeathThoreau 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NaconKantari 05:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Complete bollocks Jcuk 22:26, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dinosaur Dance

A dance that was done at a highschool and has not gained widespread recognition. Delete. —Brim 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- JJay 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be danced in only one locale. I wonder if The Bob is played at that dance. B.Wind 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too bad no speedy criterion applies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Tesoro High School in Las Flores, CA article if in fact such an article exists...Jcuk 22:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, not notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:38, 24 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 {chat} 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

nn web forum with 5 members. Revealing review by someone on alexa.com:

This site is just a series of essays offering the personal view of a Canadian retired engineer - and one who admits to having no standing in the academic or religious communities. His essays are poorly written, and his conclusions often say the complete opposite from all his sources. The writer has a good name for his website, which no doubt helps him get lots of web traffic, but the content is no better than a poor essay from an untrained 16 year old

User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• And I'll bet that "someone" on alexa.com is User:Jguk. Strong Keep - this website gets millions of hits a week and has been cited by newspapers, other prominent websites, etc. Your own personal opinion of their veracity has nothing to do with their notability. What's with Wikipedia's sudden war on this site? Firebug 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Whether you like or disapprove of OCRT, their website is a commonly used site and is heavily searched and referenced on the internet, to the point of being an internet phenomenon at the very least. Don't censor it. Yahnatan 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. I've certainly heard of them; been cited by the Toronto Star, BBC, CBS etc. CanadianCaesar 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - A notable and often-referred-to site in many religious discussions I've had. Certainly a wealth of information (nearly 3000 essays written). And for the record, "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" (including quotes) returns 80,400 Google hits. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 05:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This website has been often discussed in the media. Jabo 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move The article should be moved to Religioustolerance.org (which is currently a redirect) as, although the OCRT is non-notable of itself, as noted above its website has some notability/notoriety and is a suitable subject matter for Wikipedia, jguk 08:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given above. Calsicol 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the proviso that voting to keep the article does not in any way, shape or form indicate acceptability of them as a source. (Man, it's sad that I have to specify that, isn't it?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The anonymous Alexa review is not weighty evidence of anything. They may or may not be an NPOV source, but that is not for us to decide. --Agamemnon2 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable.Jcuk 22:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are millions of websites. Shall we have an article on all of them? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly not, but this one happens to be an often-cited, well-known website. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not what Jcuk is saying. He is saying that there should be an article on every website that exists and is verifiable. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC))
        • I'm not, I am saying there COULD be an article on any website that exists and is verifiable. Not SHOULD. Jcuk 17:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately - it is indeed someone talking off the top of his head, but it gets quoted lots and lots in cult studies, particularly by the cults, because it takes Sympathetic Point Of View - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've used them as a source in the past when writing short stories that touch topics like Wicca and New Age Religions briefly. In light of the aforementioned, I shall not make the same mistake again. I just wish there WAS an unbiased source online, though I clearly see the impossibility thereof. You cannot fight stupidity with knowledge, stupidity will always win. --Agamemnon2 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rename to Religioustolerance.org. Right now, the name of the website isn't even in the article, which seems odd. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment by Zoebb moved to talk page. --cesarb 15:31, 22 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 Ejaculation (grammar). howcheng {chat} 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious ejaculations

dicdef, if that; should not be in plural, and not really any different from Ejaculation (grammar) Flapdragon 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's an article for creation, give it more than a minute or two. Kappa 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- JJay 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you care to clarify your reasoning? Kappa 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't realize it was being worked on. -- JJay 04:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know if it will be expanded but the requester gave a good explanation and it can be harmlessly redirected if not. Kappa 04:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just read the request, but still tend to agree with the nom here. Will refrain from voting because I'm not sure. -- JJay 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ERcheck 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge first sentence with Ejaculation (grammar). --Apostrophe 05:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the first sentence- and only the first sentence, with Ejaculation (grammar). The rest is original research. I Googled it and saw an educational website using the term, so it perhaps doesn't deserve complete deletion, but in its current state it shouldn't be kept. CanadianCaesar 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because the article title is hilarious. Jabo 07:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Apostrophe. Movementarian 08:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move, Merge and Redirect The article title should be Religious ejaculation. I find no harm in having the title remain, although the content of the article in its current state certainly doesn't warrant its own article. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep maybe move to Pious ejaculation which is a term which appears in Wuthering Heights, Bret Harte and Mark Twain. Dlyons493 Talk 12:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep or Merge with Ejaculation (grammar). Jcuk 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge / redirect and expand at Ejaculation (grammar); at least for the time being. At least the first sentence is valid content; and a fair amount could be written on the cultural practice of using these semi-impromptu responses in religious ceremonies. Smerdis of Tlön 05:23, 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 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The shadow of a society

Stub for planned movie still looking for funding. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ERcheck 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nomination. ERcheck 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen a lot of these.. Jabo 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Agnte 14:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Marotta

Unable to verify. A Google search turned up besides the usual wikimirrors two Joey Marottas: a background musician who did some work on one of Peter Gabriel albums and the user name of someone banned from an online gaming group for cheating. While the former is probably marginally notable enough for an article., this article doesn't appear to be about the musician but some supposed sketch comedy actor/writer/producer. Delete and possibly write a new stub about the musician to plug the gap. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. No google hits. Joe Marotta on IMDB does not appear to be the same person [24] Agnte 14:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article has no information beyond his job and where he lives. That's not very useful, since you can't even figure out if a google hit is about the same person, making the article useless (pretty close to csd A1). - Bobet 02:46, 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 No consensus. This vote had a little of everything, and I'm not comfortable with merging anything per the few "rewrite" votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith of the Verse of Rajm

This article has no text except for quotes from other people. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

keep Can you let me work on it? i created it some minutes ago, man... --Striver 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Slow down - only 19 minutes between initial post and AfD? This is way too early for a nomination, especially since there have been at least six edits since the AfD. B.Wind 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is still nothing there but quotes. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there's now substantial content. Rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is still nothing there but quotes. Your chararacterization does not address my reason for listing this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It seemed very early to nominate an article with content (even if that consisted of quotes). However, it seems to have stopped there and the odds of the author expanding it are now lower. It clearly needs a context to make it intelligble to non-Muslims. Dlyons493 Talk
• Keep and lay off the nominating articles that have existed for less than a day!!!!! Jcuk 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, no, I don't think so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rename and completely revise. Merge with Rajm. I'm changing my vote. The article should be merged into Rajm (a much better title) and rewritten. Zora 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rationale: Striver is unlikely to improve this article, since he has an imperfect command of English. He writes stubs, not complete articles, and has said that it is up to others to fix his work. He also creates incomplete lists, or copies and pastes from online sources. This article was clearly created by cutting and pasting from online hadith collections. It completely lacks any narration that would clarify the issue for confused readers. Yet it IS a notable issue in Islamic history and even in current events, since it concerns the Quranic justification -- or lack thereof -- for the stoning of those convicted of adultery. If it were retitled to something like Islam and stoning (I'm not set on this title, there are probably better ones) and given another 30 KB of exposition, it could be a useful article. As it is, it is both unfindable and useless in its present form. Zora 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it is fair enough to have an article on a text in its own right. Maybe there should be a close relation with a more detailed article on punishment in Islam. jnothman ^talk 00:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A text? This is not A TEXT, this is several hadith, or collected oral traditions, from collections with thousands of them. More than 17,000 in Bukhari and Muslim alone. Striver pulled out hadith relating to one particular issue. It's the issue that's in play here, not the hadith. Tafsir (commentary) and sira (history) are relevant too, not just hadith. This is a job for ... Islamic-studies-scholar-man! I wish he would jump out of the phonebooth right now. Zora 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite Should be explanatory rather than merely quoting the Hadith. Texts belong in Wikisource and the article currently does not explain (whether in good or bad english, I don't mind) the relevance and significance of this hadith. jnothman ^talk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: seems like it can be improved based on comments from Zora. I'm willing to give Striver much more time to clarify the concept. -- JJay 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

ill work some more on this soon, i couldent do that for two days. --Striver 12:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and merge info into Rajm. Given the societal context that Rajm is one of the least understood topics within Islam, how about writing a complete article on stoning in islam, aka rajm, and including these hadith as links into that article. It could include the Sunni view, Shi'a view, and also historical facts involving the punishment of rajm. It could be linked from the stoning article under the Islam section. [Previously left unsigned accidently] Pepsidrinka 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Rajm. Keeping bias that will not be improved makes wikipedia biased. After 10,000 edit my inclusionist idealism died. I'd rather have the article neutral in five years than something out of context, etc. now. Not that Rajm is an exemplary article or anything. gren グレン 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - give the article a bit time, its only been created a few days ago, and i'm sure Striver will improve/develop it. --Khalid! 18:55, 26 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 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison Between the Legal Systems of the Middle East and the West

This article reads like a rant in some places, hasn't been touched for six months and if someone else can find a proper place where it can be redirected, please be my guest. Otherwise, "Delete". Hamster Sandwich 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic, POV essay/rant as written, doesn't look like anything is really there to be salvaged... a... profound example of this truly sacrilegious and “backwards” phenomenon... the “blood for oil” war against the peoples of the Middle East etc. --W.marsh 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Comparisons are inherently original research. --Apostrophe 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above commments. Movementarian 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Reyk 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - FrancisTyers 16:26, 23 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 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Collar Child Abuse

Aside from the fact that the current article is entirely POV, "white collar child abuse" is not a notable expression. It's an attempt by the fathers' rights movement to capitalize on the visibility of "white collar crime" with their own neologism. Rhobite 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Need additions, interesting topic. I would like to hear more on White Collar Child Abusers. Neutral for now. Kwalker
• Unsalvageable (I don't know if I spelt that right) Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - Its got a nice little link dump. I guess there's a few questions to ask here:

Is this already covered in Child Abuse?

Should this be included in Child Abuse?

Can it be WP:NPOV to refer to it as "White Collar"?

Is the research as listed there useful?

Is it a common enough split from Child Abuse to be worth its own sub category? i.e. are we going to have Blue Collar Child Abuse, Redneck Child Abuse, Yuppie Child Abuse etc?

I really don't know, so I will leave my vote until I've seen what others have worked out. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP not soapbox. Child abuse industry already exists (at about the right length, and tolerably NPOV) --Squiddy 11:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and remove soapbox Agnte 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - c'mon, we're trying to run an encyclopedia here, not a newsgroup. Madman 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a bulletin board. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 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 and replaced with protected {{deletedpage}} by User:Harro5. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meredith Belbin

delete: blatant copyvio, advert — Shadowhillway 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Not sure about the copyvio, but it is definitely an ad. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio from Belbin Team Roles. --Apostrophe 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: too bad we didn't catch it sooner, so it could be speedied as {{db-copyvio}} / CSD A8. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Apostrophe. - Eagle^amn 05:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Check the deletion history on the article. It's already been deleted twice as copyvio. I'm going to tag it for speedy as {{db-repost}} / CSD G4. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 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 delete. Mo0[talk] 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Crisis (rock band)

A band found two days ago is not notable. I mean, I could write things on Wikipedia about what I did on Friday : ). I know the author was well-meaning, nonetheless, delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete definitely nn; Wikipedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, YANNB (yet another non-notable band). Can we please have a CSD for these? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Or {{db-repost}}. Punkmorten 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Tagged. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:28, 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 {chat} 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Residence hall director

Poorly written article with little substantiation and few (no) references. More importantly, the very term is ambigious and resistant to definition as different institutions use it to refer to graduate students with limited responsibility or professionals with Masters degrees and signficant responsibility. I think this is (or should be) covered adequately in the Residence Life entry. ElKevbo 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Residence Life is also on AfD. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct. However, I believe the newly-edited and expanded Residence Life is both acceptable (no votes to delete at the moment) and adequately covers the topic of Residence hall director. I could be mistaken, however, and welcome further discussion. --ElKevbo 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm going to try to spruce up the article a bit, but it is an important topic that needs to have an article here and not just be absorbed into the residence life article. We'll need to get rid of the Resident Assistant article too if ElKevbo's argument is valid . Being poorly written is not justification enough for deletion. I don't see at all how the term is at all ambigious, and all that is needed is a bit of rewording (which I think I'll go work on). --ScottyBoy900Q 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe it deserves its own article. If, after voting for this is done, there is a consensus that a move should be made nominate it for a move. I think it deserves its own article. --Nick Catalano (Talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The Kids"

Article has very little content or purpose; text is incoherent; little (if no) potential to be revised by other editors. This article looks more like an email than an article

• Speedy delete for patent nonsense. --Apostrophe 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be song lyrics (?), but there is no assertion of notability and is thus unverifiable. Movementarian 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Movementarian. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. The only song I know called "The Kids" was a duet between Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue but this seems to be an obscure rap song. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, the title of the Williams song is just "Kids". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Title is against Naming convetions (#1.12) but it doesn't appear that it is worth renaming. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research! - Bobet 02:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of common sorting algorithms

This is original research... article is in pretty bad shape but it's not a speedy. Apparently not a cut and paste copyvio, though it does look like one at first glance. W.marsh 06:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a direct copy/paste copyvio... instead most of the content is copy/pasted in small chuks from the page referenced in the footnote, as well as from its subpages (listed at the bottom of the referenced page). Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, it's relatively easy to produce a comparison of sorting algorithms that is not original research, given that this has been extensively discussed in the literature. (This article isn't really original research, moreover.) But there's no need for a new article. We already have such a comparison at Sorting algorithm#List_of_sorting_algorithms. Uncle G 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, plagiarized. Gazpacho 09:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It could be good topic (unlike most of "comparison" pages) but current text is crap. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 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

[edit] John tynan

Not notable. Delete karmafist 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate of John Tynan. "Delete". Note: John Tynan was a noteable character in American Music and should probably remain. Jackbunny2006

• Speedy Redirect to John Tynan. Simple mistake. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:37, 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 {chat} 17:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Baghdaddios

The article reads like a review of a non-notable band. The author cited no sources. No one has done any editing except to add wikify, cleanup and pov templates.DeleteTheRingess 06:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep - they have an allmusic.com entry here: [25]. They have enough traffic on google here: [26] (although 1 was for a construction company, the other 841 are for the band). Whilst the article is horribly badly written, and it was too hard to wade through it, they seem to be notable enough. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up. I'm not sure if they're signed, but they apparently get a strong amount of national press for an 'underground' act. I might change my mind if a sensible enough case is made to delete it. PJM 07:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable enough for mine but the article could do with judicious pruning. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if someone wants to clean up the article, then Keep, but I'm weary of folks just dumping dreary nearly-unreadable stuff in Wikipedia Madman 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikify Clean Up Jcuk 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. QQ 00:49, 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 Keep. Ral315 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katelyn Faber

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this one, but so be it. This article, while about a person who achieved a certain notoriety through the media, still does not belong on Wikipedia, if for no other reason than Wikipedia Is Not A Propaganda Machine. This article reads like a press release from the defense team. It's horribly POV, from the text to the accompanying pictures, and while POV is not a reason to delete an article, I think from a policy standpoint this is not something that should be a part of Wikipedia. Most reputable news outlets do NOT release the names of alleged rape victims, and that self-imposed ban would extend to most if not all print encyclopedias as well. To acheive an air of legitimacy, Wikipedia should follow suit, and not simply say that because one or two unethical media outlets release information about a rape victim that it's just "OK" for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Delete. Tufflaw 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable accuser of celebrity who filed a court case under her own name against Kobe Bryant. She involuntarily became a public figure, but after voluntarily filing a lawsuit, what little claim she can make to "privacy" goes out the window. She chose to sue a basketball star for rape, that makes her notable. If there's POV, clean it up. I will note that many "reputable news outlets" released her name - including the Associated Press, after she filed a public-record civil complaint against Bryant. You cease to have a claim to anonymity when you sue someone. FCYTravis 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the fact her name became public after she filed a civil claim makes her life story encyclopedic, including information such as her various jobs or places of residence. Tufflaw 07:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This person had intimate contact with a basketball star, accused him of rape, didn't testify in the case so the charges were dropped, sued that star and then settled out of court. It is ludicrous to argue that somehow that isn't notable. "Kobe Bryant" rape gets 980,000 Googles. "Katelyn Faber," in the neighborhood of 10,000. I see a lot of sourcing in the article to mainstream media coverage of this person. I think it's actually a quite good article which encyclopedically discusses the very issue you bring up - the ethics of reporting her name. Fact is, her name is now out there, it's widely-reported public record and it's certainly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 08:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It should also be noted that Googling her name actually brings up only 311 unique hits, and a bunch of those have nothing to do with her. Tufflaw 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying it's not notable, just not encyclopedic. Notability is not an automatic inclusion factor, to my knowledge. There is also a degree of journalistic ethics that should be considered as well. At the very most, if her name should be mentioned at all, it should be in the article about the incident itself, or the main Kobe Bryant article. To create a separate article just for her and to describe the incident in such graphic detail comes across as an attack on her, and reads like propaganda. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it's moralistic to claim that a person who claimed she was raped by a basketball star is entitled to any special treatment. Her acts were clearly encyclopedic - this isn't some woman who claimed to be raped by Joe Blow, she said she was raped by one of the biggest sports figures of the era. If you feel the article is biased, fix it so it's not biased. I am a journalist, and there's clearly *no* issue of journalistic ethics here. She voluntarily became a public figure. FCYTravis 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Are you seriously claiming that anyone who is raped by a celebrity is voluntarily becoming a public figure by reporting that to the police? Tufflaw 22:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • She voluntarily filed a civil lawsuit, a fact that was widely reported in mainstream media. You're also showing your bias by saying that she was "raped by a celebrity" when that celebrity was never found guilty of any crime. She was *allegedly* raped. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I didn't call her a rape victim, I asked you whether *anyone* who is raped (or even allegedly raped) by a celebrity automatically surrenders their privacy merely by the notoriety of the person who raped (or allegedly raped) them? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Irrelevant. Faber voluntarily surrendered her privacy by filing a civil lawsuit. And yes, there ARE involuntary public figures. It's too bad we don't have an article on the legal concept of a public figure, but if someone is involuntarily thrust into the public eye, courts have ruled they may be a public figure whether they like it or not. [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Without commenting on the Hobson's Choice you're saying that a rape victim must face if they try to decide whether to file a civil suit aganist a celebrity, the mere fact of her filing a civil suit doesn't mean that this article is or should be encyclopedic. Tufflaw 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • The fact that that civil suit was against a basketball star, and the suit alleged said star raped her, is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • I agree that the facts of the entire incident are encyclopedic, both the allegations and the subsequent media frenzy. An article just about HER is not. Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Very notable subject. Everything you're listing above is reasons to edit, not delete. I don't believe that her name should still be protected, since legally she is no longer considered a rape victim; however even at that the article should be moved to "Kobe Bryant Accuser" or something, not deleted outright. And all the alleged POV problems (I havn't read through the entire article) can likewise be fixed. Flyboy Will 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because the charges were eventually dropped doesn't mean a person is not a rape victim. There was no claim that the charges were dropped because of any sort of hoax or perjury by the accuser, but because she didn't want to go on with the intense media scrutiny of her personal life. There's no legitimate need for the kind of information in this article to be available, which effectively victimizes her again. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What sort of twisted logic is that? I understand you have a POV on this, being an ADA, but we can't call her a rape victim because it was never factually established in a court of law that she was raped. FCYTravis 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't call it twisted logic at all, and while I'm an ADA, I work very hard to keep my personal POV out of Wikipedia. If someone is raped, they are a victim of rape, whether their accuser is ever caught, or if caught is punished. If someone is murdered, for example, would you say they aren't a murder victim if their killer is never caught or convicted? Now, I don't know if this woman was raped or not, because I wasn't there. However, she shouldn't be punished or exposed to public scrutiny because she was allegedly raped by a celebrity instead of a non-celebrity. To say that by accusing a public figure of attacking her means that she is "voluntarily" becoming a public figure - well, THAT is twistic logic. Tufflaw 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • A murder victim is not necessarily a murder victim until a coroner's jury makes a finding, or someone is convicted of the murder. It would be appropriate to say they were a victim of homicide. In this case, nobody was convicted of the alleged rape so we must call her an "alleged rape victim." Saying she was a "rape victim" is implying someone was guilty of a crime, when in this case we have no such finding of guilt. She voluntarily filed a lawsuit, which makes her a public figure by any standards. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • That's semantics. If I rob a bank and am never caught, am I not a bank robber? I may not be convicted of robbery but that doesn't change the fact that intrinsically I am still a robber. Same thing, if I rape someone, does the fact of my never being caught mean that I'm not a rapist? Are you saying that any woman claiming to have been raped is not a "rape victim" until their attacker is actually caught and convicted?? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not semantics, it's a neutral point of view. We cannot call Ms. Faber a rape victim because the person she accused of raping her was not convicted of any crime. Hence, alleged rape victim. Wikipedia cannot make judgements that have not been made by a court of law. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Leaving aside the semantics, are you saying that if a person is "allegedly" raped by a celebrity, that it's OK to create an encyclopedia article about them unless/until their accuser is convicted? Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd ask an attorney about the appropriate terminology. This did result in a civil court settlement. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Civil case settlements virtually always include no admissions of wrongdoing. FCYTravis 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Are you a lawyer? Durova 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Have you not read newspaper articles on lawsuit settlements? The entire point of settling a lawsuit out of court is so the defendant can "pay off" the accuser without having to admit in a court of law that they actually did anything wrong. FCYTravis 01:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
              • From your answer I gather you are not a lawyer and therefore unqualified to answer the question I posed. The issue I raised is one of technical terminology. It regards Wikipedia's obligations as a publication. Durova 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'd never heard of her, of Bryant or of the incident, but it is clearly notable in the U.S. Calsicol 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Flyboy Will's comment about reasons to edit, not delete. --Squiddy 11:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notible. Agnte 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Kobe Bryant. To the extent that this covers a notable court case it amounts to a POV fork of the celebrity article. The rest is borderline slander. The number of times this otherwise non-notable woman colored her hair is of no encyclopedic interest. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Kobe Bryant] Jcuk 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not withstanding this 'no smoke without fire' fishwivery, clearly a notable person (even if we wish she wasn't). --Last Malthusian 10:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, merge and redirect per Durova. If not being raped by a celebrity was a claim to fame, we could all have articles. --Last Malthusian 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Speak for yourself ... damn that Fireman Sam *sniff*. Oh yeah, redirect to Kobe. Proto t c 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep This wasn't just some celebrity rape case that was kept under wraps by the accused, but dominated national news for the entire basketball season. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your comment - how could this be "kept under wraps" by anyone? Bryant was arrested and that was big news, I agree. The incident is certainly encyclopedic. How does it make this particular graphically in-depth biography of the accuser encyclopedic? Tufflaw 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So clean up the parts that you feel are too graphic. The fact that an article needs cleanup is not a reason to delete it. FCYTravis 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not why I nominated it, it's not encyclopedic. At the very least, if it's not deleted, it should be merged into the Kobe Bryant article. Tufflaw 02:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)