Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 19

< December 18	December 20 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worms schemes

Not notable/fancruft. r3m0t ^talk 00:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep/merge into Worms (game). Tufflaw 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep if need be clean-up. Serious approach to worms schemes demonstrated here. -- JJay 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Take this stuff to Gamefaqs. Flyboy Will 02:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fancurft that belongs on GameFAQs. --Apostrophe 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I was surprised by the quality and proper style of writing – not the usual game cruft – however none of this information is encyclopaedic as it is not notable. Merge is not really practical due to the already long length of Worms (game). I have qualified my vote with "weak" because I suppose it doesn't hurt that much to keep it, provided that someone shows that they feel strongly about keeping this information. --Qirex 03:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. Well done, but such information for a specific game is not encyclopedic even under a broad definition.--Bkwillwm 05:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, helps to improve users' understanding of the game. Kappa 08:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Worms (game)--MONGO 09:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this page was originally part of the Worms (computer game) page; I split it off because it was too big. On second thought this may come well under fancruft. I shall rescue the content, and stick it on my worms website instead. An external link can be provided from the schemes section of the main Worms article. Run! 10:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Run! 16:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, It's an encyclopedia, not a GameFAQ. Agnte 13:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Worms (game) in a shortened form that quickly goes over the main idea of each scheme.--Aleron235 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Does not even refer to the game. So the reader does not know what it is about. Too esoteric 82.38.97.206 21:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL

Try the first sentence ;) Run! 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Even the creator of the article agrees. WP:NOT Gamefaqs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proto (talk • contribs)
KEEP KEEP KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizkid357 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 07:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Things Forgotten (Band)

orphan page; doesn't seem that band meets WP:MUSIC B.Wind 00:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete n.n. band article --Fire Star 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Notability not established. CanadianCaesar 01:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Qirex 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ε γ κ υ κ λ ο π α ί δ ε ι α * (tal k) 05:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Delete per nom. Article pretty much admits that they aren't notable. --MisterHand 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. NN. Jporcaro 19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although I support the recreation once they get an album out. --Aleron235 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, in no way conforms to WP:Music Jussenadv 02:04, 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. —Cleared as filed. 07:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Ostrowski

While I'm sad at his passing, I don't think this passes WP:Music. This band, Avada Kedavra was still planning on releasing their debut album. Google doesn't show much for him. Polish wikipedia even has an article on somebody else with the same name. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete n.n. musician article --Fire Star 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it's most likely a hoax, with 0 mentions of the supposed incident that killed him available through google. I don't think the media is that jaded with suicide bombers and execution videos yet. - Bobet 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At best, non-notable, at worst, simple hoax. Also note that the band name page Avada Kedavra is just a redirect to a Harry Potter page, and that Avada Kedavra (band) doesn't exist (seems that everything eventually points to Harry Potter or Pokemon lately). --Qirex 03:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music (and i got this feeling this is a joke)--Esprit15d 15:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete unless a link is added to a reputable obituary. Iraq terrorism isn't a joke. Jporcaro 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Qirex. Engineer Bob 08:18, 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. —Cleared as filed. 07:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Bolyard

Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC Eddie.willers 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with nom, plus this article looks to be written by the subject of the article. Tufflaw 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete n.n. musician article --Fire Star 01:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomTheRingess 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Qirex 03:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if this was cleaned up to make it encyclopedia-worthy, I'de still vote delete for NN. Jporcaro 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Forbsey 19:07, 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. And let's all just pretend we didn't read that bit about "having the right" to remove autobiographies, for the sake of the phrase's writer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Florian Segginger

Vanity page, as per User:TrashLock. Claims to be "most famous" for "Trash's Adventures" (which only gets just over one page of Google hits} and for being a game developer, which isn't really grounds for notability IMO. Delete CLW 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Game developers may be notable, but not when the "developer" is actually just a small time coder, and not when the "games" are simple macromedia flash animations with some free licence/stolen sound effects and computer generated voices --Qirex 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Or should I create a similar article about myself, and everyone in my class, and let everyone they know do the same? Bjelleklang - talk 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Developing flash animations is not notable enough, even if one is somewhat popular. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Note In case anyone didn't notice, he wrote the article himself, and is also the only one to contribute to it. Bjelleklang - talk 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Bleh ~~go ahead, it's not like I care much about this article. It was more of a joke than anything.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashLock (talk • contribs)
Keep He's no Neil Cicierega, but keep anyway. --Billpg 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, and I also think the user who posted it should be banned from wikipedia because [quote] It was more of a joke than anything. [/quote] Jporcaro 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the article is decently written and mostly factual. (I removed POV statements like "egocentric").--Aleron235 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, after some thought, I don't think you people have the right to delete this article. If you read up a bit on the site, you will find that autobiographies are usually tolerated. It owuld be unfair to delete my article. Everything on this article is factual (now) and this article is not even linked anywhere. It's not self propaganda, it's just that some people might want a bit of info on myself and have the great idea of looking me up on wikipedia. --TrashLock 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The guidelines for biographies are at WP:BIO. (My vote is unchanged, he has actually done something of note.)

DELETE! (unsigned comment is first and only edit by 82.75.187.44 (talk · contribs)

Relisted on 25 December in order to attempt to form a consensus. Please add comments below. —Cleared as filed. 07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep per me. --Billpg 09:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me. You can't vote twice. Punkmorten 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I know, hence "per me". This was in response to the "relisted" remark above. --Billpg 19:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Conforms to none of the qualifiers for people still alive at WP:BIO, or to the standard of these qualifiers. The site he is listed as the founder of has an Alexa rating of over 500,000. He fails the Google test with a stunning 12 unique hits (of 599) (including 2 from Wikipedia). "Trash's Adventures" beats him by 2 uniques. His Flash contributions to Newgrounds (under his original username) average about a 3/5 in community rating. I haven't checked the rest. Nothing in the biography appears to be externally verifiable, and could be classified as a vanity page. I don't think keeping this is in line with the Notability for Inclusion guidelines, in particular WP:BIO and WP:WEB. Saberwyn 10:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Saberwyn. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 11:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable. --Quarl 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn per Saberwyn. -feydey 14:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and Saberwyn. -- Marcika 14:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. NN kid. 71.242.163.96 20:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Saberwyn. Punkmorten 21:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was uhh, delete, I guess. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elektronikticaret.org

From WP:PNT, been there since Decmber 5th with consensus that it is of little worth. Discussion from WP:PNT follows. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkish. Is this spam? Lectonar 15:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The site name means "electronic commerce". I haven't been able to figure out if they actually sell anything though. It appears to be a place to discuss SSL encryption, data, and other actual e-commerce sites. In the end, yes, it is an advertisement. TheKMan 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Is this spam?

It is not spam per se, it is an "information bank" of sorts by their description and after checking it out for a bit I'd probably agree w/ that description ... I clicked some links on the website, and I don't think they're actually selling anything. There is no fee to register/sign up for the website. The site has a 'mission statement' section, and in a nutshell, it says that the website is a service to facilitate communication between companies that are new to E-Commerce and companies/employees that have been around the block and therefore have advice to share/give. There is a discussion board section for users to post questions to each other. There's also a section with some informative articles on the nature/dangers/benefits/etc of E-commerce, an FAQ section, an advice section, a 'news' section, yada yada yada ;)

--> there are two Turkish Wikipedia pages on E-Commerce (just searched to see if there were any, and two came up, and they should be combined though), both just defining and explaining what "E-Commerce" is, etc etc.

- http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektronik_ticaret
- http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektronik_Ticaret

the source of the second one (w/ the capital T) is a Turkish Government website, so that is probably legit info. My suggestion would be to combine these two sites, and then make this Elektronikticaret.org site an external link at the bottom.

--UMich05 08:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Even with this info (thanks everyone), I'd be still inclined to list this on AfD. Suggestions? Lectonar 08:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could be worth translating, expanding, and Wikifying. But I have the feeling that if it were listed in AfD, it wouldn't be missed since there are no other pages linking to it, and the only users that would be interested would probably perfer the Turkish Wikipedia. I'd give it a few more days for the full two weeks. — TheKMan^talk 19:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(I'm the nominator) Delete per WP:PNT consensus. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete untranslated advertising. --Fire Star 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad, spam.--MONGO 09:17, 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. —Cleared as filed. 07:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nyoplaid

Delete. non-notable, vanity, fails WP:WEB, also the article Nyoplaid was created by User:Nyoplaid. Tufflaw 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete same as above. NorseOdin 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete sameTheRingess 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn advert. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Qirex 04:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nom. --Whouk (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a good oppourtunity for the Public and School librarians in the town in this article is about to teach the teens about what a good encyclopedia is about. Maybe they could culminate with some type of notable wiki entry, then everyone wins!Jporcaro 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Krich (talk) 06:30, 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, then redirect to B major. - Mailer Diablo 23:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B-major

Fails WP:MUSIC, could be vanity. Orphaned page should be deleted. B.Wind 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

For whoever nominated this, anyone able to explain if the title of this article doesn't deserve anything, not just whether the text is not a valid article?? Georgia guy 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I see you snuck in before I completed the process. This article is about a rap producer. I can't tell if the article is vanity (I suspect it is), but the person in question is nn. B.Wind 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Poorly written vanity page.TheRingess 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable --Qirex 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn--MONGO 09:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to B major. -- Plutor 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I second the redirect vote (thtat also means the content on the page gets deleted, right?
- Not quite. Any user can turn an article into a redirect by replacing its text with #REDIRECT [[Whatever]] . For what you want, vote Delete then redirect. AndyJones 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Plutor. Proto t c 12:37, 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. —Cleared as filed. 07:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frontiers of Science

Specific college courses are non notable. See also 275 Google hits. [1] CanadianCaesar 00:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete agree with above.TheRingess 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Mat334 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tobyk777 04:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Qirex 04:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.--MONGO 09:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe this school should include a 'what constitutes encyclopedic entry' section in its required curriculum. Then make them all write valuable wiki entries, and everybody wins.Jporcaro 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Krich (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, even after discounting the views of IPs and new users. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fabian Basabe

Delete subject doesn't appear to be encyclopedia material. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomTheRingess 01:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Notice how the people whining about deletion can't come up with one shred of evidence that contradicts the article? unsigned comment by anon user:4.155.132.57

It'd spare time if we just assumed that every article was non-notable by default until proven otherwise. --Agamemnon2 05:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep - I'm only barely leaning towards keeping it - a google search turns up a fair number of hits, but most of it links to gossip and rumour. Perhaps a rewrite is needed? Barneyboo (Talk) 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Everything I posted to this article is true and verifiable-based on reports in the New York Post and New York Observer newspapers. I would ask that the article be preserved. Thesaunterer 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not everything that is verifiable is notable. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep-Would add that some of the information about American Express and Basabe Sr.'s failed businesses appeared in a Ny Post article by Tom Sykes. Another NY Post article is as follows: "...Public records reveal that his father, Fabian Basabe Sr., an Ecuadorian émigré who was thought to be a telecom entrepreneur, has a strong aversion to paying his bills in a timely fashion.

American Express, for example, obtained a judgment against Basabe Sr. in August 2001 for $27,233, but only acknowledged "full payment and satisfaction thereof" this spring. ...

Although records show that Basabe Sr. ultimately paid most of his creditors — he settled with Harbor Bay in 2004, for example — there are always new bills. Last Aug. 25, the Internal Revenue Service filed a Federal tax lien demanding $19,496." NomenNescio 02:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- Users has only made one talk page cooment and vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Get over yourself, psycho. I have contributed to numerous articles, but registred only recently. NomenNescio 17:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- This is not the place for being less than civil with the personal attacks, regardless of your editorial track record. Please keep that in mind. B.Wind 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and RE-friggin-WRITE. Article is all unsourced gossip and borderline libel, but the subject does, sadly, appear to be notable enough. Flyboy Will 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep article was not "unsourced". Regarding the accuracy of those accounts in the New York papers, I refer to Wikipedia's statement on verifiability

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false."

Bekah80 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- Users only contribution is vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Maybe change wording slightly, but information is factual/verifiable. Rus mac 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Users only contribution is vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack page. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Regardless of it's truthfulness the inflammatory tone does make it sound like a baseless attack, if not deleted it should be re-written. Drn8 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Interesting how this user ^ can call this article an attack page without offering anything to counter the article's content. Let's hear more reasoned voices from unbiased users. Article should stay as is. PopeofRome 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Users only contribution is vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep with cleanup to remove the emphasis on rumour, gossip, and general things any normal person would cringe at to read in an encyclopaedia. I think he's notable enough, and I think the information is verifyable so while it is not NPOV, it isn't quite an attack page either. --Qirex 04:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not the goal of an encyclopedic entry to flatter the vanity of the subject. Since the info is verifiable and the subject is notable, it makes no difference whether he would "cringe" to read it, or not. –previous unsigned comment by NorthShoreNancy (talk, contributions)

No, you're misinterpreting my statement. I never said that the subject of the article would cringe at it; I couldn't care less. I said any reader of an encyclopaedia would cringe. And not at the facts, but at the obviously angry and biased tone. There is nothing wrong with any of the factual information, and that is why I cast a keep with cleanup vote. But, for example, the entire first paragraph reads like a gossip column written by an old enemy. Opening a sentence with "One of the other lies this individual has told..." is NOT acceptable under WP:NPOV guidelines as it carries all kinds of unnecessary connotations. To write, instead, "Basabe has also claimed to be [...] although this is false." is better. PS. please remember to sign comments by typing ~~~~ --Qirex 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't write that in the first place, but I will change the article to reflect Wiki's standards. NorthShoreNancy 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as he isn't notable. Bjelleklang - talk 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable. Add sources. -- JJay 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep extremely minor notability...hardly a male Paris Hilton as alledged in article.--MONGO 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep the news articles make him borderline notable. If this was from the New York Post and New York Observer, then please add the references. Most of us Wikipedians can't read minds as to were material came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - note User:203.162.27.201 removed TheRingess vote, now restored --pgk^(talk) 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the above post: I would think Mr. Basabe's appearance on a Reality TV show makes him somewhat of a public figure and therefore a candidate for inclusion. I would be happy to add additional sources if article is allowed to remain and apologize for any confusion.Thesaunterer 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep I know who this guy is, and I haven't even seen the show. We have plenty of reality show contestants with articles here, and Fabian is a well-known "villain." --MisterHand 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Defitite Keep. The info about the arrest warrants comes from a March 2, 2004 article in the Chicago Tribune about presidential kids. Basabe made himself a public figure as a television star, and his numerous media spots (Oprah show, etc). NorthShoreNancy 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

(NorthShoreNancy's contributions started with this afd discussion)

User:Qirex did not sign this comment. Lack of integrity?NorthShoreNancy 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep well known person. Rewrite would be good though.--Bkwillwm 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the subject is verifiable and can be sourced. Dan100 (Talk) 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think the page is now written in a much less POV manner. - Matthew238 02:36, 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 all. howch e ng {chat} 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra and Athina Conley, Alicia & Emily Pillatzke, Ashlyn & Kayley Messick, Avalon, Dillon & Vincent Ragone, Brett & Jon Wirta, Brianna & Chalice Fischette, Cali & Noelle Sheldon, Charlotte and Margaret Baughman, Colby & Grayson Button, Dylan & Jordan Cline, Elizabeth & Genevieve Davidson, Grace and Kelly deMontesquiou, Jacob & Joshua Rips, John & Charles Allen, Lindsay & Paige Gankema, Madison & Brooke Dinsmore, Max & Sam Christy, Meghan and Alison Tuma, Sarah & Emma Smith, Tiffany & Edward Palma

These are all NN sets of twins, who acted on TV while the were still babies — too young to speak or "act" per se. All twenty' were contributed by User:62.16.202.204 who also did Anthony & Brian Toro, Chelsey & Kahley Cuff, Erin & Ramona Richter which have their own AfD. I vote to delete the whole lot, as NN. If you find that any are notable, please call attention to them separetely. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment (from nominator): There were over 30 sets of twin child actors from the same contributor. Thanks to User:Starblind for helping whittle down to the present 20 by removing possibly-notable twins... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Madison & Brooke Dinsmore- didn't even appear on screen! (Abstain on others- haven't read those) CanadianCaesar 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
delete all Lotsofissues 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Emphatic delete all. Obsessive contributors are not good judges of notability. rodii 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nomination. --Metropolitan90 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nomination dr.alf 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Flyboy Will 02:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nomination. Movementarian 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Listify and redirect all to the list - may be of some interest to someone, but no need for dozens of stubs. BD2412 T 03:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: They're all in List of twins#Twins and multiples on TV. That article is a massive list of redlinks, which is probably what prompted the creation of these... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all Tobyk777 04:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
redirect above mentioned article on twins (for shows will small casts, where kid is mentioned, redirect to show). It was a mistake of the nominator to mix many preschool children with a few older kids. So, its a mistake to do a mass-blind delete here (I would have considered it, if I felt the nomination was selective). There's no harm in redirects. The redirects prevent cluttering up category's with non-notable names, yet preserves the information in out of the way place. The target article should then de-link, to discourage recreation. Group nominations can be effecient, but they require greater selectivity. Note: I'm not suggesting any of the older kids warrants an article, they probably don't, but they shouldn't be blindly dumped out with the rest. --Rob 04:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Suggest unlinking (though not deleting) from List of twins#Twins and multiples on TV, to discourage re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. --Agamemnon2 05:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge all into twin baby actor list derived from the list of Twins. This is interesting in the context of the study of twins. -- JJay 08:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not. A bunch of names with what series they appear in doesn't elicit any sort of interest whatsoever, even in "the context of the study of twins". Delete all. --Apostrophe 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn at all.--MONGO 09:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge info on the shows they were in to the List of twins and redirect the titles there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per MacGyverMagic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge by putting the names into List of twins as suggested, but I am not sure if we need redirects.—Stombs 11:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Jamie. If they are linked somewhere, the names should be unlinked. -- Kjkolb 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice - There have been thousands of child actors. Merely being a twin doesn't make them notable.
Merge and redirect to List of twins. Hall Monitor 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all as non-notable, and unlink as necessary to discourage re-creation. Sliggy 23:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, unlink to discourage re-creation. Twincruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Grue 16:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 19:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White rose challenge walk

2 Google hits Written as an unabashed advertisement for event. Lotsofissues 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The google results are certainly unimpressive, and that, along with this sentence: "and now it’s your turn for Yorkshire and Sheffield’s very own White Rose Children's Charity!" clearly shows why this needs to be deleted. --Qirex 04:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
'Delete ad--Bkwillwm 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Wikify Jcuk 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Krich (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Note now wikified as best as I'm able Jcuk 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Dragon Temple Society

Delete advertising for non-notable martial art school (12 Google hits) Fire Star 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam.TheRingess 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tobyk777 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Qirex 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Krich (talk) 06:33, 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 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inevitability theorem

I'm nominating this one for deletion because: (1) It gets 4 unique Google hits, none to any university websites, suggesting non notability; (2) when one adds the word "plagiarism" to that Google search, the results come down to zero, suggesting a hoax; (3) it seems to be justifying the great mass of copyvios that get submitted here. (4) It was created by someone with the same username as the author named in the article, suggesting vanity and original research. Delete CanadianCaesar 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - neologism, quick search in reputable journals turns up no such theorem. --HappyCamper 01:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per HappyCamper. The theorem has to have a proof published in a reputable journal, otherwise it is original research.TheRingess 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Durova 03:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tobyk777 04:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's not a theorem: it's a hypothesis (natural science) or a conjecture (mathematics). B.Wind 05:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per CanadianCaesar. Seems just a lazy adaptation of infinite monkey theorem anyway, which would explain the misuse of the word "theorem". --Qirex 05:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax, alternatively original research. --DrTorstenHenning 11:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete obvious rubbish. The phrase 'unintentional plagarism ' is a contradiction in terms 82.38.97.206 21:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL
Delete per nom. --Krich (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete not a notable subject. Cedars 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not a theorem, rather some non-notable fact. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it even qualifies as a "fact". CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:38, 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 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spectacle BASIC

This article on BASIC variant gives no website for the product and I have not been able to find one in Google searches. I am not sure if this is a product available for download (or purchase, but it says it's open source). I might change my vote if a website is added to the article, but as is I think it should be deleted.-gadfium 01:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I did find the briefest of mentions here (use your browser's find tool to find "spectacle"):

"A free BASIC that includes a GUI builder, runs on Linux and Windows and is similar to Visual Basic is Phoenix Object Basic, while another is Spectacle BASIC, which is currently under development."

However, this is not nearly enough, and this is the only mention on any non-Wikipedia website I could find. Perhaps this is because it may be currently under development (or may not, depending on when that was written)... but anyway, as far as I'm aware, the burden of providing proof / references and asserting notability lies with the writer --Qirex 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (Opinion remains unchanged after addition of links to forums and beta release download) --Qirex 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- There are now a number of links posted on the article's talk page. Frankly I think this program is not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. My vote stands, but once the program has a home page and is available as a non-beta to the public, I would not object to the article being recreated.-gadfium 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. come back when homepage is paid Compu ter Joe 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert for an unremarkable software project. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 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 23:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desktop_post-it_sticky_notes_and_how_to_send_them_to_others

This article is basically an ad for a small software publisher's product. Enkrates 23:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising and very poorly titled too. CanadianCaesar 01:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomTheRingess 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom, and the title is an abomination. Tufflaw 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. Movementarian 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tobyk777 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Easy: speedy delete. Poorly written in addition to advertising.—Stombs 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Aapo Laitinen 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: This is the poster-child for what wikipedia is not. See WP:NOT--Esprit15d 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Gateman1997 21:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. KC. 00:48, 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 23:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compair Maxam

There is strong evidence that this page is a joke Florilegist 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I could only find this as a British firm. No listing at French Wikipedia either. Movementarian 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. No references to support, either. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per everyone --Qirex 05:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John A. Castro

The article states that John has published a book on government reform in Laredo. It turns out that the book is available only as a download, and I fail to see that his suggestions have made any splash. Delete as vanity author. Pilatus 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This made me laugh though. God help Laredo if his vision ever got implemented. -- JJay 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No impact outside Laredo and doubtful impact there. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I am suspicious of this editor after seeing Inevitability theorem (also AFD'd) and I do not see notability in this vanity page nor on google. --Qirex 05:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn activist. Bjelleklang - talk 05:28, 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 23:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laredo SDA

This is the organization founded by John A. Castro; the weblink there mentioned there links to his book. Delete as having made to detectable impact. Pilatus 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Why does every group of 5 or more have to create a page in Wikipedia??Madman 06:11, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riki-Oh

Non-notable comic series (It even says it's obscure in the article itself!) - ExcaliDragon 01:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, the movie based on the manga is pretty famous and I'm really surprised it's only mentioned as an afterthought in the article. I added the imdb link (here for quick reference) to it and will probably expand on that later. - Bobet 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Obscure" doesn't necessarily mean not-notable; not-notability is not a grounds for deletion; and even so, I don't really see anything wrong with this article. The movie based on it is rather famous. Snurks ^{T C} 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable, was even made into a movie. Passes my Google benchmark. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, any anime/comic that gets made into a film passes inclusion criteria in my book. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per above. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 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 23:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AwesomeRadio

Appears to be a little-known internet radio station, with only one site outwith it's own domain linking to it according to Google, and little to suggest it has a massive following, therefore I recommend its deletion. Barneyboo (Talk) 01:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom.TheRingess 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aileen Passloff

Non-notable teacher. Speedy noticed twice, but DancingAsher keeps removing it. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedia material. Flyboy Will 02:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. A professor, not a teacher. Participated in Obie-winning productions. Fulbright scholar. A good CV if verified (it isn't), but not quite encyclopedic. Durova 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete per Durova. Doesn't quite meet the professor test and is unverified. Definitely not a speedy candidate. Movementarian 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This woman is a legend. Prof, director, choreographer with her own company. Heavy major press coverage. No way close to a speedy. -- JJay 05:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: Tagged as direct copy of this. Bjelleklang - talk 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a shame. I put the correct copyvio template on page. The fact that it is on AfD does not turn the copyvio into a speedy. Bard is not a commercial content provider. It would also help if noms made it a general practice to check for copyvio before nominating-- JJay 06:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the tag! Am not sure about their copyright policy, but most educational institutions I've looked at have a policy that doesn't allow direct copying of text, so assumed the same here as well. Bjelleklang - talk 06:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It probably is copyright and you were right to spot it and point it out. But the copyright page allows us 1 week to get permission. Speedy copyvios are supposed to be limited to commercial content (i.e. primarily magazine and newspaper articles, etc.). -- JJay 06:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I know, but things went a little fast and I'm new to the process, so I just picked the first one I spottet. Thanks for the correction! Bjelleklang - talk 06:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep—appears reasonably notable having created works and received press coverage over many years. But should be rewritten if copyvio. The basic nature of the copied text doesn't fit with Wikipedia anyway.—Stombs 11:44, 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 23:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H.A.M.B.

Relatively small message board; Google doesn't turn up many results for this site if you filter out all of the unrelated results. Looks like vanity to me. Delete --Spring Rubber 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Madman 06:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy. Shanel 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romso

Looks like a vanity entry. Can anyone find external references to this person? Bezthomas 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Couldn't find anything. Non-notable. Gflores ^Talk 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, definitely. Flyboy Will 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as {{nn-bio}} / CSD A7 Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:32, 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 Al-BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 23:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al queda number 3

This page does not really offer anything other than a screed Professor water 02:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete nonsense. Tufflaw 02:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. lacks salvageability. -- JJay 02:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sometimes clever pages like this make me wish we could keep some nonsense. --Qirex 04:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, noting Qirex's remarks Josh Parris#: 04:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - two parts nonsense, one part jibberish. B.Wind 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Gotta love that list of former number threes. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or BJAODN... "Where am I?" In The Village. "What do you want?" Information. "Which side are you on?" That would be telling. We want information. "You won't get it." By hook or by crook we will. "Who are you?" The new Number Two. "Who is Number One?" You are Number Six. "I am not a number. I am a free man." AnonMoos 11:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Why is this nonsense clogging AFD? --DrTorstenHenning 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy BJAODN. Uncyclopedia is down the corridor. the wub "?!" 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. --Last Malthusian 12:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, and happy merkin day to everyone. --Squiddy 14:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, Jor-El as #3. Pepsidrinka 19:55, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-patriotism

Neologism, dictionary definition abakharev 02:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Durova 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but Rewrite - almost 400 google hits in English (if you spell it also without hyphen) and 130 hits in Russian language. I think there is a potential for expanding. But in its current state the article is certainly a dicdef and looks like copied & pasted from somewhere. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism.Gateman1997 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, -- Jbamb 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom + likely orig. research Paul 18:03, 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 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cingular experience

Claims to be an "aphorism" but seems to be a neologism (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as an attack page on the company, and POV also. •DanMS 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV nonsense.Gateman1997 21:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and then create redirect to Cingular Wireless as I believe that was a marketing phrase they used. -- JLaTondre 02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circe's Rule

nn phenomenon on a nn forum (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 12:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Although User:Jcuk is quite correct that WP:MUSIC isn't necessarily appropriate for pipe bands & such, I found the counter-argument that the article doesn't even attempt to establish notability of any kind compelling. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] City of chicago pipe band

They don't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC, although they have a better-looking web page than most bands we delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Movementarian 03:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or at very least move to City of Chicago pipe band Josh Parris#: 13:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep its unlikely any pipe band will ever satisfy WP:MUSIC but as thats just a guideline anyhow does it matter? They may well be "notable" in pipe band circles, and they are verifiable. Jcuk 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP:MUSIC does seem to allow for some leeway when talking about non-mainstream types of music. The article doesn't give any attempt at evidence that they are notable in pipe band circles, and I was unable to find anything on Google. If I am wrong then let me know; I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete doesn't estabilish notability. Grue 17:01, 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 userfy. What do you mean, I should be counting votes instead? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris phelan

Apparent vanity page, created by user with same name as subject of the article. Delete. -- The Anome 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination ERcheck 03:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom unless further evidence of notability (besides working for Joi Ito's company) is given.--SarekOfVulcan 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this vanity page. --DrTorstenHenning 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or userfy per nomination. Pages like this are generally more like misplaced user pages written as an attempt to have an article. Duh, duh duh: WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy if possible, delete if not. Capitalistroadster 17:27, 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 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Toru

group of RPG-ers, not notable and likely to change too much to be verifiable (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also unencyclopedic. Tufflaw 03:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, articles on RPG clans are vanity and non-encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 14:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable if the only source is the clan webpage. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:50, 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 DELETE. Harro5 00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan fate

Another gaming clan, same reasons as above (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 04:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Isn't this a speedy delete? Madman 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - It is my understanding that the nn-bio criterion only applies for biographies of individual people. It'd be tough to justify expanding that because established groups may have more presumption of notability. We even have a few gaming clans which have survived AFDs... (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: non-notable groups cannot be speedily deleted, yet. Which gaming clans survived AfD? -- Kjkolb 12:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Sturmgrenadier survived a VfD, but only for lack of consensus. You can call me Al 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as Clan Toru. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clancruft. You can call me Al 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per new wikipolicy nn-club Zzzzz 20:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Brett Campeau

Player does not exist, and the Senators didn't exist either in that time period. RGTraynor 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nonsense MNewnham 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy nonsense -- JamesTeterenko 05:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy nonsense. Q Q 15:51, 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 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodes of rome

Non-encyclopedic entry. Borders on G1/A1 speedy. ERcheck 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. One in a series of nearly empty articles created by same author. ERcheck 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Part of a BC/AD spree by an editor now blocked for 3RR violations. -- SCZenz 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

*Delete per nomination. And isn't that supposed to be 'roads', not 'rodes'? Flyboy Will 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- Now that I've reviewed the mind-boggling contributions history of the creating user, who appeared to have had a compelte AD/CE meltdown, this is definitely Speedy Delete as vandalism. Flyboy Will 04:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: I see what you mean - I'd support agree with that speedy; the user is clearly trying to make a WP:POINT. But a {{db-vandalism}} tag might not give the deleteing admin enough reason to know why it's vandalism without this discussion. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly the article is not of Rhodes scholar quality. :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as A1 short article with little or no context. I am sure that more can be said about Roman roads than this even if it was correctly spelt. Capitalistroadster 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, drive-by foolishness by disturbed editor, but unfortunately, not quite a speedy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Capitalroadster. Hit the road, Jack. And don't you come back no more no more no more no more. Durova 15:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nomination. Gaius Cornelius 17:39, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Scholars Program

Creating this article was a mistake. It's a program at one university, and is not notable beyond a small group of people who have participated in it. I only created because someone I know was thinking about attending it and I saw a brochere.Blizzard1 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Per the above. Blizzard1 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to University of Illinois at Springfield. This is good, interesting stuff, no reason to throw it away. -- JJay 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per JJay. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above. Roman Soldier 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete do not merge, a quick search shows MANY programs at other universities with the same name --Ajdz 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and do not merge, per Ajdz's research. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:04, 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 delete as an attack page with claim of verifiability which is clearly false. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Kent

Fails WP:BIO

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Rachel+Kent%22+prince Shows no (notable) blogs talking about her in the context of any princes.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ladyrachelkent.org%2F shows one link to her web site Josh Parris#: 04:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack page on person without a clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 08:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as unverifiable attack page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 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 speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TYF

Easily Fails WP:MUSIC Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 04:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn, vanity, self-promotion... take your pick. B.Wind 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: No brainer. Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: NN, vanity. --Davril2020 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 22:36, 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. – Rob e rt 04:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Suburbanites

Delete non-notable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Google results for <"The Suburbanites" "track listing" OR album> turn up one or two bio pieces about band member Evan David Taubenfeld, who is notable for his success after leaving this band, but vast majority of results are about completely unrelated bands/albums/miscellany. --Qirex 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 04:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not in Allmusic. Not in Discogs. So likely no album released. -- Perfecto 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn, one sentence does not an article make. B.Wind 04:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per above. NN Ban e s 09:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 22:36, 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 incld. copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I-def-i

Article reads like a music review in a fanzine, does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:NOT), and does not seem to meet any of the criteria for notable musicians (WP:MUSIC). —ZorkFox 04:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as copyvio Josh Parris#: 13:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Regular old delete, it's been there too long to speedy now. Stifle 22:35, 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. – Rob e rt 04:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influation

nn band, fails WP:MUSIC; delete. Melchoir 04:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 22:35, 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 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shmeng

A website that does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Its alexa ranking is almost 850,000, its forum has aproximately 1,000 members, and no google news hits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Claims it's notable not due to "the size of the site, but the quality of the articles" - which appears unsubstantiated. Unless we can see some glowing reviews in major national media, the fact that one of their articles "may have ended up in your inbox" is inconsequential. Flyboy Will 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. Agnte 13:47, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splunge

Non-notable, non-encylopedic. We really don't need to explain every Monty Python episode in history with individual articles, no matter how hilarious. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Natalinasmpf 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Monty Python. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting explanation of word usage. -- JJay 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Not worthy of its own article. ~~Redirect~~ somewhere, but not Monty Python, something more specific than that. Someone should be able to think of something. -R. fiend 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- splurge, sponge, Nancy Spungen, vole, lackey- lots of good possibilities. -- JJay 05:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - After a little more investigation, it appears there is no good place to redirect this to. There is no article for the Python skit itself (for the best, really), nor is there a words and phrases from Monty Python article (or the like). Just delete it. -R. fiend 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not worthy of a redirect. A coined word in one of Monty Python's less notable bits doesn't mention a mention even in Monty Python's Flying Circus. Even redirecting would be inviting trouble with the coinage in various television programs. B.Wind 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Belongs in dictionary, not encyclopedia.Madman 06:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Belongs in bit bucket, not dictionary or encyclopedia. Python-cruft. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 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. – Rob e rt 04:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mae sakharov

Notability not clear from the article. Web search links to an ad website of the college counselor who seem to be a hero of this article. A respected profession, but doesn't qualify for an article by itslef. Irpen 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete, my nomination. --Irpen 05:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom abakharev 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete what is it with people and Capitalisation? Josh Parris#: 13:10, 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. Could have been speedied under the spirit of G7 as all other edits besides User:Tomruen's were minor. howch e ng {chat} 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IRV - Sample election - favorite season

This was tagged for speedy by it's creator for being his own original research. However, it's been around a long time, has other minor contributors, and might not be a valid speedy under the rules. It also may have been VfDed a year or so ago, but that was before the archiving system for sych debates was in place, so locating it is difficult. Thought it better to bring here. My vote, as of now, is to delete. I'm taking the author's word that it's OR. -R. fiend 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If the author wants it deleted, his/her/its wish should be honored. Hesitant delete. B.Wind 05:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the usable content of the article is being moved into the instant-runoff article anyway, where it's more appropriate, though that will take some time as that article is in massive need of cleanup. Scott Ritchie 05:54, 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 redirect to List of cities in Australia. howch e ng {chat} 19:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of metropolitan areas in Australia by population

Contains out of date info and unverified projections. Has a duplicate at List of cities in Australia which is more up to date. Kevin 05:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't you just redirect then? -- JJay 05:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's only worth redirecting if the title is a plausible search term. Kevin 05:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
What happens to the people who set up the page? or might have linked to it? It seems easier to redirect rather than Afd. -- JJay 06:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There are couple of redirects created but no articles pointing there. If deleted, we should consider what to do with the redirects. I am inclined to redirect at the moment. Capitalistroadster 06:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Maybe the list on the "List of cities in Australia" page should be moved to this page. Its not obvious from the title that "List of cities in Australia" would contain a population ranking -- Astrokey44|talk 09:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree, I think it's best to delete this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete it and then create a redirect to List of cities in Australia. enochlau (talk) 02:55, 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. Yes, you heard me. Wanna make somethin' of it? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matys Brothers

Unreferenced neglected article. Not in discogs, not in all music -- Perfecto 05:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 05:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. These guys were/are real. Had some hits. Appeared on American Bandstand in 1957. [2]. -- JJay 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per JJay. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- What were those hits, so at least I can put them into the article? Have they released albums? Do I just put The Matys Brothers are notable for appearing in an episode of American Bandstand in 1957? Or does WP:MUSIC only apply to the present, not the past? -- Perfecto 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the hits are already listed in the article. Also, a bandstand appearance is proof of notability, how else do you get on the show? Remember WP:Music is a guideline, not official policy. Finally, regarding your other questions, why don't you do some research and add to the article. -- JJay 20:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable group, even recorded several singles backed by Bill Haley and His Comets. I wasn't aware an article had been started on them. If time permits I'll expand (see my work on Bill Haley, James E. Myers, The Jodimars). However due to "real world" work priorities I won't be able to do anything until the new year. 23skidoo 12:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has already expanded the article. I've made a couple of factual corrections. I don't have a date for when the Matys appeared on Bandstand, however. 23skidoo 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

8/28/1957- see link above. -- JJay 21:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not nearly notable enough to be kept as a band, much less an article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DethFromAbove (talk • contribs) 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, expand. BD2412 T 19:15, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caffeine logic

Appears to be a neologism and possibly original research. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per the above. Also dictdef and slang. Durova 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef, neologism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Mergeto Can it be slipped into the caffeine article somewhere? - Chriszuma 04:26, 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 speedy delete as copyvio. Mo0[talk] 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ISmart Create

Blatant advertisement. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as {{db-copyvio}} / CSD A8 of http://www.ismartsoftware.com/ismart/ Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:56, 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. – Rob e rt 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kgmb rt

If not a hoax then at best it is an unverified bio of a nn company Kevin 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as unsubstantiated, most likely hoax. Flyboy Will 06:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unsub--- what Flyboy said. Mo0[talk] 07:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, looks like a prime example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Snurks ^{T C} 07:42, 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 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Ianni

Doesn't meet nn-bio CSD criteria, but clear vanity. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:13, 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. – Rob e rt 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Ong

neglected article of nn academic on Game semantics. Nn hits on Google Scholar. No media coverage. -- Perfecto 05:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 05:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete εγκυκλοπαίδε ια * 06:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 19:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Torp

Totally non-notable bio - most likely vanity page Kevin 05:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - two sentences do not a bio or a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 06:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Love to speedy A7, but there's that little "one of the best designers in Denmark" claim, so I guess we wait for AfD. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:01, 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. Nobody who says "rewrite" ever does it themselves; if User:Flyboy Will (or anyone else) wants to buck the trend and do some good work on this article, it won't harm him to have a blank canvas to work on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical flowers

The first half of the article is fluff, with little real info. The last half of this article is a direct cut n paste from the link at the bottom. Lots o' words, nothing substantial. Madman 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Rewrite. Copyvio should be removed etc, but the topic is certainly notable enough. Flyboy Will 06:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact, the whole article was a copyvio from the web page that was handily given in the article. There was no prior non-infringing version to roll back to. Uncle G 08:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
While I think someone could write an article on this topic, delete this as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 09:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per CRM, this might make a good Cat tho. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:43, 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. – Rob e rt 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spartan (weapon)

Neologism, I can find no trace of anyone using this term in this way on google. Megapixie 06:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Megapixie. Looks like a neologism to me. And without any concrete information or description, it's unverifiable anyway. --Quuxplusone 06:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. Found nothing on google at all when searched for Spartan weapon projectile. Bjelleklang - talk 06:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks neologism. Sparta's army was not ad-hoc as implied in this article -- it was en elite, well-trained army. Every male citizen spent his every waking hour since he was a young boy training for combat. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons as above. Gaius Cornelius 18:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom; Trivia: There was in fact a Spartan anti-ballistic missile. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:29, 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 despite the intense sock/meatpuppeting, keep Urapopstar and delete URAPS Awards. howch e ng {chat} 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urapopstar, URAPS Awards

The first link is non-notable, non-encylopedic, barely verifiable. Looks like fancruft. It is nearly incomprehensible, and does not justify its importance or its place within the encylopedia. You know, at least schools give their context within the community. The second one is just an even more ludicrous spinoff of the first one. It currently needs to prove its notability and place within this encyclopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyedited the article. Will now vote keep for Urapopstar, while delete for URAPS awards. Natalinasmpf 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete both as utter crap. 95% of the articles is useless, barely wikified data tables. Ral315 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment i deleted vandalism (changed vote from delete to keep) by User:Singaporesux. furthermore, afd tag is being removed from article itself by User:Graffitimysoul. check edit history (and longevity/activity of voting users) carefully. Zzzzz 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - because I have no idea what this article is talking about, so here's a delete vote with a bunny on its head. FCYTravis 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy - Google search brings up nothing of substance. Incorrect spelling and capitalization on every line. Daykart 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep it - Why should we delete it? It is a role play-esque game, and this is just an article on it. If it stays here, you're not going to die or anything.. GraffitiMySoul 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but it makes our encylopedia look unprofessional, and it's non-notable and possibly harms the encyclopedia with false information with fancruft. -- Natalinasmpf 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both best I can tell, they're vanity advertising for what amounts to a play-by-email game. The Literate Engineer 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep it - It's just a page to catalogue the history of the game, which the players are very proud of and spend lots of time on. Just because certain people don't appreciate the game doesn't give you the right to try and delete the article about it. As you can tell by the external links, this game has been written up in other places, it has a big history behind it, and many dedicated members. I also find the term "fancruft" to be very offensive. Mahalia56 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User's 17th edit;[3] the user's first, sixth, seventh, and ninth edits were to vandalize this page. The only edits in article space have been to the articles nominated above. Postdlf 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I usually use the term "fancruft" sparingly. This article does not have a professional or neutral tone, and harms Wikipedia, and if not for other users by possibly providing a biased or possibly unverified point of view. The community owns the articles, not the individual. It may well be played in many other areas, but there are no third party references to verify, nor does it try to assert its notability neutrally. We do have the right to attempt to delete articles we genuinely think do not belong in Wikipedia, bad faith nominations are WP:POINT violations. This is clearly not the case. -- Natalinasmpf 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are you exactly? And why are you so concerned? Mahalia56 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am an editor. I am a member of RC Patrol. Editors have the responsibility of improving Wikipedia through community consensus, and using requests for comment, which is what an afd is, in order to gauge community consensus about action. Why am I concerned? I am concerned with improving Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian. This is what a lot of Wikipedians do, by the way. -- Natalinasmpf 03:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So basically you go around looking for pages to delete all day. Sounds like fun. Mahalia56 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all day. It is to catch possibly defamatory articles that could damage the encylopedia and to catch vandalism. The wiki nature of Wikipedia makes this an obligation. Whether it is fun is an opinion. I treat it like an obligation. -- Natalinasmpf 03:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we've spent lots of time editing this article, and for someone like yourself to come along and decide it should be deleted... it's disheartening to say the least. We're constantly trying to make it better as we are not yet Wikipedia experts. Also keep in mind not everybody's first-language is English. This experience has turned me off from Wikipedia. Mahalia56 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

First thing, trim and formalise the article. Make us understand what it actually is. Establish its notability. Use formal language. If people spend a lot of time on it, then surely, they can spend a lot of time making even better so it can be saved? Provide evidence of its impact on culture or the world. Then, yes, I will change my vote. I am sorry to hear you are discouraged, but Wikipedia is firstly an encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we'll try our best. I've added two articles that were written about the game to prove its "world impact". Mahalia56 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How would wikipedia be ruined? Isn't the point of wikipedia to put in information on a certain subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.52 (talk • contribs)

I vote to KEEP IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.52 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but the information must be factual, and be neutral. And then it must be verifiable, and notable. -- Natalinasmpf 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's verifiable on the Urapopstar website - www.urapopstar.cjb.net

That's the site in itself. That's not a reference, given that if you wrote about yourself, would one consider that writing neural and unbiased? Surely there would be some, therefore a third person view is preferred. -- Natalinasmpf 04:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine here's a compromise. Firstly, information has to be trimmed a bit, there's way too many tables with too little context. Secondly, until the awards ceremony doesn't have a huge impact, or at least it has a smaller impact that the Urapopstar concept as a whole. I suggest merging and redirecting the awards page to this one. Then cleanup is needed for the page. I will then vote weak keep. -- Natalinasmpf 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added the Awards page. I've never performed a merge on here before, being fairly new but I am going to follow the instructions... Mahalia56 04:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that is good. Glad things can be worked out. After the cleanup is done, I might urge the community to review their comments. -- Natalinasmpf 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already deleted out the "Celebrities" section as I felt it unneccessary. Since most of our users are in the United Kingdom time zone and aren't online at the moment, I will collaborate with them tomorrow to make cleanup changes to the page. Mahalia56 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it Sounds fair to me - I think the article itself should be kept, as it does describe a popular site, but maybe with some cleanup and merge/redirect. FreakyFlyBry 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment user has been editing since 7 december 2005, primarily on this article. wikiguideline policy: "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly". Zzzzz 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, can't even do an alexa check on this because it doesn't have its own website. It's no better than some fantasy football league. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, some very rude people on here. We put too much effort into the website to be labelled as "no better than some fantasy football league". Mahalia56 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's particularly rude IMO - that was just her honest opinion about it. It does become a debate. Generally the idea is to convince the community why the article should exist. Don't be too anxious, if everything is cleaned up nothing should happen. I don't appreciate however, your friends vandalising my talk and user pages. -- Natalinasmpf 04:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the behaviour. I've asked them to stop. Mahalia56 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep - News coverage argues for, the extremely unencyclopedic manner in which the article is written needs to be fixed. For starters, excise all the listcruft. Delete the "URAPS Awards" article entirely. FCYTravis 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea for the URAPS Awards entry to be deleted. Mahalia56 05:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable online game. Zzzzz 08:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

god's sake it's just a game. get over it you sad little people who have nothing better to do than try and delete somebody's page on a website. you're pathetic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Singaporesux (talk • contribs)

Keep it Don't be a bunch of saddos and appreciate there's been a lot of work put into this article. It's okay for you lot to sit there and say 'what a load of turd, get rid of it' but you haven't actually worked on the masterpiece.
You call them sad? HA. People who aren't sad have better things to do than wander around on Wikipedia and deem whether certain articles are necessary or not. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.30.166 (talk • contribs)

Are there better ways of removing vandalism and deleting possibly detrimental articles? You tell me. It is very likely I will vote keep for this article, anyhow. The idea is to determine consensus by calling an requests for comment for deletion, which is what afd is. -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Some people on here seriously need to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.178.205 (talk • contribs)
Delete both per above reasoning, notwithstanding that it's doing "fantastically." Postdlf 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will urge you to reconsider your vote later on, after the article has been cleaned up and proves its notability. Don't vote delete just becaue there are kafirs who can't know better. ;) -- Natalinasmpf 14:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per reasons stated by Zoe. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:14, Dec. 23, 2005
I have copyedited the article. I may consider taking some parts of the history totally, unless some people can find a better way to provide a neutral tone. Reconsider your votes. -- Natalinasmpf 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No change in my vote. The article still does not provide any proof of notability beyond a brief reference in print media and a review in an online paper. No verification is provided for the article's bald claim that it has received "a large amount of web traffic." Most of the article is nothing but a summary of what happens on the "pop charts" within its fictional world, without that context even being consistently clear. It reminds me of the cruft we've been forced to repeatedly delete that documented message board flamewars as if they were a topic worthy of Ken Burns. Postdlf 19:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Zoe. —Locke Cole 10:21, 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 speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Oberlander

Vanity page with unimportant "significance." Fightindaman 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Seth is an aspiring poker player. Enough said.

Delete. If they can't even be bothered to finish the article, we shouldn't be bothering to keep it. Daniel Case 06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. If this is not nn-bio, what is? --DrTorstenHenning 11:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable biography. Coming 91st in an online poker competition winning $450 is not much of claim to fame. Problems with verifiability as well. Capitalistroadster 17:35, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magical nonfiction

I can barely make head or tail of this. As much as I hate to destroy other's efforts, this really sounds like original research and I thus have to vote delete. Natalinasmpf 06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleticize I prophecy the deconstructionism of this articularium in very sooneous futuraeum. Flyboy Will 07:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable and confusing. See also the AFD for alleged author Palbar Couluers. Kappa 07:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks, unless we want to send this to WP:PNT for translation from Bullshit into English. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

references have been added;

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacevajra (talk • contribs)

- So how would we verify the contents of this article? Kappa 07:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- A link to a just-created wiki page is NOT a reference. A reference is a link to a reputable source, such as a major publication, a non-vanity book, or at the very least some internet articles. Flyboy Will 08:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete; patent nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete You said it Jamie. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. This shit is gold. "Literary criticism proclaimed the death of the author and awaked us to the rhetoric of identity." --Apostrophe 02:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN per Apostrophe. Stifle 22:34, 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 delete. Anyone who feels like rewriting it should contact me to get the content. howch e ng {chat} 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Quadros

Unsourced vanity. Pilatus 06:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep but definitely needs some heavy editing so as to sound more encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightindaman (talk • contribs)
Delete as vanity. The article even flaunts the rules (see below). Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Please read thie folowing piece of obvious fluff with some degree of skepticism. Such a level of self promotion as this is, unfortunatly not entirely against the Wikipedia rules, so this page should serve as an example of what not to do.

Keep and trim the fat. Karate chop, ha-yah! Flyboy Will 08:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as what essentially appears to be a personal advertisement for Quadros. Serious heavy editing might save this piece; however, the level of promotion (or self-promotion as the case may be) may demand an entire re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.76.172 (talk • contribs)
Shotei, haito, and uraken. Uh, delete this promo/vanity stuff. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This must be deleted, it is pure BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.112 (talk • contribs)
Delete, pretty much an nn-bio. Stifle 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, he is a notable figure in mixed martial arts. The article needs a complete re-write though. --- Trench 02:07, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palbar Couluers

Doesn't google, no references given, making it unverifiable. See also WP:BIO. Kappa 07:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PS see also Magical nonfiction and its AFD. Kappa 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as unsalvageable patent nonsense. And, wow. This is the first time I've ever seen a wiki subject that had ZERO google hits. Not a single one. Flyboy Will 08:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN excerpts, then delete. "From an early age Couluers could not help but factionalize his identity, seeing the person as a play of frozen and severely limited conventional perceptions whose history and rigidity he contested." I can relate; my youth was like this as well. But it doesn't establish notability. Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical nonfiction. DJ Clayworth 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. This shit is gold. "The scientific method itself had demanded of the object a fixed identity,6 that is to say, scientists were the first to fetishize the living flesh of the object-pole (the liquid-like flow of being)." --Apostrophe 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN some parts of it, then delete the rest. Stifle 22:33, 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. – Rob e rt 04:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guillemots (band)

First afd, resulting in deletion

Multiple re-creations aside, this band still does not meet WP:MUSIC. WP:DRV said to list it on afd again instead of speedying, though. —Cryptic (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, their single received "much attention from radio presenters across the UK (including two from BBC Radio 1)" thus passing WP:MUSIC. Also #5 on the NME chart right now. Kappa 07:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lest anyone be deceived, the charting criterion on WP:MUSIC refers to sales charts. The NME chart is determined by internet voting. —Cryptic (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Lest anyone be deceived, WP:MUSIC doesn't specify whether the charts are sales, airplay, download, or internet votes, or whatever. Kappa 07:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- And the only evidence I can find of any attention from the BBC is this mention. (You have to scroll to the bottom to see it.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - How about this one? Kappa 07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Another interesting media mention [4] Kappa 07:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They seem to be getting serious attention in the English music media including the NME and this story in the Guardian [5]. Capitalistroadster 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per arguments above. --badlydrawnjeff 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I voted delete last time but they have now received a fair bit of media attention in Britain and so should stay. Keresaspa 14:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: The NME chart is significant.--Esprit15d 15:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: if the band is notable according to users above, I vote keep. IanManka 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: I first created this article because of the constant airplay and gig reviews on BBC Radio 6 of their latest single, it is also playlisted on several Sky TV music chanels including the AMP and MTV. The BBC Radio 1 and Virgin Radio coverage is quite extensive also, the fan base already seems huge (see links) and these guys will definately go on to bigger and better things. There are dozens of reviews from music critics on the net and in newspapers and they all seem to agree on one thing... in my opinion the band are producing the most exciting new music that I have heard in quite some time Nick Boulevard 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't think the chart positions are anything too special, but the amount of media coverage does put them well beyond most of our AfD band candidates. Worth letting an article emerge and see how it develops. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 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 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tath

Almost certainly original research. Probably a Neologism as well. Only plausible claim might be the leet speak reference, but it is covered at Leet already. (Google on Tath + leet returns 469 hits. Google on taht + leet returns 697 hits.) Ben Aveling 07:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless we want to transwiki to leet.wiktionary.org :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete complete lack of notablity--MONGO 09:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:17, 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 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ellis Lawson Banister

non notability (elementary school teacher and a career officer), has a slightly more famous uncle John Riley Banister -Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete barely notable bio. Stifle 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn--MONGO 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of notability is included in the article, so much so that I'm having trouble finding a claim to notability. Sliggy 23:29, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maxeen

Poorly written (no wikilinks), and fails to establish notability in any real sense. Neo 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep [6] & [7]. PJM 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Come back when you've released a couple of major albums or gone on tour. Stifle 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, album release, media coverage, and signed to major label. Kappa 07:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep minor notablity.--MONGO 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Kappa. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - This band is listed on Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where I spotted it. Its a reasonable place to patrol about once a week for the creation of non-encyclopaedic, or badly written articles. --Neo 23:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep They're signed. Tlogmer 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nomination. How many non-notable bands are there in the world? Do we want an article on every single one? Gaius Cornelius 17:36, 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 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nernberg corollary

Useless. Connected to Mark Nernberg (AFD). Punkmorten 21:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete no evidence of an audience for this concept. Kappa 07:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is a speedy...it fails to state why it is notable.--MONGO 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It's clearly vanity. Look at the creator of the page. Delete. --Apostrophe 05:40, 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 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Telephonemail

Advertisment for a commercial service Astaroth5 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete, doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Kappa 07:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam link, advertising.--MONGO 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or send to Advertpedia. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smithsonian Platinum Technology 21st Century Pioneer Partnership Laureate

Only 10 google hits, doesn't seem notable. Catamorphism 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete info on an obscure individual award given out at one particular event...nn--MONGO 09:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 12:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was uhhh, redirect to Florida Marlins, I hope. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marlins Stadium

Stadium is no longer being built. This article has become an out of date crystal ball. Gateman1997 20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps merge to Florida Marlins, as people may well still look for this page? sjorford (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have suggested that, however the main Marlins page already have more up to date and extensive info on the subject.Gateman1997 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, move the Marlins to Vancouver. The Jays are getting lonely up here in Canada. Croat Canuck 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Florida Marlins. Vegaswikian 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect after merging to Florida Marlins--MONGO 09:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Take it from a Miamian: stick a fork in it.... It's done. Bereft of life, it should rest in peace. There's nothing to gain by merging as all it is right now is another failed attempt to get a stadium built for the National League baseball team. Emphatic delete. B.Wind 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
To clarify my comments: although the stadium doesn't exist and probably never will, people might still search for it by name to find out what happened. Therefore a (cheap) redirect to Florida Marlins, where it is already adequately explained, is a Good Idea. sjorford (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Boldly redirected to Florida Marlins. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:42, 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 redirect to Internet forum. howch e ng {chat} 19:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DiscussionBoard

Non-notable internet forum software. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Internet forum. Blackcats 07:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say I would find that a most unhelpful redirect. Why redirect it in this fashion? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a valid alternate name for Internet forum, just without a space and with one capital letter at the beginning of a word. Redirect per above. --Apostrophe 05:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It used to be a redirect like this in the past, which led to questions such as "Every software on Comparison of Internet forum software points to a page except DiscussionBoard. Why?" Do you have a solution to this? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove the redlinks and rdirects from that article. Easy. --Apostrophe 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, gets 283,000 google hits. Kappa 08:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the hits are for discussion boards in general rather than this bit of software. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, looking a bit more closely you seem to be right. Kappa 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand--MONGO 09:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect as above. NN in itself. Proto t c 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Blackcats. - squibix 14:53, 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. – Rob e rt 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elzafir

A Google search for Elzafir Habsjah gives 42 hits, with many wikipedia mirrors. Appears to be NN bio. D-Rock 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable, implausible. Kappa 08:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above...possible hoax.--MONGO 09:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Kappa, and MONGO. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 16:29, 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 no consensus. Feel free to merge/redirect as you see fit. howch e ng {chat} 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Theism

One line sub-stub which violates WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS There might be a way to create an article with this name which is not POV and Biased, but this isn't even close to a beginning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

abstain, we need an article here, and AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 08:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
abstain and cleanup per Kappa. Flyboy Will 08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep tag for expand and expert.--MONGO 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete explain to me what "classical" theism is. Its certainly not what the article states: "Classical Theism is long-standing ideas about God within Christianity." That's POV, as well as covered under Christianity and God. If you tag for cleanup, what precisely do you suggest be the content for this neologistic phrase? Theism already has an article. Slapping "classical" on the front end is meaningless. As it is the article is horrible religious bias, and I fail to see how re-writing it will do anything but create a completely unnecessary duplicate of Theism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I fail to see what the inclusion of the word classical brings to the party other than being a transparent attempt to somehow elevate a single belief system above others. As the simple definition as given on the page is biased, it is likely that the article itself would be just as biased and would serve as a soapbox. Additionally, the article is unnecessary as there are others touching on the same subject matter in a far more NPOV manner. Jim62sch 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per KillerChihuahua's points. ('Classical' suggested to me that it might have been about Anct. Greek/Roamn ideas of theism. Which would have been interesting). --Squiddy 14:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- You can read about that at Greek mythology and Roman mythology, and it is interesting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per KC and Jim - Guettarda 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and mark for expansion and clean-up. Classical theism is a specific set of theistic beliefs involving belief in one supreme omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. This could be included in the "theism" article but is not really presented there currently. TMS63112 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please WP:CITE, TMS63112, because I've found a number of highly disparate sites and no indication that "Classical theism" is anything other than a neologism utilized different ways by different groups. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand.--Bkwillwm 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Expand how? Please explain. I would not have listed this if I could see any way to make it into a useful article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or redirect to theism. FeloniousMonk 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's in the Encyclopedia Britannica.--Jason Gastrich 07:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- As a paragraph under "Pantheism" so I suppose we should put a paragraph there also? This is, finally, in the nature of a source or cite, for which I thank you. Are they correct, however? I will remind you that in the recent Guardian test Wikipedia was more, not less, accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica, so while that's the best anyone has done, should it be a separate article, part of Theism, part of Pantheism, or something else? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The phrase has over 200,000 Google hits. It's obviously relevant and important.--Jason Gastrich 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I covered that in my earlier post. Neologism used for a multitude of very, very different meanings. What the Google result is, is "100,000 meanings for the phrase Classical Theism" KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem a little overly passionate about this entry. Do you mind if I ask why? --Jason Gastrich 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously because the phrase is neologism. And not at all settled. I think it'd be difficult to write an article about something that's a desert wax and a floor topping. Mark K. Bilbo 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty clear redirect to theism, merging this one whole sentence into that article. Proto t c 12:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect would work for me, I just cannot see how this can become a viable article on its own, per reasons given above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as calling Judeo-Islamo-Christianity "classical theism" is POV pushing. See over here [8] where the BBC comments the term is more a neoligism to replace typing the rather long and clumsy "Judeo-Islamo-Christianity." The concepts may be "classical" in a certain set of cultures (particularly Western culture) but there are many beliefs that have been around longer (such as Hindu beliefs). It's rather ethno-centric of us to call something of our heritage "classical" as if it ante-dates all other beliefs somehow. Mark K. Bilbo 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and fix to at least minimum multi-POV, since each culture has their own classical theism. Just needs lotsa TLC. Zotel - the Stub Maker 03:16, 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. – Rob e rt 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Clipper

This story about a 25 year-old male as some kind of saint or messiah who disappeared is poorly written and does not check out. Some references are made to writings or books that do not check out. Anyway, not notable. -- Fplay 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom Spearhead 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, implausible. Kappa 08:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- PS speedy deletion seems quite appropriate. Kappa 08:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, hoax / patent nonsense. Flyboy Will 08:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, random crap. -- Jake 08:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete speedy--MONGO 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above TMS63112 16:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - if this actually happened as stated in the article in question, the article in question wouldn't be an orphan. Someone's trying to play a fast one here.... B.Wind 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
delete (with enthusiasm) as per nomination. Gaius Cornelius 17:35, 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 23:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eclectic metal

Another non-existent psuedo heavy metal genre. The System of a Down article doesn't even refer to it. Delete. Spearhead 18:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is the second nomination for this article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eclectic_Metal. -- JJay 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete doesn't link to any bands and term is not common useage in any way--MONGO 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yet another 'genre' with nothing to distinguish it (in the same way as death metal or speed metal, which are real genres). Adjective + genre != sub-genre. Was pretty lucky to survive on a no-consensus. Plenty of Google hits, but, as you'd expect, they're along the lines of "Ozzfest attracts an eclectic metal mix" or even "eclectic metal wall clock". --Last Malthusian 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Oh come on, this says it all. "An eclectic metal band could include any variation of instruments, sounds or emotions in its line-up." Now, some might say a genre which includes every single band on the planet must be notable, but I'm of the opposite viewpoint. --Last Malthusian 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The two words do give a lot of hits, including 500 coincidences with "System of a Down", but most are repeats or, as Last Malthusian points out, use eclectic as a separate adjective as in "Serj Tankian and Daron Malakian - one half of the eclectic metal quartet". It might deserve a sentence in System of a Down, but I'm happy leaving that to those editors and simply delete it. ×Meegs 23:17, 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. – Rob e rt 04:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Central Space

Advertising and Unverifiable. The URL it gives is actually for Hebrew Academy of Morris County, there is nothing verifying its existance as claimed in the article [9], [10]. While Gil Hami is a jewish name, and Randolph NJ is in Morris County, I can't find anything on their webpage about "Central Space", other than that Gil Hami works there. This needs some verification (which may or may not exist) so people can check the claims made. --W.marsh 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom. Kappa 08:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
delete per nomination. Flyboy Will 08:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete completely nn--MONGO 09:41, 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 Speedy deleted as article with no content. Capitalistroadster 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Kitchener's pudding

The recipe is at WikiBooks, this article now consists of three template boxes. Until an encyclopedic article is written, I feel it should be deleted. _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is nothing in there. «LordViD» 18:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete until an encylopedic article is written. Kappa 08:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete no current purpose to this.--MONGO 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as it is empty aside from tags. B.Wind 12:37, 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 ... uhh ... well, some people want delete, some want redirect. So what I'll do is delete, then redirect. Golly, if King Solomon were alive today ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ci-Xi

The first paragraph says it's an unsigned band, no albums, no claim of mentions in media. Googling only gets results about Chinese people. - Bobet 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

delete fails band notability criteria. _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC--MONGO 09:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- nn, vanity, spam, lack of references and/or Wikification, assaulting readers' eyes with excessive use of italics... B.Wind 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to the Chinese Empress of the same name...Gateman1997 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Empress Dowager Cixi (Ci Xi redirects there too). Thanks Gateman1997. - Bobet 02:03, 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 (4 delete, 2merge). Mind matrix 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Fingers

nn record label Stifle 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Not really a record label," only two releases (album and single from the same nn act), meriting zero Wikipedia articles. Delete. B.Wind 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Ben Lee--MONGO 09:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge & redirect Josh Parris#: 12:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per B.Wind. —Cleared as filed. 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per B.Wind. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:03, Dec. 31, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 04:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symfight

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Hmm. Let me see. 0 google hits, article claims its only ever been mentioned on http://www.yellowhat.co.nr/ . Its true - yellow hat does have an entry on Symfight. Indeed they have two. However, Yellowhat doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry, and indeed Alexa doesn't recognise it. So let's see, an unheard of idea that is written on an unheard of web site and nowhere else. Worthy of Wikipedia? Uh, no. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable cartoon genre on non-notable website. DeathThoreau 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of an audience. Kappa 08:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. "Symfights" are not a genre, just two animations made by the same person. --Metropolitan90 08:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete fails to state notablity.--MONGO 09:36, 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 23:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bride of the Nile

Not sure of the contents of this article! Human sacrifice isn't very well attested in Ancient Egypt. I think that Minya is referred to as Bride of the Nile, but probably not for the reasons noted. Markh 10:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be another attempt of non-Egyptologists coming up with some Ancient Egypt myth to support their weird theories (google search brings up a lot of wiccan material). Annual human sacrifice to Hapi? Please. Flyboy Will 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete possible violation of WP:NOR--MONGO 09:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:11, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dogtooth

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was band vanity. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I got nowhere with any permutation of google. Couldn't find anything relevant. [11]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 07:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete unverifiable. Kappa 07:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverified.--MONGO 09:34, 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. – Rob e rt 04:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Harris

Not encyclopedia worthy individual, vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogoman (talk • contribs)

Delete per nomination. "he has met celebrities such as Lou Ferrigno". Oh re-ally. Flyboy Will 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity page and unreferenced.--MONGO 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. If it is determined that meeting celebrities qualifies as notable, I can list several I've met. If we do six degrees, we can all be notable! KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I met a load of celebrities, including Lou Ferrigno, Hans Klok and multiple others. Merely meeting a celebrity is no reason to list someone in an encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:46, 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 redirect to Wanniyala-Aetto (which is where Veddah redirects to). howch e ng {chat} 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vaddah

Duplicate article already exists under it's appropriate spelling of Veddah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beltz (talk • contribs)

Merge, seems to be an alternate spelling [12]. Usually best not to bring duplicate articles to AFD. Kappa 08:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I disagree that it is an alternate spelling and reiterate that I think it is a spelling mistake. Webster doesn't reconize Vaddah but does have an article (with alternate spellings listed) for Veddah. Same for dictionary.com and the britanica website. -Beltz 08:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Veddah. Redirects are cheap, especially for misspellings. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:22, 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 after discounting the anonymous users. However, I wouldn't object to seeing this rewritten at the correct capitalization and properly referenced (hint, hint). howch e ng {chat} 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last Man STanding coop

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was non-notable Doom 3 user mod. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Abstain - I don't know enough about it to comment. But come on, what's with the capitalisation? Should at min be renamed to Last Man Standing (Doom mod) or something a bit more coherent. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Actually, I think it's quite a notable user mod. It's one of the rare Doom 3 mods that actually live and grow a community, making it one of the most popular Doom 3 mods, I'd say. Although I do agree with Zordrac's proposition to rename it to Last Man Standing (Doom mod), that's all I'd like to see regarding its status. --70.25.168.90 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to December 19, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:58, Dec. 19, 2005

Delete appears to be advλertising when article states "We also fully support Single Player Cooperative play through the "SP Coop" gametype".--MONGO 09:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. --70.25.168.90 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Am I allowed to insert another "Keep" under the new comments?

Keep. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide a wide range of information. There is no reason for it to be deleted, though the title could be, as already stated, fixed to read "Last Man Standing Coop". Also, the stated text in the article is quoted from the main page of the site on the external links. It should simply be placed in quotation marks or the context should be changed in accordance. [24.250.130.111; 14:05 19/12/05]

Keep. As previously stated, Last Man Standing Coop is a very notable Doom 3 user mod. The simple fact that it contributes cooperative multiplayer to the Doom 3 game makes it one of the most popular mods as per Doom 3 Files number of downloads. However, the article should indeed be fixed to read "Last Man Standing Coop". MercyKiller
- What makes this mod notable? What kind of player base are we talking about? What percentage of Doom3 servers are using this mod at any given time? Can you prove it? Empirically? Statistically? Wikipedia is not to provide a "wide range of information", it's to provide a wide range of notable information, the sort of thing a luddite who's never heard of Doom3 needs to know about it. What makes your mod that special? You tell us. But Wikipedia policy is "non-notable until proven otherwise." Marblespire 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, considering several people have come to the developers and stated that LMS is the reason they bothered to buy Doom 3 after hearing that the game was less than stellar, it's certainly notable to the uninitiated as well. See below for several statistics substantiating the mod's value in other ways. --MercyKiller
Keep. As can be seen on the about page on the website the modification has been featured in well over a dozen magazines, won awards and been featured in many interviews. Not many modifications in any community can boast that many magazine mentions. Also, no other game or modification offers cooperative support for the Doom 3 Expansion pack ROE, not even the XBox version provides this. Last Man Standing is quite unique in this aspect. The vast community for the modification can be seen by it's large array of forum posts and irc users. Also check on Moddb as Last Man Standing Coop is consistently in the top 10 modifications of well over 2000. This definitely shows that it has quite a community and is popular. --calimer
Delete NaconKantari 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. In terms of servers that actually have people on them, it's a good 1/8th at least of the players. I'd say that LMS has the biggest playerbase of all the multiplayer mods in Doom 3, though admittedly there are not many multiplayer mods. The article itself needs serious NPOVifying. I'll try to see to that. (Oh, yeah, and I support moving the article as Zordrac suggests.) Note: I am part of the LMS community. --Iten 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "What makes this mod notable?" - simple... Google "Doom 3 coop" and LMS is the first thing that comes up. Anyone wanting to know about Doom 3 cooperative gameplay should be able to find out about this. I agree with Zordrac's proposition to rename it though --Dr. Jones 07:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Arguably one of the most popular Doom 3 mods right now, though it could use some touching up to read less like a press release. ShadowMan1od 22:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. After a rename, I would be for keeping it User:kormoc (Improperly signed edit by 24.19.148.45 --70.25.168.90)
Keep. (Since nobody answered my previous P.S.) I would like to keep the article for reasons stated above. But for some more Google backup, I just googled "Last Man Standing" and found that LMS Coop is actually the 3rd result (only behind a couple of pages from the popular BBC NEWS site and IMDb). When I googled "Last Man Standing Coop", I found nearly 25,000 results. --70.25.168.90 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This should be kept, it is a must have, if "TFC" and "Red Orchestra Mod" can stay, why not LMS? Why should there even be a discussion on whether or not to delete this.. HOGWASH! (- TriKster Abacus) I also think this should be kept.. hell look at these mods: "Desert Combat (BF1942 mod)", "Enemy Territory mod ETF", "Rocket Aren Mod - Quake 3", "Alien Swarm - UT2K4 mod", and OMG "A WHOLE FREAKIN LIST OF HL mods!"... cmon wikipedia... give LMS a break! /sigh. (Improperly signed edit by 67.11.219.149 --70.25.168.90)
Delete and kill the socks. Grue 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a compendium of computer games and modifications to them. Only the most notable examples of these genres have a place in an encyclopedia. Worse, next year, this will be gone and forgotten ephemera. --Tysto 23:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Certainly this has a place in wikipedia. Significant games are oft defined by a particular mod in the eyes of fans. Counter-Strike for Half-Life, CTF for Quake, and LMS for Doom 3. Mods like these never die. In fact, this mod is probably the most notable Doom 3 mod, period. (Improperly signed edit by 69.154.188.11 --Iten 22:41, 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. howch e ng {chat} 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Agrawal

not encyclopedic, a local interest

Delete one Google hit that I saw...nn--MONGO 09:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete probably vanity MNewnham 15:23, 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 merge ... somewhere. I'll leave it up to User:Twp to decide where it goes. howch e ng {chat} 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rememberance at Habbaniya IRAQ

It seems to be a news article. This looks like it would be a fine candidate for material to merge into another article, but we have no existing article on Camp Habbaniyah and I'm not sure where it would go. Tim Pierce 14:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there an article on British army personnel and their work in Iraq? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to December 19, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:17, Dec. 19, 2005

Merge into Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II--MONGO 09:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Anglo-Iraqi War, which is a much shorter article than Military history of UK in WWII. --Squiddy 14:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 04:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moat carp

Little known Final Fantasy XI item. While it may prove interesting for FFXI players, it's not encyclopedic. If all Final Fantasy items were to be listed then it would be unmanageable. Wikipedia is not a game guide and this information is obtainable by following the links on the FFXI page. Delete Chanlord 08:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)
Delete goes in a strategy guide, not wikipedia.--DarkEvil 14:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete If we are gonna put Moat Carp, why not the other 7,361+ items. There are too many of them, they change constantly; these items do not deserve a separate article. -- QubitOtaku (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Joseph

Not notable, Google gives a few hits but doesn't appear to match WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. NicM 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC--MONGO 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete this article. All the info here is TRUE, anybody can confirm it by reading the Cro-Mags biography on the records Age of Quarrel\Best Wishes and Hard Times in an Age of Quarrel. And everything has been confirmed by John Joseph Bloodclot McGeown.

Comment: Nobody is asserting that the information isn't true, merely that it is not notable and does not meet the requirements for biographies on Wikipedia. Stifle 22:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stifle 22:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pe nom TheRingess 22:30, 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 redirect to Samuel Alito as a nickname which is in some use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scalito

derogatory term for two politicians. neologism at best. delete. BL kiss the lizard 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom. Possibly redirect to Samuel Alito, but only if it's worth mentioning in that article, which I doubt. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The nickname is currently mentioned briefly in the Samuel Alito article, so I would suggest a re-direct. TMS63112 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Samuel Alito. Capitalistroadster 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Samuel Alito.Bkwillwm 17:57, 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. – Rob e rt 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Zero

Delete - unexpandable gamecruft. It's an unimportant character in a computer game GTBacchus^(talk) 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Too minor to have its own page. Thunderbrand 16:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete random gamecruft. Stifle 22:29, 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 speedy delete by Seabhcan (nonsense). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist War

Delete. Completely made up, "Buddhist War" 436 has 7 google hits, none of which relate to this [13] -- Astrokey44|talk 10:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:37, 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. – Rob e rt 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biggerpockets

Article on obscure real estate site void of encyclopedic value which reads as spam. Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine Mecanismo | Talk 10:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be very new and no significance explained. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle racing

Was tagged for speedy as nonsensical, but Google disagrees. Putting it here instead. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Verifiable sport that apparently some people are apparently really into. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Article amounts to 'Turtle racing is when you race turtles', which is not encyclopedic. Some history and context might make it worthwhile, as in horse racing, but it does not seem likely that there's much out there to add. - squibix 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Clean up, expand, and keep - sport is actually more widespread than ostrich racing and possibly camel racing. B.Wind 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, we don't actually have an article on ostrich racing, no more than we have an article on cheese racing, two, it's notable according to an open quote google, ie. turtle racing vs "turtle racing", where the first search simply looks for the number of websites containing both the words 'tutle' and 'racing', and the second search returns less hits than "hamster for president", does that mean hamster for president is our next new article?
in fact I'd wager that most of the results of that search would be referring to something that is far from an organized 'sport', in fact, I'd like to see at least one source, that shows the existance of the organized sport of proffessional turtle racing, otherwise this is total nonsense, as the origional tag said--152.163.101.7 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's definitely not what "patent nonsense" in the deletion template means; it means something more like "completely incomprehensible." This article could have said "Turtle racing is when you race turtles" and it couldn't be speedied. Check out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- SCZenz 07:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, I've heard of it before. Legitimate, but should be expanded.--Bkwillwm 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I made the article with as much information as possible and I believe with a picture it will be a great wikipedia article. Chooserr 08:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't an article, it's a tautology: almost everything outside the circular definition is unreferenced (and "old asian sport"?!?) or minor (a church in Cincinatti gets in trouble with aimal-rights types for staging a turtle race?!?). --Calton | Talk 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. OK, this article leaves much to be desired, but it isn't totally worthless. There are several non-obvious things said about turtle racing, such as the first-to-the-edge-of-the-circle type of race. Of course it is totally irrelevevant whether there is such a thing as "professional turtle racing"; to pick a ridiculous comparison, even the Olympics is amateur.--Pharos 05:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. I'm 99% sure this is a hoax because it was a collaboration by the group of usernames that posted about five other hoax articles today. Hedley 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mercy Kill (band) and Feint (band)

Claims to be infamous in the "Nesøya Death Metal Scene", but fails to provide sources. I already deleted Thomas viten for being overly praising on him and having no encyclopedic content. This 15-year-old appears to have the time to play in both bands, which to me indicates they're just non-notable garage bands. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music--Esprit15d 15:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Feint has a homepage on Urørt, a NRK-run website for bands to promote themselves, and that's it. [14]. Has played one demo song, according to that website, which would be somewhat below WP:MUSIC criteria. Mercy Kill doesn't even have that. Sam Vimes 18:06, 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 no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilitruim moved to Bilitrium

Zero google entries on this word. Seems it is original research Mecanismo | Talk 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 12:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rename and expand. This is one of the numerous articles we have on Star Trek materials. [15]. -- JJay 22:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I have moved this to its correct name, which does produce google results. - Pure blade | ^Θ 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, we have a category for star trek materials. -- JJay 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you prove notability on this though? Which series, what episode, to what effect, that sort of thing. Unless you can expand, it seems Delete-worthy to me (and I'm a Trekkie). Marblespire 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a fan of classic ST, this is from DS9. [16]. -- JJay 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(Oh right, link. Clever me. u_u) One episode? Trellium-D I could countenance, but THIS... ~Mbsp

Yeah, Trellium-D is good stuff, but Bilitrium is probably more powerful when the antimatter converter is used properly. -- JJay 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 20:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occultists United - Issue ESW

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Pattern Nonsense / Original Research". I agree with the original research assertion, but that's not yet speedy material. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 12:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. --Fire Star 21:43, 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 Speedy Delete as a bio with no claim to notability. The Land 11:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billychu

Vanity article Ian Pitchford 10:48, 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. – Rob e rt 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sphere universe

Vanity/NN theory/original research. NicM 10:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

Delete Josh Parris#: 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Everyone knows that the universe is cubic. Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"This theory was set up by a high-school student [...] It was posted here to gain attention [...]" — Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. With the invitation at the bottom of the article to other editors to alter and to augment the concept, this is inarguably original research. Delete. Uncle G 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Bkwillwm 21:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self-admitted original research. ManoaChild 21:52, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mukesh Goel

Vanity article Ian Pitchford 10:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete --Whouk (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Josh Parris#: 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. This is a clear WP:CSD A7 written in first person. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 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 speedy deleted. Vanity by a group of friends with no assertion of notability. (CSD A7). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justice team

Blatant unverifiable vanity, but technically not fitting of CSD A7. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I would have preferred speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 11:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Make go away now Josh Parris#: 12:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Aparently the nn-bio tag now states "person or persons". Since this has no chance at survival, I'll go ahead and speedy. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 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 (4 delete, 1 transwiki, 2 comments). Mind matrix 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barclay Family Tree

Nice, but non-notable Ian Pitchford 11:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. The origins of the name is marginally useful, but most of it is the originator's family tree Malcolm Farmer 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- The etymology of the name belongs in Barclay. Uncle G 19:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this particular tree is non-notable. --Whouk (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Doesn't this qualify as a db-bio? Zunaid 11:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. It is an encyclopaedia. Get thee to WikiTree! Delete. Uncle G 19:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikitree. Stifle 22:28, 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. – Rob e rt 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LongTimeNoLust

Speedied as unverifiable, later speedied as repost. Last time I checked, being unverifiable, wasn't cause for speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete No google hits, hoax at best Josh Parris#: 12:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Article admits to being recreation of deleted material, is this not criteria for speedy? MNewnham 15:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not if the initial deletion wasn't within process. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Hoax. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable. Probable hoax. ManoaChild 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, speedily if possible. Stifle 22:27, 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. – Rob e rt 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of film by nation

Delete. splot 11:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this useless list of red links (speedily if possible) before it develops into an hopelessly unmaintainable list of blue links. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:40, Dec. 19, 2005
Delete impossible to maintain listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I love lists, but this is a prime example of what should be categorized. It does need the be specified if it's the country the film was made in or the country the lead actor or director came from. Especially when a film has been released worldwide. And how about films that were filmed in both the US and New Zealand like the new Narnia film? Where would that be listed. Unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for deletion, you know it's bad. howch e ng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom_Dorsch

delete: barely notable person, only for regular readers of chess related usenetgroups and people interested in US-chess functionaries, the article itself gives no hint, why Tom Dorsch should be notable enough for a wikipedia entry; article is mainly vanity, filled with personal accusations and rumors; the prime author has a long standing quarrel with Tom Dorsch, well documented on his homepage(s) and obvious in the arcticle; he is not able or willing to provide a NPOV, although he has been explicitely asked to do so; I suggest deletion instead of complete rewrite, as it is questionlable that anyobody is interested in doing so Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've rewritten the article, or rather, I've deleted everything that's either a personal attack, unencyclopedic and/or unsourced/unreferenced. While I do not want to disrupt the deletion process, I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old form for a week longer, just because of this AfD. I don't know anything about this guy (therefore, I will refrain from voting), nor have a been involved in the discussion on the talk page, I'm just an editor applying what I believe to be common sense and Wikipedia policy. --Joann e B 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom doesn't appear to be active in chess recently. His FIDE card lists no games this year and he doesn't have a world ranking. Is there anything else that could make him worth including? (BTW, what's a chess politician?) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding chess politician: I prefer the notion chess functionary, simply somebody involved in the organization of chess; Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess Association, and if the article would not be deleted these were his only notable achievements, and my first edits (regarded by the prime author as vandalism) indeed reduced the article to just those facts. What he as achieved when being in those positions, the primary author unfortunately did not consider worth mentioning.

Regarding his rating: currently only a minority of players has a FIDE rating or many entries to this card; Tom Dorsch has a United States Chess Federation rating, but indeed he hasn't played for some time. His rating is high, but not exceptional. Rook wave 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs)

Keep has held several top positions in US chess organizations. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, this might be a reason, but it still leaves the question: who is going to provide the necessary facts? The original article did not even give the complete years Tom Dorsch held those positions. There are nearly no neutral facts in this article. Rook wave 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dorsch was treasurer of the USCF and president of the Northern California association (Calchess). I don't see that as "several top positions in US chess organizations". The USCF is the US national federation but Treasurer is not a top position, and Dorsch served only one term, in the early 90's. Calchess is a state organization (actually half a state, there's a separate Southern California regional organization), not a national one. Dorsch is a somewhat notable figure in recent USCF history and should get a mention in an expanded USCF page, but it's bizarre to say that every USCF ex-officer (there are hundreds of them) rates their own Wikipedia article. The USCF itself is not that important an organization. The person currently holding the comparable office (Finance VP Jonathan Mariner) in Major League Baseball, a much more noteworthy organization than the USCF, doesn't have a Wikipedia article, let alone someone who held that office many years ago. Imagine ex-functionaries of a national stamp collecting club getting all this Wikipedia heat. The only reason it happens for the USCF is because of the contentious personalities in the chess world arguing over nonsense. Phr 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Like I've been discussing on the talk page, all of the POV junk and attacks need removed, User:Sam Sloan disagrees -- that's why there's a current RfC on the article. Nothing to suggest he's not notable though. And thank you Joann for cleaning up the article again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since there seems no chance to keep this article anything but a blatent attack, changing vote to Delete. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The most noteworthy thing about Dorsch was his campaign for USCF treasurer and what happened after he won the office (all his duties were taken away by the opposing faction which still controlled the policy board). Explaining this would require spending pages on stupid USCF internal politics which almost nobody cares about. The reason Sloan made this page at all is he's in the faction opposite the one Dorsch was in. Having an article about Dorsch makes no sense at all without a neutral treatment of those issues, but I don't think anyone is likely to write such a treatment. Certainly not Sloan. (OK, quick POV version: Dorsch ran on a financial reform platform against vested interests that have controlled the USCF on and off for decades, made accusations of mismanagement that turned out to be true, but was a dorky enough personality that not enough people listened to him at the time, partly because it was in their financial or factional interest to not listen. That includes Sloan.) Trying to turn that into an article would be one of those endless debates that would burn as much of people's wiki-editing energy as the serious national politics articles do, but on a subject of relevance to almost nobody. So creating this article in the first place basically amounts to trolling. I hope non-chess people who voted "keep" based on not understanding the situation will consider changing their votes. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the changes by Joann: ok, now the article is much shorter, but it's still junk. Come on "He plays chess and has now become a poker player" - what is this? As I said: my complaints about this article are not primarly based on the notability of Tom Dorsch. It's the complete emptyness of this article. And who is going to write something? Even what Joann has left is not verified. If you remove this as well, only the title tag remains. So the content of this article is: "There is a man called Tom Dorsch." Bravo. Rook wave 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Dorsch is a former treasurer of the USCF, which is sort of like being a former treasurer of the National Bowling League or a former councilmember of some small city. He did have a role in the USCF's transition to the one-member-one-vote system (he opposed it) and he could reasonably get a mention in the USCF's article if it's expanded to cover that history (edit: his treasurer campaign too, a related topic). His highest chess rating was in the 2300's, probably around 1000th in the US--pretty good for an amateur, but nowhere near professional level. The stuff about him getting more Google hits than GM Vesselin Topolov was an error due to Sloan mispelling Topolov's name as "Topalov" when Googling. FWIW, Googling "Tam Dorsch" or "Tom Darsch" gets zero hits. Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be more notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Sam Sloan is insisiting on reverting the article to his own version, and as such, I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after the delete has been done. Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article is obviously in a crappy state, and I don't think it is going to be fixed up any time soon. When there's an actual article here, I might vote keep. But until then, no. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Olorin28. I am not neutral WRT to Sam Sloan, and would note to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus into the Wikipedia project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in question. Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack. It seems to me, an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out the whorehouses and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a personal attack.TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete: barely notable person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.49.251 (talk • contribs)
delete: I am a chess player from the USA and think this article is a waste of everyone's time. In the world of chess Tom Dorsch is insignificant and the article does not belong. This is yet another attempt by Sam Sloan to get noticed by the world at large. Warren 66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, based only in small part to the sorry state of the article and based not at all on Sam Sloan, who I have never heard of or dealt with as far as I am aware. I don't think Dorsch is all that notable, save for what is mentioned by Phr (who makes some good points). -Parallel or Together ? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User Rook wave, who started this discussion, has been going around removing content from all of my postings. He has made 41 edits to my pages, all of which have removed content, and he has done nothing else on Wikipedia. He should be ordered to stop doing this and if he persists, he should be blocked. Sam Sloan 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on usenet over a period of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.65.99 (talk • contribs)

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Sam Sloan.
Please refer to contrib history coinciding with Sloan's pet subjects "USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

.

Note Sloan has also attempted to recruit meatpuppets on Usenet [17], though that attempt seems to have backfired--it attracted people here who support deletion. I will say sockpuppets aren't really Sloan's style since his ego is too large for that. He probably just forgot to log in when he made those edits. Phr 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why you think that this poster is my "sockpuppet" or even me. I have just looked at his postings and I do not agree with what he has posted on any subject. I do not agree with what he has written here either. However, he makes a valid point. If you look at rec.games.chess.politics and do a search for postings by tomdorsch@aol.com you will see that he has posted 2,680 times to thst group. Most of these postings took place from 1996 to 1999 and were signed "Tom Dorsch USCF Treasurer". So, he was an official who posted 2,680 times to Usenet. Most of his postings accused others of financial wrongdoing, theft and other crimes and misdemeanors. Please do a search there and you will see what I mean. This is what made him so well known in the chess community. Sam Sloan 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - Dorsch is well known in the world of chess, and deserves recognition. The article itself could use some polishing, but it should be fixed and maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcarlson (talk • contribs)

KEEP - Tom Dorsch is very well known in the chess world (nationally and internationally) and has been instrumental in the United States Chess Federation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.30.18 (talk • contribs)

DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardy53 (talk • contribs)

Keep This issue shows the complete bankrupt and petty nature of Wikipedia's modus operandi, members, and raison de etre, though I support the proper construction of such an article I think Wikipeda is a collective waste of time intellectually: Where they venerate the "HOLY BIBLE" for some obscure legalist reason today from the stuff cults are made of, but then next week they will burn and destroy those same "holy" documents on some flimsy pretext merely because they have enough votes in legalistic BOOK BURNING as part of some psychotic adversial process that is run like some childishness for the sake of integrity and fairness based merely on form and rules. WIKIPEDIA A GRAND MIND F--K a pedantic idiots' paradise where which ever side you are on you will win and tommarow upon the changing winds of shallow fashion some other will. I suggest all chess articles be forwarded to pushedpawn.org, deism to the templeofreason.org as without sure consistent editorial focus beyond the instance of the moment Wikipedia has the integrity of an adolescent fool. The focus of Wikipedia should be substance not form, and it should be based on preservation of every nuance of what may be a scintilla of what may pertain to knowledge wisdom learning and pertinence not the pettiness that is Wikipedia. THE ANTI_WIKI FOR I AM NOT FOOL --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a psychopath who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (Jürgen R.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.22.177 (talk • contribs)

BLANK VOTE - Many professional biographers have noted the problems of including even insignificant persons in a biographic dictionary ("what is the use of this long procession of the hopelessly insignificant? Why repeat the familiar formula about the man who was born on such a day, was ‘educated at the grammar school of his native town,’ graduated in such a year, became fellow of his college, took a living, married, published a volume of sermons which nobody has read for a century or two, and has been during all that time in his churchyard? Can he not be left in peace ..."). Their problem is, on the other hand, almost always related to the lack of space in printed editions -- if Wikipedia suffers even remotely from such a problem, the solution is not to refuse to accept material. My second concern is the relevance of the subject: this is not something to be voted over, unless the voters can be assumed to be reasonably knowledgeable about the context (contemporary chess afairs), as well as fairly unprejudiced towards the subject well as the author. I strongly suspect many voters on this topic vote largely because of lack of confidence in the author. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, a more stringent method to decide the inclusion of a particular name is required. I can't decide from the context if the voting is to deny the subject, or deny the article on that subject. In any case, when the subject is judged it should be done impartially. My third concern is with the article: I believe that a biography of any kind needs much more than this particular article shows ... but I also believe that neither biographers nor Wikipedia-authors are born ready-made. A process frpm draft to finished article seems to be called for. Wikipedia must have a procedure for handling these situations: and that must be considered by all parts as impartial and trustworthy. (A. Thulin)

That essay belongs in a discussion of grand wikipedia policy, not a vfd about a particular article. Right now the policy is that non-noteworthy biographies get deleted and there's guidelines for establishing noteworthiness. Debating whether the policy and guidelines are good belongs somewhere else. The vfd discussion is simply about whether Dorsch meets the guidelines. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

DELETE - While Tom Dorsch was a notable figure in the United States Chess Federation, the article as written provides practically no coverage of the issues that made Dorsch important. Instead, the author relates us with tales of Dorsch's activities and proclivities from long ago, which have very little relevance or place in an encyclopedia. Sloan has often written disparaging comments about Dorsch -- and vice versa. It serves no purpose to accept his characterizations of Dorsch as anywhere near accurate enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a United States chess player and former executive board member of the United States Chess Federation, I think it would be a travesty to allow this interpretation of Dorsch stand.

DELETE - Mr. Sloan is using Wikipedia for settling scores and posting his delusions of greatness. Have you folks learned nothing from the Siegenthaler debacle?

Delete Doesn't seem that notable and original author seems to revert any attempt at clean up, therefore can see no hope of this becoming a substantial cited NPOV article --pgk^(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? You just made six changes and I did not revert any of them. I did, however, add three paragraphs to the top which better explain why Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every tournament chess player in the world has heard of Tom Dorsch. Are you one of them? Sam Sloan 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the diff from the "current" version to the one after I made my first edit to remove the paragraph saying Sloan didn't believe that Dorsch was involved in the JFK assassination attempt (since it wasn't suggested anywhere else that he was, saying he wasn't seemed odd). This is the diff from my last edit to the current version where indeed you undo more of my edits, including removal of the cleanup tag. So yes I was paying attention. --pgk^(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, I did not intentionally remove the cleanup tag. I am not sure how that happened, but it does seem that sometimes changes are made that do not show up in the "history".

I have no objection to any real clean-up. I have not reverted any of your changes. I do object when Rook_wave, JoanneB and Janeth, none of whom know anything about chess, try to delete the entire article. Sam Sloan 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article is almost complete nonsense, utterly inaccurate, and defamatory.

DELETE - Articles which are about mostly unknown minor officials in sporting associations, have no place on Wikipedia. Particularly ones which are badly written, and are there for the wrong reasons. I would think it hard to believe that there would be anybody else who would be prepared to rewrite this, or replace it with another article.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but in retrospect, nobody would have noticed if it was speedied.... --Phroziac^(talk) 18:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damir Ramadanovic

Local notoriety he may have but that hardly makes him a notable figure for an encylopaedia. Delete Eddie.willers 03:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bwithh 04:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Verifiable with a few regional news stories, and an AP story, but not notable. Walter Siegmund 05:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Human interest story. Good for newspaper/bad for encyclopedia. Qaz ^(talk) 05:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Clean Fun

This is a vanity page. I put it under speedy deletion but it was reverted, so I'll put it under AfD instead. --DCrazy talk/contrib 11:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC. I live in the Washington D.C. area and I've never heard of them, nor any of their supposed influences. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. Obscure, but not non-notable; this probably isn't vanity, just a page that needs to be rewritten in a less fannish style. Meets WP:MUSIC for being on Equal Vision Records, a notable indie label (former home of Coheed & Cambria), and almost certainly meets the concert-tour requirement, although I wouldn't know how to document this. (And if you were a hardcore punk fan, you'd have heard of Minor Threat). I'm not involved with the page or the band, just a Wikipedia reader passing through; FWIW, although I appreciate the work you folks do here at AfD and can certainly sympathize with your frustration with bandcruft, I do think that many of these debates tend to underrate the distinction between garage band vanity (the high school band that's never played a gig) and obscure but legitimate underground artists who've paid their recording/touring dues without achieving (or wanting) commercial fame. (I think the "at least one national tour" requirement is actually a very good cutoff point, but, as I said, it can be hard to document.) 71.241.144.91 20:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - they have an allmusic.com entry. That's enough for me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above arguments. Punkmorten 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- It should be noted that I started the article. Punkmorten 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I went to university in Melbourne, Australia where I first heard of them and met people who had heard of them, living in Kildare, Ireland now and again have met people who listen to them here...don't listen to much of that type of music so surprised that they're not apparently well-known as they're the most common example of it I've come across while travelling. Damon Blake 19:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I live in Toronto, and I've heard of this band. (Can't say as thought I've heard anything BY them, but that's another story). Seems like enough people have heard of them that even if it is a vanity page, they should still be included, just have the article re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.30.164 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebration

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes, relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This does not appear to be a notable academic journal. -- (aeropagitica) 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - the original editor has created a duplicate article here: Cerebration. --Muchness 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've redirected Cerebration (India) to Cerebration (the cleaned up duplicate article) and added the AFD tag to that article. No vote. —Cleared as filed. 05:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - website fails notability guidelines (alexa ranking 3,757,702) but contains no spam and includes notable figures on its editorial board: Bapsi Sidhwa, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Bapsi Sidhwa. --Muchness 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:04, Dec. 31, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD, A7 (biography of a real person that does not assert importance or significance of subject). → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] XGT Wolf

vanity article

Delete per nom Zzzzz 12:07, 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 redirect to Munakata Shikō. FYI, when you find duplicate articles like this, merging and/or redirection is the proper course of action. howch e ng {chat} 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Munakata Shikõ

Badly formed unicode, should be Munakata Shikō which already has an article. Neier 12:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Neier 12:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Josh Parris#: 12:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Munakata Shikō. Punkmorten 16:37, 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 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terra Prints, Inc.

Was tagged as a nn-bio speedy, which is in my view inappropriate for a business. Besides, "processing satellite imagery from the US Geological Survey and NASA" is in my view a valid claim of notability. Can I have some more input on this before I permanently remove any deletion tags? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete - A business with one phone number and one email address that sells primarily through e-bay is NN MNewnham 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per MNewnham. Stifle 22:24, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macromanagement (computer gaming)

pointless unnecessary dicdef article, simply the opposite of micromanagement (computer gaming).

keep I use this word, I agree with you, macro exists because micro existed in first placed, yet both of them are used. - Allan 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Zzzzz 12:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep it doesn't harm to have this article. Grue 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

wouldnt it do more good merged with micromanagement (computer gaming) (as it was merged, previously, before somebody decided to separate it out again). if not, then it fails dicdef.Zzzzz 17:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. Players do not generally use this term to refer to the higher aspects of the game, they rather talk about strategy vs micro, or with similar concepts. This word only exists as a back-formed word, an extension on the idea of micromanagement. However the concept is real, even though the exact word to use is in question. Santtus 14:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, per Grue. Stifle 00:52, 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 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UVPCS - University of Victoria - Pacific Coast Swimming Association

NN swim club. http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awww.pacificcoastswimming.com produces 7 hits. Josh Parris#: 12:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Some guy from this swim club saw they didn't have anything on Wikipedia and generously decided to copy over pages from the school's site. Gahhhr. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, here too long to be a copyvio speedy. Stifle 22:22, 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 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Jacks

NN coach for NN swim club (UVPCS - University of Victoria - Pacific Coast Swimming Association) Josh Parris#: 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also apparently a copyvio. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, here too long to be a copyvio speedy. Stifle 22:22, 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 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Vizsolyi

NN coach for NN swim club (UVPCS - University of Victoria - Pacific Coast Swimming Association) Josh Parris#: 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also apparently a copyvio. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, here too long to be a copyvio speedy. Stifle 22:22, 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 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Barratt

NN coach for NN swim club (UVPCS - University of Victoria - Pacific Coast Swimming Association) Josh Parris#: 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedify as copyvio and NN. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, here too long to be a copyvio speedy. Stifle 22:23, 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 23:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Lancaster UVPCS

NN coach for NN swim club (UVPCS - University of Victoria - Pacific Coast Swimming Association) Josh Parris#: 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also apparently a copyvio. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as well as others by this user. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, here too long to be a copyvio speedy. Stifle 22:23, 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. --Angr (t·c) 16:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much Information

Dicdef that was attempted to be moved to Wiktionary, but had its tag removed (in October!) by an anon (another anon created page, so it's been here for some time). ~~The "article" also hints at neologism status.~~ WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not particularly neologistic; folks have been saying it here in the Northeast for at least a decade. I don't think it has potential to grow beyond a dictdef, though, and this wouldn't be of any use to Wiktionary. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - but get rid of the "originated in" and "originated by" bits unless there's some kind of verification. Should say that it's shortened form is TMI and that there's all kinds of shortcuts for. Very encyclopaedic article (potentially). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete unless the article is expanded to include the phrase's history and sources are cited (in which case, consider this a keep). Otherwise it's no better than a Wiktionary article. I wouldn't call it a neologism - I've seen this phrase used on more than one occasion (and recently used it myself). Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I have withdrawn the neologism part to prevent further confusion. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 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 Mathematical joke (makes more sense than redirecting to October 31). howch e ng {chat} 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OCT 31 = DEC 25

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the encyclopedic significance of this. Pharos 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, but only to cover up Pharos's ignorance. Josh Parris#: 12:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks for the consideration!--Pharos 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I also merge it into October 31. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merges need to be finished with a redirect to attribute the original contributor. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Math/CompSci trivia, along the lines of: if you saw DEAD people, how many people would you see? (Answer: 57005) — RJH 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why 57005? :) --Anthony Ivanoff 17:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Hexadecimal! :)
    - OMG, great! =))) --Anthony Ivanoff 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Mathematical joke. --keepsleeping say what 18:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Keepsleeping. Good call. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - beautiful riddle. 31 in octal = 25 in decimal. Love it. Of course, we don't celebrate Halloween here, but still great. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Ajdz 03:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Mathematical joke. No merge required, the joke already appears in that article. Zunaid 12:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete per Anthony Ivanoff below. Zunaid 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Why redirect - one will never type Oct 31 = Dec 25 in the address bar to be redirected to Mathematical joke. I know redirects are cheap but this is unnecessary. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I included the joke in to Mathematical joke (just added the few lines from here). By the way, the Mathematical joke page needs a massive cleanup, as the jokes would be great as their own sub sections. I am happy for it to be deleted now (so long as the joke remains). I think that a redirect from here is in order, as YES, I do think that there would be occasions when someone might type OCT 31 = DEC 25 in to a search engine. For example - when someone asks them how OCT 31 can equal DEC 25! Also could have a redirect from Halloween = Christmas too just to be sure. I think that everyone basically agrees with this (one way or the other) so I am hoping that this is seen as the consensus view. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough Merging :) - this info is now merged into:
- October 31
- Mathematical joke
- Category:Computer humor --Anthony Ivanoff 17:39, 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 keep. – Rob e rt 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.sex.stories

Was tagged as speedy candidate with the reason: "Not Notable, promotionion of a singular website which contains large amounts of illegal material (eg alt.sex.stories.pedo)". As far as I can tell, Usenet newsgroups can be notable and containing large amounts of illegal material shouldn't be a reason not to have an article on it. We also have articles on other questionable material. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is an encyclopedia, not a moral judgement. User:Fuzzywolfenburger
Keep Josh Parris#: 12:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. I was surprised to see a Speedy Deletion tag posted, ostensibly because of "notability" and "illegal material." Let me address each one:

First, lack of notability is a criteria for deletion, not speedy deletion. The Usenet hierarchy alt.sex.stories is critical to an understanding of the growth of the internet into its present form. Usenet predates the Worldwide Web by well over a decade. Many people who are not familiar with the history and background that gave rise to the internet tend to think of the Web as the internet. That's simply not true, it is only one aspect of the Internet and only the most recent. Before there was a Web, there was Usenet. And one of the most important portions of Usenet that drove the popularity of the web were the stories told through the alt.sex.stories hierarchies. This was an important factor in drawing people to the internet in the first place. As detailed by the article itself, understanding the alt.sex.stories hierarchy is critical to understanding how the internet was born. To say it lacks notability is absurd.

As to "illegal" materials, there is no "alt.sex.stories.pedo" as far as I can tell. If one was created in the past (and a Usenet group is easy to create), there is no indication that it in any way has propogated. My Usenet service is among the most comprehensive, with over 120,000 Usenet groups. There's no "pedo" subgroup. If any such group is out there, it is certainly not being distributed. Nonetheless, even if it was out there, the other subgroups certainly do not deserve to be shunned because someone decided to create a questionable subgroup. It is all protected under U.S. law; written materials --even involving minors -- are protected by the First Amendment.[18] There's no such thing as an "illegal" textual description of a sexual act.

I believe this nomination was made in bad faith and without any checking of notability or legality. Jtmichcock 13:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Josh and Jmichcock, and suggest adding a clean-up tag to break things into a few subsections; perhaps Purpose, History and Sub-groups, for example. Confusing Manifestation 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete For those who say there is no "alt.sex.stories.pedo" may I point you to this Usenet listing. Not only does it exist, but it appears to be active. And as if that wasn't bad enough there is also "alt.sex.stories.babies" which describes inself as "STories involving pre teen children and sex". alt.sex.stories is a usenet group not a website, but it is the equivilent of a single website. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing articles devoted to single websites. There are litrally thousands of porn websites out there, so why don't they all have Wikipedia articles devoted to them? And as far as telling the story of Usenet is concerned, I think the Usenet article does that just fine. —gorgan_almighty 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I recall reading where Yahoo was being pursued by law enforcement because it was allowing its chat rooms to be used by pedophiles to pick up children. I suppose by that logic Yahoo should be de-listed. By way of background, alt.sex.stories is a hierarchy, not a single group and most certainly not a website since it has existed before the Web was even invented (although you can now access the usenet through Google Groups). The subgroups include just about everything that you could imagine, just like Yahoo chat rooms have all manner of behavior. Within the alt.sex.stories groups, there are two main moderated hierarchies, alt.sex.stories.moderated (ASSM) and alt.sex.stories.gay.moderated (ASSGM), both of which have very strict policies on underage sex. I happen to be the moderator the latter and have been for six years (as well as being an assistant moderator prior to taking over). Just the mailing lists for our group includes some 30,000 people and that does not include the tens of thousands of people who read the stories off the web nor those who obtain through Usenet. Our "straight" counterpart, as you can imagine, has an even larger audience. There is no question of notability. I would again urge a Speedy Keep. Jtmichcock 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes I noticed your connection to alt.sex.stories. So the alt.sex.stories Wikipedia article is written by the moderator of alt.sex.stories is it? That in its self has been cause for deletion of articles in the past. Please don't take my request for deletion as a personal insult against you, as its not. Your comment about Yahoo being pursued by law enforcement because it allowed its chat rooms to be used by pedophiles is very true. I'm just concerned about the same happening to Wikipedia. Can we get some comments from people who aren't directly connected to alt.sex.stories perhaps? —gorgan_almighty 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    - There is no moderator of "alt.sex.stories", Jtmichcock moderates "alt.sex.stories.gay.moderated", and he is far from the only contributer to the alt.sex.stories article here on Wikipedia. I have created a section on the ASS.* hierarchy to attempt to clear up this confusion. And for the record, I have no connection to alt.sex.stories other than appreciation of Usenet's history and impact in general. --W.marsh 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    - We've never deleted articles because of who wrote them. We delete advertising articles because they're POV, and vanity articles because they're non-notable, not because of who writes them. This article seems perfectly fine with regards to NPOV. As for the legal issues, I can't see any in regard to talking about a group that may or may not have a similar name to another group that may or may not be doing something illegal. Didn't a whole WikiProject dedicated to censoring Wikipedia to comply with Florida obscenity law get shot down not too long ago? I remember voting in the AfD on it but wasn't around when it was closed, and can't remember what it was called to look it up. (For the record, I have nothing to do with ASS. Teeheehee.) --Last Malthusian 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      - I think the proposer has some misconceptions about Usenet and how groups are formed and managed. I have the codes and passwords for the ASSGM Newsgroup and not any others. While I have some familiarty with the folks working at ASSM (our websites cross-promote each other), I don't have the authority or means to approve, delete or otherwise affect any posting in that group. As to the balance of the Newsgroups in the ASS hierarchy, I don't even check those unless I hear that someone's writing a diatribe about us. I'm not even sure how many other Newsgroups there are. ASSM and ASSGM were both chartered hierarchies set up years ago. Once you got your group, that's what you handle. Individual ISPs that carry your group or not, it all depends on the demand. Largerly, most ISPs won't carry Newsgroups with any sort of underage content designation; Google carries all sorts of groups without such restrictions, but refuses any binary files. As to whether or not Wikipedia should mention a hierarchy that might contains underage materials in a subgroup, I would certainly hope so. If for no other reason to caution people about what their children/spouses/other family members may be getting themselves into. Jtmichcock 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a long-established newsgroup (with 1,380,000 google hits... [19]), not a website... Wikipedia has plenty of articles about webpages and even newsgroups less known than alt.sex.stories. Not to drag this out, but subgroups really have no connection to their parent group... due to the nature of Usenet, anyone who knows how can create a subgroup. --W.marsh 15:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable newsgroup, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of ~~prudes~~ minors. --Last Malthusian 15:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that there's not a single delete vote, I think we can safely Speedy this. (Not counting the 'nominator', by which I mean the guy who put the speedy tag on, not Mgm.)--Last Malthusian 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, this is a large section of the usenet heirarchy. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable newsgroup, and seriously, are pedophilic stories even considered illegal? I can understand photos or videos, but stories? For a murder mystery, do authors go to jail for 25 to life? Flyboy Will 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We have articles on far less notable newsgroups than this. It is an important part of usenet's history. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Written word is not illegal, and if that is the basis of its main argument for deletion it is inherently flawed. Additionally, is is as already stated NOT a website, it's a newsgroup, and the differences exist in format, protocol, usage and more. Anyone who equates any Usenet hierarchy as a website is completely ignorant of the internet as a whole. Pan 18:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - One person's disgust with Internet sex stories is not a valid reason to delete an article. FCYTravis 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and censure for user:Gorgan almighty for his attacks on other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Gorgan almighty has never attacked anyone. Everything I have said and done has been in Wikipedia's best interest. Whether you agree with the nomination or not it was made in good faith. And if you look at my contributions to date you will see I have a history of resolving disputes & protecting Wikipedia against vandalism. Please do not attack me because my views are different to yours.—gorgan_almighty 10:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  - "Everything I have said and done has been in Wikipedia's best interest." Including placing a bogus speedy deletion tag on an article which did not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion? A nomination that did not even correctly identify the subject of the article as a newsgroup rather than a website? And then in this discussion, when someone tried to address the fundamental error of fact upon which your argument for deletion was founded, you attacked him with an ad hominem circumstantial: "So the alt.sex.stories Wikipedia article is written by the moderator of alt.sex.stories is it? That in its self has been cause for deletion of articles in the past. ... Can we get some comments from people who aren't directly connected to alt.sex.stories perhaps?" You would be better advised to pay attention to where you're getting your facts completely wrong than pointing the finger at the person pointing out your error. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Let's not make this ugly - it's not worth it when this discussion's surely going to be closed soon. I don't think Gorgan acted in bad faith, and I don't think an ad hominem is the same as an 'attack' - that implies something far more violent and aggressive. --Last Malthusian 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I agree. I think the proposer saw the rogue sub-newsgroups and panic took over. That's perfectly understandable. I think we should all be mindful to check things out before proposing an article for deletion. It would save a lot of time and effort if you have thoroughly checked out the background. I do hope that we can close this debate soon. Jtmichcock 19:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
With apologizes to Phroziac, extreme lesbian keep. a.s.s is pretty much synonymous with pornographic or erotic fiction on the internet; I'm having trouble thinking of a more-notable usenet group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Keep. I heard of a.s.s. before I even had internet access. It is that Notable. (friendly) tip to nominator -- please check background some more before nominating for deletion. novacatz 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel it is my duty as an immoral Wikipedian to say vehement support of maximum keepification. (Plus, good lord, this usenet group is probably more notable than any other.) Cernen 09:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, very notable newsgroup. — Zazou 02:37, 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. – Rob e rt 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Velasco

This to some extent contradicts information on the Prince William page and I can't find any evidence of this person and her relationship with him - recommend Delete unless someone can prove this in which case I will retract

Delete. Hoax. «LordViD» 13:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 13:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Prince Williams girlfriend is called Kate Middleton. Jcuk 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 04:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shared versus Dedicated IP Hosting - what is more effective?

Unencyclopedic and possibly a copyvio. The title would not be useful as a redirect. I have migrated the important bits to web hosting#Shared vs. dedicated IP. Delete. Aapo Laitinen 13:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 13:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete.Gateman1997 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOR. --Apostrophe 02:12, 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 Speedy. --Shanel 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking fast

Non-notable band Ian Pitchford 13:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Unintelligible as well. —Brim 15:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: Doesn't comply with WP:Music and is mostly nonsense.--Esprit15d 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, not patent nonsense but thankfully a cast-iron case of CSD:A7. Stifle 22:16, 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 speedy delete as per WP:CSD, A7 (bio about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject). → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ng Hoe Tze

Vanity page Ian Pitchford 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Aapo Laitinen 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Candidate for speedy. - Randwicked 14:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 04:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories about the July 2005 London bombings

Original Research, most of the links are to discussion forums, or to genuine news articles that do not really back up the conspiracy theory view. Astrotrain 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep. It seems we have a conspiracy theory page for every other tragedy (example: 9/11 conspiracy theories), so I don't see why this one shouldn't be allowed. However, this page needs a total rework as written. --MisterHand 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete. We may have 9/11 conspiracy theory pages, but that's because those nuts got a lot of them published. For the London bombings this is so far original research and should be deleted, until of course we inevitably get some notable publications picking this up. Flyboy Will 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
weak keep, as said by MisterHand, there are a great deal of them out there...it just so happens that the author of this page did a shitty job drawing this one up - but hopefully we get more literate conspiracists or interested WPians to fix it up. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep there has been discussion even in major national newspapers. Zzzzz 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep I rewrote it. Let's hope it's expandable with more reliable sources; otherwise we can merge it somewhere. CanadianCaesar 21:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- All we have is David Shyler's opinion, which can go at his own page. The Mirror source should be removed also, as it is not saying that the bombings were an "inside job". Astrotrain 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - The fact that Jeff Rense has some theories about this, and he's notable to get his own article, I think, indicates this can be expanded beyond the Shyler quote. CanadianCaesar 21:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    - That person, according to his article, is a "conspiracy theorist", therefore it is not surprising he has theories on a wide range of interest, no doubt motivated by commerical intent. Until a credible source show that there is any genuine conspiracy theory, the article should be deleted. Any nutter can make up a conspiracy theory, but it needs to well documented for it to be encyclopedic. Astrotrain 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, I don't know, we quote Fred Phelps' website in Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina- perhaps, to keep the stuff from the Mirror also, we could move it to Rumours about the July 2005 London bombings and add some content from the Urban Legends Reference Pages- [20] [21] [22] CanadianCaesar 22:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      - I hadn't seen that article before. At least it has more substantial sources than this one. All we have is a comment sourced from an unreliable website. I also wouldn't list snopes.com as reliable. Astrotrain 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Maybe snopes isn't "reliable" exactly, but it is a notable discussion that Wikipedia can report without endorsing or refuting. And Fred Phelps is just as unreliable as Sightings. CanadianCaesar 22:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I added some more info after a bit of googling Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable topic and the entries appear to be well sourced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - No reason to delete. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - has recieved a fair ammount of attention. Just need to make sure that it stays NPOV and fairly presents the arguments and analysis of both sides. Of course title neutrality is a whole separate matter... Blackcats 06:54, 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. – Rob e rt 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Sydney

There is very little work mentioned here, and there are thousasands of bit actors that pop up everyday. Her inclusion in wikipedia needs to be justified, or she needs to be removed.--Esprit15d 14:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

weak keep Has imdb page, albeit somewhat weak. Ask author to expand. MNewnham 15:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep If KaDee Strickland gets a featured article, that pretty much sets a precedent. However, this one needs to be expanded quite a bit. --MisterHand 16:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Has been in films notably the Gingerbread Man. [23] Capitalistroadster 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and expand. PJM 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- JJay 04:37, 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. – Rob e rt 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounced English

Proposed new orthography. Delete as original research. -- RHaworth 14:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MisterHand 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and sentence the author to four years of linguistics classes. Oh God. Flyboy Will 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. I second Flyboy's sentencing. iinag 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOR. android 79 20:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Original research as stated on my talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete self admitted original research. ManoaChild 22:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Complete bollocks!!! This system would never work as Fare without an e is far.....as in the opposite of near. Thats just one example but it'll do for now. Jcuk 00:31, 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 redirected to God's Own Country by User:Howcheng. – Rob e rt 04:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God's own country

Not encyclopedic. Lots of places claim to be "God's country" or some variation thereof. Delete —Brim 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to God's Own Country, which is I think a decent article on the topic.--Pharos 15:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Pharos. The God's Own Country article already contains this reference. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect sounds reasonable. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Boldly redirected to God's Own Country. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:55, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Sasser

An unnotable minister at an unnotable church. Worthy, but not Wiki-worthy. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Madman 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NN Bio MNewnham 15:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that the people asking for deletion have done no research on how this church produced noteworthy ministers that have consistently been at odds with the Southern Baptist Convention on a number of issues. Its history is rich and its place should be secure on Wikipedia.

discussion page blanked and replaced with above comments by 24.163.94.231, have fixed and will leave comment at User_talk:24.163.94.231 MNewnham 17:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fixing formatting only after the blanking by User:24.163.94.231. --Metropolitan90 01:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Whoever wrote the above about the church should author a page about the church, and not about a minister who likes to hike. Vanity. Drmandrake 05:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:DavidWBrooks. – Rob e rt 04:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Brothers of Wickedness

Nearly invisible rock band - Google has 4 hits! Is Wikipedia to become a vanity listing of every rock band, no matter how obscure or ephemeral? Yikes - Madman 15:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 22:14, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] N'vyus

NN. Google gives little and nothing on allmusic.com. NicM 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

delete as per nom. Jporcaro 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Indefinitely- I believe that the user who established this remove this tag. If this tag is removed you could be blocked. Thanks for your cooperation. LILVOKA.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 04:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti

No meaningful content, no references, seems more a page for vandalism than anything educational. -- Jbamb 15:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The information on the page is accurate description of Mr Bugti, a habitual offender in Baluchistan. Some Bugti supporters are now trying to shut the page down under guise of "vandalism". I think its important to keep this page as events in Baluchistan will continue for a few years and Mr Bugti will continue to play a destructive role. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.242.178 (talk • contribs) )

Delete Clearly NPOV, at best. Garbage at worst. -- Jbamb 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the Bugti article for relevance and information. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.36.67 (talk • contribs) )

Strong Keep — important political figure.[24] Former governor of Balochistan, by appointment. — RJH 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, if they can manage to keep some NPOV, then keep. -- Jbamb 17:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have tidied it and added categories; important traditional leader and political figure. Humansdorpie 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. very notable historical figure --Vyzasatya 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. minor political figure, but certainly more meaningful than the Wikipedia libel vandal whose notoriety we've collectively decided to keep. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 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 speedied by User:DavidWBrooks. – Rob e rt 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta IX

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, by own addmission: "Delta IX, conceived in 2004, is a fairly unknown techno act from Ireland." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, even if they did play "a decent party at Johnny Taylor's house". --MisterHand 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

(☎) 11:35, 22 December 2005 (GMT)

Do Not Delete I think the page should stay. Delta IX are a growing act and this page might come in handy if they continue to do so. --Delta IX 11:35, 22 December 2005 (GMT)
- If Delta IX does grow and becomes notable, that would be the time to add the article. Not now. -- MisterHand 14:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 22:13, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Brothers The Movie The Game

No sign of this game ever existing. Telling by the author's history of vandalism, probabily made this as a joke as well. The page was originally on Super Mario Brothers: The Movie: The Game but I moved the page due to the commas preventing this being shown with the template. --Oakster 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 100% total nonsense. --MisterHand 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete is easily wrong, and completely false. For one thing, the film which it is supposidly based on (starring Bob Hoskins) was made in 1993, so no chance of a Gamecube release. Only thing on IMDB with Super Mario Brothers in the title is the film itself.

Delete a group from a wrestling forum vandalizing. Some discussion about it: http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=75813&st=240 Lapinmies 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Clear vandalism. --Apostrophe 02:15, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nogfest

I like eggnog and Christmas parties and such as much as the next guy, but this particular one doesn't seem all that notable. —Cryptic (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not a bad article, but completely non-notable. --MisterHand 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete Non notable. Obina 11:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete The chaps above me said it as well as I can.
don't delete. I love it! -Besides, It could be notable, one day.
don't
don't delete. Sounds like it has the potential to become notable and is a fun article. Beastdog75 17:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Beastdog75
Delete per nom. Stifle 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Megapixie 03:38, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HUMANWINE and Holly Brewer

Delete. Two related articles: a promotional listing for a non-notable musical outfit and a biography of a member of said outfit. 181 unique Google hits, no allmusic.com listing. Does not appear to meet any one WP:MUSIC criterion. android 79 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, I can see my comment above is somewhat ambiguous. Delete both. Sliggy 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur - Delete both Josh Parris#: 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete both. Stifle 22:12, 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. – Rob e rt 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cool fonts

Appears to be spam for a non-notable web page. Delete. --MisterHand 16:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete If it smells like spam... xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam Stifle 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...tastes like spam Rob cowie 22:17, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catamaran Charters

Advertising spam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --MisterHand 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep article seems to be about a particular type of holiday. With a bit of work it could be a reasonable article.Jcuk 16:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising for a specific line of tour boats. - Pure blade | ^Θ 02:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete we already have catamaran article. Grue 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 22:12, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benson Osawe

Being active in student politics alone does not get you into Wikipedia, even for "controversial figures". Chris talk back 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete only the president of the NUS and no other senior officers have wiki entries MNewnham 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 22:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --BenjaminTsai 01:49, 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 merge and redirect to Western Reserve Academy

[edit] Bicknell House

Article on an university dorm opened in the end of 2004. Article reads like a personal website. Complete lack of encyclopedic value and filled with vanity. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider or a propaganda machine Mecanismo | Talk 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup, or merge to Western Reserve Academy. -- JJay 03:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge first sentence to Western Reserve Academy; delete the rest. Anville 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
What Anville said. Wikipedia is not what Mecanismo said. Stifle 22:08, 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. – Rob e rt 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackstar (computer game)

no publisher, no developer, no release year, no genre, no specific information, googling revealed nothing. I'm placing this on AFD.Elvarg 05:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete seems to be hoax. Grue 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 22:06, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DERU

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete a joke MNewnham 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN seems like the right place for this. Stifle 22:06, 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 redirect to Glucose test. – Rob e rt 04:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fasting blood-sugar value

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete This information is already in Glucose test MNewnham 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Glucose test Chris the speller 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Glucose test. Sliggy 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Chris the speller. Stifle 22:06, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free RuneScape quests

Delete as it goes into to too much detail - detail that was found good enough reason to delete the "members runescape quests" page ("Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, as part of WP not being a how-to. - A Man In Bl♟ck"). I have also created a page that lists all of the quests - both free and members. Bourbons3 12:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete and create a new article called RuneScape quests. This article would describe what quests were, as well as have a full list of quests. It wouldn't have any strategy sections.Dtm142 14:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename and Merge with Members Runescape Quests. I've played Runescape, and this information (except Requirements, which should be deleted) does not help anyone play the game. Aleksei 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete.The RuneScape quests page has all the content it needs. The only additional information on this page compared to the runescape quests one is in the form of a game guide - which Wikipedia is not. The new page, RuneScape quests has already been created, why bother making a new page when it's already there? It is not a game guide, and so it is staying put. Bourbons3 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. Seems like it violates Wikipedia not being a how-to. Stifle 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Move some of the how-to information to Wikicities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much destined for deletion. Is it going to get deleted soon or what? The discussion should have ended and should be deleted by an Admin - Bourbons3 13:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with RuneScape quests. --King of All the Franks 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The only additional information on this page compared to the RuneScape quests page is in the form of a game guide - something Wikipedia is not. There is no need for this page anymore because there is a perfect replacement, and i wish someone would get round to deletion. Bourbons3 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge per Bourbons3. --NaconKantari 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 20:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heroin Jake and the Crack Addicts

Delete - per nomination. Non-notable group. The article is highly self-aggrandizing (qv. "orgasmic experience"). Only Google reference to these guys is a Guardian article - and only because they allegedly sing a single song in Esperanto. [25]D.valued 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- Comment - Removed the line regarding the "orgasmic experience." It's not worth this page being taken down because of one line.

Just becuase this D.Valued user does not have respect for the language of esperanto and obviously does not do research as the band Heroin Jake and the Crack Addicts is making progress in Atlantic Canada which has a culture and music which is different than the rest of North America does not give grounds to delete this article. Also, he should learn to spell.

- Comment - Replies to User:JLEG: Well, I didn't win the spelling bee, only because I botched one vowel there as well. Esperanto hasn't got anything to do with it, save the fact that the only Web reference from Google with the name of the group as the search term - both with ampersand and with "and" - is a coincidental mention, not a mention about the band per se. In addition, based on your contribution history - solely limited to a vanity article and articles pertaining to this group, which apparently you've worked with - it is impossible to see you as impartial. Also, it is rude to not suffix your posts with your name (it's simple; add four tildes, et voilá.) D.valued 08:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The VFD tag was removed. Guessing that 142.68.90.167 is a Nizzle/JLEG sock puppet.

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Much puffery and self-aggrandisement. Beware of record labels with Hotmail.com email addresses (as mentioned in their reference). B.Wind 14:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per B.Wind. Stifle 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as oer nom.--nixie 11:10, 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 undoubtedly delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Legere

Delete - per nomination. No references that I could find for this person germaine to the material. Add the fact that this is a vanity bio (history shows JLEG as a contributer; Nizzle37 may be a sock puppet (history shows sig. overlap in articles). D.valued 08:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - as per Notable Music Guidelines, this person does not seem to qualify. D.valued 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - 142.177.105.135 also appears to be a sockpuppet who vandalized October 11 and Making Light of Drug Addiction, the latter by removing the AfD tag from it. Remove those and the other AfD'd article to which the anon contributed, this article would be orphaned. Adding nothing indicating notability doesn't help with WP:MUSIC. All three of these articles should be bundled and deleted at once. B.Wind 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per D.valued. Massively POV. Userficiation might be an acceptable solution too. Stifle 21:58, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kollegstufe

The article describes the german equivalent of Sixth form, Sixth form college under the german name but does not add any relevant information that are peculiar to the German sixth form college. Linking the german article Kollegstufe from the Sixth form article seems sufficient. --Fasten 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep A stub which can be expanded.Obina 11:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Obina. Stifle 21:55, 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 23:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of short stories

Am I the only one that finds this article completely inane? I mean, there are thousands of short stories to talk about. Even then, who's to decide which ones are more significant? A story that could mean a bunch to one person could be next to meaningless to someone else. I say we make this a deletion candidate. User_talk:Volcanictelephone

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Categorize. I am all for lists, but this would be unmaintainable. The market for short stories is large and scores of those have been published. We may even make a Category:Short stories by Edgar Allen Poe as this list seems to be heavily biased towards him. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unmaintainable listcruft.Gateman1997 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
DeleteA partial list, impossible to complete Obina 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It would make sense only if these were all award-winning short stories. Delete. — RJH 16:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated above. Trilemma 04:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and maintain as a category. Listcruft. Stifle 21:54, 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. – Rob e rt 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making Light of Drug Addiction

Delete - per nomination. Non-notable album; includes shameless self-promotion of sole contributor to page, JLEG (aka Jeremy Legere, record producer mentioned). Only reference found parenthetical to this work is a Guardian piece mentioning Esperanto use in a song, in passing. D.valued 08:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Stifle 21:54, 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. – Rob e rt 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Abroad

Not only is this non-notable, but it's basically an advertisement. Delete. 13:54, December 19 2005 iinag

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's a sales pitch Chris the speller 16:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above - Stoph 17:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 21:53, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oganization story

This one's tricky, I would say Original research. There are lots of issues here:

the article appears to be verifiable research, but is almost entirely self-referential. The majority of cites appear to be references to books/papers written by the wiki article author.
The other 2 cites in the article appear to be the only other people in this field.
Starting with the misspelled title, the article itself is incomprehensible, which seems suspicious for.
A wiki link to Antenarrative appears in the article, which seems to be a neologism created by the author

MNewnham 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as original research, or more accurately, postmodern cruft indistinguishable from random noise. I am listing Antenarrative for the same reasons. Anville 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:53, 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 userfy. howch e ng {chat} 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drioux_Galvan

This article is clearly a vanity page, which is a violation of wiki etiquette, it doesn't pass any of the notability tests, and it was posted by the subject itself. I suggest that Drioux Galavan posts this as his user page and deletes it from encyclopedia. Jporcaro 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)jporcaro

Delete per nom. --MisterHand 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy this page. Stifle 21:52, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Micro cotton

soft, fluffy, advertising MNewnham 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IT is the softest towel on the earth IT is the most water absorbing towel IT is twice bulkier than normal towel for the same weight IT is 100 % cotton and gives you all the cotton comfort IT is spam. Delete. Randwicked 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete it - Tim Fellows 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Unadulterated spam Chris the speller 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This reads like an advertisement. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- JJay 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete. It is a product available in all the stores like Federated, Bed bath and beyond, Linen N things, Dillards, Costco, Kohls etc. It is a great product. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 59.92.115.223 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Delete: If you allow coke and other products; why not this product. Check your internet search engines. Someone needs to know what is Micro cotton. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 59.92.115.223 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Coke is sold in over a hundred countries worldwide. Micro cotton is not.

Details may be changed as "a brand for home textile products" —the preceding unsigned comment is by Kannappan (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertising, influenced by the random unsigned votes which reek of sockpuppetry. Stifle 21:52, 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, although I did move it to User:Alphachiepsilon's user space so he can work on it. howch e ng {chat} 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Chi Epsilon

Local Greek organization to Pace University. Google search turns up a stack of other local fraternities calling themselves AXE, but there is no single national organization. Small single-chapter organizations are nn. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - it's not quite the NUS, is it? Chris talk back 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Bky1701 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pace University. -- JJay 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep its a reasonably well known college fraternity (unless there's more than one Alpha Chi Epsilon) Jcuk 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment See my explanation above; it's a local org, Google showed no national organization of AXE and there's no AXE listed in the NIC. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Hey, I'm really new to this. I am the current president of Alpha Chi Epsilon and was more or less having fun with working on a site for us. It is the end of finals now, and I'll have time to fix it up. What I had put up was temporary. We are a local fraternity, not a national, which is why we wouldnt come up in the NIC. Rather than deleting the article, how about I just fix it up these next few days. I cant even edit it now. Hope to get more votes to let my article stay. Thanks. unsigned comment by Alphachiepsilon (talk · contribs)
Delete with prejudice (I think all fraternities should burn in hell). More seriously, it doesn't stand out. To the president: Wikipedia is not a free web host - I wish you well with your site and hope that you can get some hosting space from your school. Stifle 21:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

known college fraternity

Keep No reason to delete, just needs some help Jakiah 10:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three's Company Effect

A Google search reveals only five distinct hits for the phrase "Three's Company Effect". Only two of those hits reference the meaning mentioned in the article. One hit uses the term to reference watching TV shows as an adult that you enjoyed in your youth and discovering that they weren't as great as you remember. The 2nd hit refers to a strategy with a Collectible card game that has no reference whatsoever to the TV show. The third hit links to a 404 notice. As if that weren't enough (and you'd certainly think it would be), Wikipedia is not a dictionary. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Decent nomination. You give a good (and humorous) summary of what led you to believe it was deletable, refrained from voting, and pointed to the deletion policy. 9/10. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jporcaro 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Ξxtreme Delete, per nom. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:39, Dec. 19, 2005
Delete - I thought Extreme Deletion was abolished a while ago, but if it's back, delete with an ironing board on a bungee rope. Chris talk back 17:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I'm searching for the reference now but this term was recently in one of the major entertainment industry trades.Gateman1997 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and one reference, even in a trade mag, won't change my mind. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. I'll be happy to have it back if its use takes-off ×Meegs 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, NOR. Stifle 21:49, 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. – Rob e rt 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anime_Destiny

Not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Jporcaro 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Jporcaro

Looks like yet another small student society/event to me. We have hundreds of those at Cardiff, most of which are nothing to write home about. Chris talk back 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable yet. Stifle 21:49, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sulfur jovian

This article describes a phenomenon which does not appear to have any reference besides the speculations of John Whatmough (creator of the Extrasolar Visions website). I had previously tried to fix up this article, but I have found no references for sulfuric acid-covered jovian planets. Chaos syndrome 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatmough's planet types. These aren't even Whatmough's speculations at all. Whatmough himself used the Sudarsky classification system, as per this page, and a "sulfurous cloud jovian" is simply a (Sudarsky) Class 1 or Class 2 planet that has sulfurous compound condensates. Uncle G 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say these are Whatmough's speculations - if you take a look at the planet list on his site he used "sulfurous cloud jovian" to represent planets at the warm end of class II, which makes it a speculative addition to the Sudarsky system - he explains this in more detail here. Chaos syndrome 20:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Utter speculation. Such a beast does not exist within our solar system, and as far as bodies in other solar systems goes, the only data we have are sizes and distances from the primary star. D e nni ☯ 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:49, 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. – Rob e rt 04:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mela Rosa

Delete Wretchedly obscure band who THINK they will ne notable some day Chris the speller 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
reluctant Delete Notability is not Wikipedia policy merely guidelines by which some but by no means all Wikipedians abide. However, having said that, verifiability is Wiki policy and sorry guys.....you just aint. Jcuk 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - WP:MUSIC covers this one. Also, if a band article is an orphan, just think of why it is an orphan. B.Wind 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, not notable, and only Christmas spirit is keeping me from blasting this one into nn-band. Stifle 21:45, 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. – Rob e rt 04:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rockliffe_MailSite_email_server_software

advertising spam Xaque 16:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Spam...Gateman1997 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam that nobody's going to find with all the underscores... Stifle 21:43, 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. howch e ng {chat} 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antenarrative

Neologism. A slightly tricky case: like Oganization story above, this technically cites external sources, but they seem to stem from the author of the article itself, making the page original research. It is also, by and large, incomprehensible. I've had whole classes on narrative theory, for crying out loud, and it wasn't all as confusing as this. Anville 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wow. Note that article references two works by Boje, and author is Dboje, which makes it perilously close to original research for my tastes. Bikeable 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is actually a very interesting article, and is an important contribution to narration theory. See also the links to Tamara, (play):Harrypotter 18:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Bikeable. Stifle 21:43, 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. – Rob e rt 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lunch Money

Even if this stub is expanded, it doesn't warrent entry into the encyclopedia. Jporcaro 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Gimme your lunch money, dweeb! Flyboy Will 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Take back its tray and its half pint of milk. Durova 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Is this VfD a troll? --Easyas12c 22:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Popular game. Duh. This is not a good nomination - David Gerard 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable game. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - notable. Bezthomas 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - (but with a rename, per Zordrac, below ++Lar 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)) Notable, in my view, as follows: I consistently find mention of it on lots of gaming sites. In particular, http://boardgamegeek.com/game/228 shows almost 600 user ratings and 300 comments. By comparision Risk (game), which I think many view as one of the most notable invented "gamer" games, has 3000 or so ratings. 1/5 as notable as Risk seems quite notable to me. ++Lar 06:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to Lunch Money (game) to avoid confusion with money you get for your lunch :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I have also boldly moved it to Lunch Money (game); as soon as someone decides to write an article on money for your lunch they'll probably disambig. Stifle 21:42, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advice Bunny

website un-notability Melaen 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No significance explained. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:40, 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 speedy -- RHaworth 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pontiak

vanity, blanked by the article's author himself Melaen 17:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete - blanked by author. B.Wind 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the speedy tag. This should be gone soon. Thanks. -- Perfecto 01:28, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Hartman

This page appears to be a vanity page. Much of the information is not verifiable Akingheonds 17:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Person does not appear to be noteworthy enough to merit entry. The entry is basically the person's resume.

Delete Person is not noteworthy nor is information verifiable.

Keep and cleanup. Notable business professor namechecked by Fortune Magazine as one of America's leading business ethicists [26]. According to the article she has written several books including this cowriting credit [27]. Listed in the American Directory of Scholars. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Article contains copyrighted material copied verbatim from another website [28].

Neutral - person is just on the line regarding notability/professor test. In light of previous (unsigned) comment, I'd rather see a rewritten article and judge that than deleting this one completely without someone adding at least one more item to establish notability (is there something specific that would make her notable to a person in Peoria?). B.Wind 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN, resume, vanity Paul 18:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd be going for a weak keep but it's a copyvio, I'm going to blank this and send it to copyvios. Stifle 21:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Author, co-author or editor of four books on Amazon. Text seems likely to be autobiographical, which is badish, but probably makes it a non-copyvio, as it is likely that she has written and owns the rights to the presentation of herself in other places too. If no permission is shown for that text, allow for recreation. u p p l a n d 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity page. Abstrakt 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 04:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syndicate (lineage 2)

Delete. Non-notable something-cruft. Erath 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a clan in Lineage, a (dreadfully boring) MMORPG. Wholly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:20, 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. Sorry for the delay, people. It's the holidays. howch e ng {chat} 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar_experiment

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Proposed deletion of original research not published in a refereed journal. Hunter Monroe 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I have removed the deletion flag based on the consensus to keep the article and Prof. Afshar's commitment below.Hunter Monroe 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't the rules say the voting shall continue for 5 days? GangofOne 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC) . My mistake; voting continues Hunter Monroe 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC). I believe it's normally seven? Oh well! --Kilo-Lima 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. Made the cover of the New Scientist magazine. Although I believe (as does the majority of the physics commuity) that the proposed interpretation is incorrect, that alone is not grounds for deletion. linas 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Extremely significant and notable, if unpublished. I do think this is a bit awkward and that we should generally not be writing articles about unpublished work, but this experiment has caused quite a stir. Bikeable 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page, you will see that the deletion nominator Hunter Monroe did in fact withdraw his deletion request. (see the comment by Hunter Monroe 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)) The voting was reinstated by Linas per Wiki AfD rules.-- Prof. Afshar 21:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

Speedy Keep Significant and notable. Just because Afshar's paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean it is Original Research! The Wiki policy is clear on this. It says if a research result "has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers" it is not original research. Afshar experiment has been published in Proc. SPIE 5866 which is a "reputable" optics journal, and was the cover story of New Scientist which is a "reputable publisher", often sited by mainstream media as a reliable source. Yes, Afshar's work is controversial, but the controversy is explicitly discussed in the article. Controversy does not constitute a reason for deletion of an article! Hunter Monroe should know that if he is as he claims "not a new WikiPedia user." Physicsmonk 18:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote struck out by Physicsmonk, was not posted by Physicsmonk, see discussion below Physicsmonk 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the above vote, although signed by User:Physicsmonk, was in fact cast by User:Afshar: see [29].-- linas 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep Significant and notable. Just because Afshar's paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean it is Original Research! The Wiki policy is clear on this. It says if a research result "has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers" it is not original research. Afshar experiment has been published in Proc. SPIE 5866 which is a "reputable" optics journal, and was the cover story of New Scientist which is a "reputable publisher", often sited by mainstream media as a reliable source. Yes, Afshar's work is controversial, but the controversy is explicitly discussed in the article. Controversy does not constitute a reason for deletion of an article! Hunter Monroe should know that if he is as he claims "not a new WikiPedia user." Physicsmonk 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is not original research in the Wikipedia sense. Pfalstad 18:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - as per above. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - As per above. Deletion would be tantamount to censorship! ehteshami 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote of User:ehteshami appears to be the first and only edit of this user on WP, and this user may in fact be a sockpuppet. linas 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I categorically reject the above insinuation by linas. This is outrageous! given the same criterion of "first and only edit" for a user immediately renders Hunter Monroe a sockpuppet, which makes this entire deletion request highly suspect. Linas, please check the verasity of your statements before posting them publicly. Prof. Afshar 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Linas I'm not a sockpuppet, and do not appreciate your cynicism. User:ehteshami 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, then. I merely found it surprising that

A first-time wikipedia editor would be seemingly knowledgable in the language and mechanisms of wikipedia.
That, out of the several thousand articles up for deletion, that a new editor would choose this article, and would do so within hours of its nomination.
That a new user's first (and so far only) action would be to dive headlong into a debate.
That this user's response to my accusation would be so immediate and timely, as if they were watching this page, but are not otherwse engaged in day-to-day WP activities.

Maybe its just a big coincidence, and for that, I apologize. linas 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Linas I have been a long user of WP, as an observer. Nonetheless, the same coincidences apply to Hunter Monroe, but I don't see you questioning his motives. User:ehteshami 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, the same coincidences do not apply to User:Huner Monroe. linas 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate that an individual should be involved in the maintenance of a page concerning his own work, and in debates about deleting that page. Science that cannot be published in refereed journals is simply not science, and undermines WikiPedia's reputation.Hunter Monroe 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Monroe, my involvement in the Afshar experiment page has been limited to ensuring the accuracy of the reports regarding my work. It would be negligent of me not to do so. The recent John Seigenthaler incident (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4534712.stm) is warning enough for any prudent person to ensure that inaccuracies (as well as malicious attacks) do not survive on Wiki pages. To that end, rest assured that I will keep a watchful eye on the Afshar experiment page and its contents, given it survives your mysteriously sudden deletion request! Please note that I have not voted here, but simply been forced to respond to criticism, which frankly belongs to the discussion page rather than here! BTW/ my paper is stil under peer-review... Prof. Afshar 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Prof Afshar, Please note that in fact you did vote on this very AfD! Your vote was the third vote recorded on this page, and occurred only hours ago! linas 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of sockpuppetry, there is also some voting irregularity coming from anonymous User:209.6.174.28, who voted to keep, and then, minutes later, retracted that vote. I note that this user's only editing interests have been the promotion of Afshar's researches, which perhaps is not a surprise, as this user has signed posts in the past, identifying themselves as Prof Shahriar S. Afshar. I don't like these kinds of shenanigans, and view this episode with some consternation. linas 23:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Linas, the IP you mentioned belongs to the colleague User:Physicsmonk with whom I worked and used his computer last year before I had set up my own Wiki account. After my recent discussions with you I asked him to obtain an account as well, which is exactly what he has done. He retracted the anonymous vote after he realized I had posted his vote for him (see below for the reason). Please stop these unsubstantiated remarks. Frankly, I am starting to think that Hunter Monroe is in fact your sockpuppet?! Afshar 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Linas, I had responded to your empty accusation in my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Afshar). It may be a good idea to move these comments to the discussion page to keep the voting process here instead of talking to each other. [User:Afshar|Afshar]] 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem to have missed my previous response, here it is:

Dear Linas, You can't call anyone who supports my work a sockpuppet! User:Physicsmonkis certainly not a sockpuppet either, he is the Boston colleague I mentioned in my e-mail. I asked him to set up an account as you had suggested. He told me about the recent events with Monroe requesting a deletion and then you reinstating Monroe's attempt which I mistakenly understood as your own view. Sorry if I got confused on your vote! At any rate, User:Physicsmonk told me that for some reason he could not post his vote on the Wiki deletion page, which is what I did for him by copying and pasting his response to User:Hmonroe into the vote page. As you can see, I have not voted on the deletion issue myself as I deem that not to be ethical. I hope this clarifies the situation. BTW/ I have posted the e-mail I sent you a few days agao but was left unanswered in your talk page. Afshar 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine why they couldn't vote directly, since it seems that thier very first edit on WP was to remove this AfD notice. linas 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Point of order. As a minimum of verifiability it seems that any valid vote must be posted from the account that signs it. I can't see how anyone could think otherwise, events in Florida notwithstanding. Thus I say the third vote from the top, signed by physicsmonk but posted by Afshar be ~~struck out~~ (not obliterated) and physicsmonk be allowed to cast a vote from his/her own account. (Then the argument may continue, as desired.) GangofOne 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you GangofOne! Please explain what I need to do to clear this sorry mess! Physicsmonk 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep based on comments from smart editors above. -- JJay 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is not original research in the WP sense. It is a real controversy in the real world which has generated a rather extensive paper trail. Keeping it does not imply endorsing it, any more than the articles on creationism or cold fusion endorse the topics. Documenting recent disputes like this is an important way WP is valuable. Of course, it remains important that the article be NPOV, and that it not be given too much prominence in other parts of the WP, e.g. the Albert Einstein article, with which it is only very tangentially related. --Macrakis 23:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps can only happen if the nominator withdraws the vote to delete and there have been no delete votes so far, or the nomination was in bad faith. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, but it will be necessary to monitor this page closely owing to its peculiar history. I suggest strong disclaimers to alert the casual reader that Afshar's work cannot be considered established science. The many Speedy Keeps visible on this page are consistent with claims of sockpuppets. WP:Guide to deletion says "Speedy keep is rarely used. It implies that the user thinks the nomination was based on an obvious misunderstanding and that the deletion discussion can be closed early." Earlier versions of this page could easily be construed as original research, so deletion is at least a option worth thinking about. Dave Kielpinski 05:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I think it would be completely against the spirit of science to even consider this article for deletion. Though there hasn't been much news on it, has this experiment not been repeated twice? If there are problems with the scientific establishment so deep that something challenging established ideas is censured(this isn't the only instance) let's hope wikipedia can at least be more open minded. A better suggestion: delete the article on string theory, at least there is an "afshar experiment." If the experiment were held to the same standards as string speculation then it would be infinitely superior. -- Anon —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.254.142.215 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, with strong misgivings. This kind of page can be seriously misleading. In particular, the current page tends to give the impression that the results of this experiment are important - in fact, the results are exactly what anyone would have predicted. The only question is whether Afshar's interpretation of the experiment is compatible with his or others' understandings of the idea of complementarity. --Reuben 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also recommend that the article be reduced substantially in length, unless Afshar himself can be persuaded to distance himself from it. The current article is tied far too strongly to his point of view. --Reuben 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article size reduction, but have every problem with not being able to at least clarify what I have done, or why. It would be charlatanism to ascribe to me what I have not claimed, without a recourse to correct the allegation. After all, if the experiment carries my name, I should be able to explain what it is, or correct mistakes others make in describing its content and my claims. I will avoid directly editing the page given I can communicate my corrections and updates to a responsible, and unbiased editor who would then objectively update the article. I do not see how it could be done otherwise. BTW there is a Crossed beam version of the experiment that is much easier to understand without the need to go into Fourier optics. Anybody who wishes to add that version please contact me in my user talk page. -- Prof. Afshar 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the professor and wikipedia would be best served if his involvement were only on the talk page of the article. Perhaps he could keep a website posting information and answers to disputes brought up here, and he could link the talk page to them -- Anon —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.254.142.215 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep clearly. However we do need to handle this carefully. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
keep this is a good article.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 04:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete per all the sockpuppets and new users voting. Stifle 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - but I strongly endorse the misgivings of Reuben. The dynamics of someone contributing directly to an article about their own work are as described in Wikipedia:Autobiography: even with the best of intentions, it's hard to ensure NPOV. Tearlach 03:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - but strongly needs a re-write as it uses complicated terms. --Kilo-Lima 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- even after it's proved wrong :) GangofOne 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now is there an admin around to close this vote? It's been here 8 days or so.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howch e ng {chat} 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JFM

originally tagged for speedy delete as patent nonsense and I tend to agree with that but bringing it to a vote.--MONGO 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's clearly not patent nonsense, as it is quite comprehensible. The question is whether it is original research or unverifiable, which is not a question for speedy deletion. Uncle G 12:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is at least a "conspiracy theory" based on this. However, I'd suggest moving the page to Jenseitsflugmaschine. JFM will almost certainly end up as a disambiguation page. -Rholton 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete, seems to be hard to verify. Stifle 21:12, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crown and bridgework

No need for this article. Two seperate articles already cover the subjects: Crown (dentistry) and Bridge (dentistry). Delete. --MisterHand 17:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Material already is in the requisite articles. No useful reason for a redirect. Delete B.Wind 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:12, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sive, Paget & Riesel

Is there anything notable about this company (that is not mentioned under David Sive? If so, add it. If not, delete the article.--Aleph4 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete with a possible speedy for lack of context. Stifle 21:09, 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. – Rob e rt 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shotcopy

Obscure trademarked commercial method. Spamlink. Significance not asserted. Edcolins 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Edcolins 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete infomercial MNewnham 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:09, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of irregular verbs

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already a decent Wiktionary entry for this. Delete. Kusma (討論) 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Not a dictionary, nor an indescriminate collection of information. - squibix 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not a dictionary type entry and not indiscriminate. Calsicol 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- It not only is a dictionary, the link to where Wiktionary has a better article than this was given above. Uncle G 01:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The article comprises just a list of words in (not quite) alphabetical order. There's no actual encyclopaedia article here at all. The article is a very bad dictionary, plain and simple. Irregular verb already links to Wiktionary doing this better, and has done so since November 2004. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 01:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Uncle G. Proto t c 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete per Uncle G. Stifle 21:08, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crooked X

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Band's only gig seems to have been at a school talent show. Delete. --MisterHand 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'm resisting the urge to say something like 'my mom's cookies were a big hit also!'198.31.188.130 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 21:08, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fox and Hound Tavern

advertising --Melaen 18:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As no effort has been made to establish notability since I added the Importance tag, I support the proposal to Delete - N (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to WikiTravel. Not encyclopedic. Stifle 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your thinking, but the Wikitravel content licence is unfortuately not GFDL compatible. Our article says: Note that although both Wikipedia and Wikitravel are free content resources, because of the incompatible licenses content can not be easily copied between them. - N (talk)

Delete--nixie 10:35, 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 delete. – Rob e rt 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chase zander

Advertising, fails WP:CORP MNewnham 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete. Advertising - article by user:Adam.tallamy@chasezander.com. -- RHaworth 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Might be my new crusade for a speedy category, now that we've got bands. Stifle 21:07, 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 speedy delete by Thue (page blanked by creator). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Destiny

Non-sense? Compu ter Joe 18:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Page has been blanked - I have marked for speedy delete MNewnham 18:39, 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. – Rob e rt 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Podflix

Article is about a neologism which seems not to be in common use; a google search for the term returns only 149 hits, mostly relating to a podcast entitled Podflix - squibix 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. Right now, this is just called a video podcast. Someday there will probably be a shorter name for it, but it is far from obvious that it will be "podflix". ManoaChild 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:02, 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. – Rob e rt 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BodyBalance

Advertisments don't belong in encyclopedias. Jporcaro 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Madman 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Thunk 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. I'm thinking of proposing blatant advertizing as a speedy category. Stifle 21:02, 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 speedied by User:JesseW as nn-band. – Rob e rt 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disgarded Toys(Band)

nn teenageers band Melaen 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. NN. Jporcaro 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - orphan article that borders on vanity. Band fails WP:MUSIC. One sentence and a one-line band lineup do not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 20:55, 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. – Rob e rt 03:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pete samplers

NN DJ, Fails WP:MUSIC MNewnham 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - orphan article with second person writing ("contact... at {email address}") as advertising. B.Wind 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per B.Wind. Stifle 20:55, 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. – Rob e rt 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hazardsforheadlights

band vanity Melaen 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probably a speedy but this is expiring today anyway so I'm happy to just slowly delete it. Stifle 20:55, 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 speedied by User:JesseW as nn-band. – Rob e rt 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heat of the city

nn band Melaen 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn. --Thunk 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 20:54, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rat cheese

Non-verifiable Mayur 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - needs refs Tim Fellows 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete unreferenced. Stifle 20:53, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soren Reinke

Zero Google hits for "Soren Reinke" and photosynthesis. Would expect a ref in the photosynthesis article if this were true. No articles link to this one, and this was the only edit by the user who created the article. Delete CLW 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: could this possibly refer to a botanist called Johannes Reinke? (Google search.) u p p l a n d 16:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you could be right. However, I'm not sure that moving the article to Johannes Reinke would be wise - if the author got the name wrong, the remaining details could also be incorrect. So I stand by delete for now. CLW 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - unreferenced article seems to be off-base on a few details. It would be better to delete than to consider a redirect or a merge (if the material were accurate and referenced I'd urge a merge into the appropriate section of photosynthesis. B.Wind 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete per B.Wind. Stifle 20:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If this really is Johannes Reinke, as I suggested above, it is better that somebody acquainted with his work starts a new, referenced article. As CLW points out, we can't trust a user who can't even get the first name right. It may well be one of those plausible hoaxes which sometimes stay around for years in the absence of flying Martian pigs or other obvious giveaways. u p p l a n d 21:11, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 21:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Torment

barely notable band Stifle 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Close call - several LPs released (limited editions on indie labels). Neutral for the time being: unlike most of the acts we've been deleting lately, there is at least a trail with these people, but I defer to someone who knows post '80s heavy metal as to notability. B.Wind 03:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisted 13 December. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this again to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

COPYVIO See google cache at the bottom. Page has a (c)2005 marking. RJFJR 19:32, 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 both. - Mailer Diablo 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrés Soto, Leonard McNeil

Both NN bios. Articles are about failed candidate for city council elections. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Spondoolicks 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this again to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both failed candidates for a minor city. Stifle 20:53, 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. – Rob e rt 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ozone Asylum

Forum reports 6k members, but does not even rank in the top quarter million according to Alexa. Google reports nothing noteable ever happening here. HackJandy 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Spondoolicks 15:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this again to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 20:53, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Holliday

Never heard of; poorly written; suspected hoax

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete for non-notability. There is a Daniel Holliday and he is a Paintballer and he has been interviewed and mentioned in press relating to that sport. Not sure that he merits an encyclopaedic article though. Eddie.willers 06:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 20:52, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skirlie

Delete: Recipe.

"Delete: Recipe"? That's not a nomination. It's not a vote. It's not even a sentence! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - its notable enough [30] and it can be expanded to be beyond a simple recipe. If we have an article on haggis, we should have an article on Skirlie. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While I would welcome a legitimate article on this, at the moment our article is a copyvio of [31]. Reporting it now - it is past the statutory limit for a speedy. Delete. Capitalistroadster 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Move to wikibooks cookbook Josh Parris#: 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do not transwiki copyvios!. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
REWRITE - why don't we all get together and rewrite it as this is a very notable topic worthy of an aricle. I'll ask anyone who looks at this to please consider if they can spare the time to write a bit to this article (non-copywrited tho). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sent to copyvios. Stifle 20:50, 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. – Rob e rt 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truculent Recordings

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was non-notable record label. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - fails google [32], no allmusic.com entry. None of the individual artists are notable either. Prurient, Pedestrian Deposit, Pine Tree State Mind Control, Viodre, Ahlzagailzehguh, LHD, Inhalant, Flatline Construct, Richard Ramirez, Stolen Light. I am pretty confident that a record label needs at least a few notable signees in order to be notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: none of the links above (the blue links) actually lead to music artists. They just happen to have the same names as other articles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 20:51, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The NSG and Damon Jablons

Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. See also Damon Jablons. Delete. -- The Anome 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The nsg actually do meet a few of the criteria:

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city"

The nsg are one of the most appreciated and recognized artists in the north shore music scene. They have been mainstays since 2001, constantly attracting a visible and loyal fan bases.

It is unfortunate that their popularity has not reached the world of certain wikipedia editors, however that should not detract from the fact that they deserve recognition.

"Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."

Theie evolving style has become quite influential in the north shore scene. many bands have attempted to emulate their songs, finding that their identity is one that is shared by many, however the nsg have consistantly remained atop the scene's heirarchy.

It would be total bullshit if NSG was deleted, they are certainly some of the most progressive innovators in the tristate area.

The NSG are sweet as hell. no deletion!

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editors: Please provide evidence for your claims. Uncle G 19:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete both per WP:MUSIC. Damon Jablons is a stub that doesn't assert notability at all; the only links to the NSG artocle are either relating to Damon Jablons or the discussion of this AdF. I love it when someone asserts notability by stating "Son of the famous ****" and seeing a red-lettered name there. B.Wind 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both Even if one of their three fans posts a vulgar objection anonymously. The group and the member are both abjectly obscure Chris the speller 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Stifle 00:52, 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. – Rob e rt 03:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cermet Kirameku

Unverifiable bio of a teenager. Not speedyable because it claims notability... but those claims seem like a hoax, since the only thing I can find on this guy, other then WP mirrors, is a video game forum posting [33]. W.marsh 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, no plausible claim to special significance. Kappa 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:59, 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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elsmar Cove

Seems to be spam, created by link spammer ([34] [35]) --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and delete. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per Spangineer.Bjones 18:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My name is Marc Timothy Smith - the 'owner' of the Elsmar Cove.

I was shown several links here to my web site the other day. With all the fuss about this site and someone recently showing me some existing links I came and saw and signed up.

My field is quality assurance and business systems. I put in some external links to my forum in several topics (now all removed I see) because there are already existing 'commercial' links such as to isixsigma.com - I assume you are saying here that links to some "commercial" sites are OK but links to others are not OK.

I thought I would be helping here by adding some external links to the Elsmar Cove discussion forums in topic pages whose subject we focus on.

I added the Elsmar Cove page in part because it is the oldest quality assurance forum still on the internet.

BTW - If I was a "link spammer" I'd have been more discreet and put in many, many entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc T Smith (talk • contribs)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete reads like advertising. Example line: "You'll find the forums are active and moderated, a wealth of information awaits you!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as advertising. --Thunk 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 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 delete. – Rob e rt 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monteaudio

Delete - advertisement JoJan 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

delete advertising Melaen 18:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 00:58, 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. – Rob e rt 03:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Norse Society in London

Delete as not notable. Very small (annual turnover never more than GBP 14,000), non-controversial, charity. Also delete re-directs Anglo-Norse Society, and Anglo Norse Society David Woolley 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Old charity organization. -- JJay 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable. Has existed since 1918 and seems rather unique which itself is notable. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- In what way is it unique? There will be many charities (and other non-profits) with similar aims but different countries. --David Woolley 07:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I doubt "many" and I further doubt of those few have dual royal patrons and have existed as long. -- JLaTondre 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    - The problem in challenging that is finding a list, but my guess would be about 50% of countries have them and most would be of a similar age. They tend not to make the news. As noted below, patronage tends to go with age and non-controversiality. --David Woolley 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Semi-old society with royal patrons, seems notable enough. u p p l a n d 09:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Royal patronage is quite common for UK charities; my concern is that accepting this will open the flood gate to large numbers of minor UK charities (I have the impression that the original Afc nomination was for PR purposes) --David Woolley 10:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  - We need all notable charities here. Like this one. You have made no real attempt to show why it's NN. -- JJay 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I'd say it is not notable because it is very small and makes no claims, even on the full web site, to have made any real impact on the world. Given its age and the countries involved, I might have expected it to have been important in the second world war, but there is no mention of this. I can understand that the inclusion threshold for not for profits might be much less than for a for profit, but the turnover of this is less than that of a father and son company that could have a similar age. (I feel that WP:CORP needs expanding to give special treatment to not for profits, if this is notable.) Wrt to the royal patronage, from looking at the UK government sites on this (sorry I mislaid the URL), being old and not too controversial are exactly the things that get patronage, so patronage doesn't really add to the case. (That source suggested about 800 patronages each for the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, so I would guess about 3,000 to 5,000 for the whole of UK royalty.) Incidentally, it was only registered as a charity in 1972, although I don't know when the register started. --David Woolley 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure why controversial has anything to do with the issue. You do not need to be controversial to be in an encyclopedia. Have you done any research on this group? Because I find it hard to believe that they have done nothing for the last 87 years. -- JJay 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  - The intention of the AfC is irrelevant. What matters is the article itself. --JLaTondre 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep per JJay. Stifle 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: AfD notice was never applied to article. Relisting on December 19 to follow procedure. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for that. When I first tried to save it I collided with a rename, and I had to fix up the the names on the listings and must have forgotten about the article itself. I shouldn't have been too thorough in trying to improve it before knocking it down! --David Woolley 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Suggest withdrawing this, the tag isn't going to generate any new 'delete' votes. Kappa 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree, the way it is going, especially as the only way people will find the article at the moment is likely to be the Afd listing, but I think one implication of this is that there needs to be a new guidline for charities (and the US equivalent of not for profit educational and scientific organisations) as this would have been thrown out as both a local social club or as a for profit business. As it is, I'm not sure why one shouldn't dump half the UK register of charities into Wikipedia. (For those not familiar with the UK charity concept, charities basically provide benefits for people other than those that provide their funds and, as a result, once registered, get special tax treatment. The Wiki Foundation could be a charity in the UK.) --David Woolley 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep The significance of this type of organisation cannot be measured by turnover. Calsicol 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I find the various comments above about history and notable achievements very interesting. If you give me a couple of weeks for research I will write an article. No doubt someone amongst you will want to re-format it. As I understand it the Anglo-Norse web site is basicly a newsletter style site for current and potential members rather than a history of the society. Tim G 23:00, 22 December 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 07666

Article about a US zip code. Surely these have been discussed and banned long ago. -- RHaworth 19:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I don't know whether there's been an explicit vote on such articles, but if there was I can't imagine the consensus was to keep them. List of ZIP Codes in the United States was nominated and only survived by lack of consensus. sjorford (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Teaneck, New Jersey. You can call me Al 15:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep its as valid as any other post code/zip code we have in Wiki. Jcuk 00:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- What other post code/zip code do we have? -- RHaworth 05:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Well theres these ones to be getting on with....although on closer inspection they seem to be lists rather than individual articles. Jcuk 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Allows for direct search of location by ZIP Code, especially for areas that are served by post offices outside the municipality. Alansohn 01:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia does not generally have articles about individual zip codes, as far as I can tell, nor does it need them. 90210 is a disambiguation page ... but that is a considerably more famous one than 07666. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Al. Proto t c 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Teaneck, New Jersey per Al. — RJH 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
'Delete per Metropolitan90. Stifle 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is no point to this article. Since we're not a directory, I'd even vote to delete a list of zip codes, so it makes absolutely no sense to have an article for each one. —Cleared as filed. 05:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octavian R.I. Contreras

I can't seem to find a CSD for this, so I'm going to slow route. It doesn't seem encyclopedic, and I'm not entirely sure if every criminal in the world is notable enough for this, although we don't have WP:CRIMINAL yet. Bachrach44 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Contreras is an Icon of that area, I found rellevance for it following the Stanley "Tookie" Williams execution last night. It follows the lines of an encylopedic entry. Name, date of birth, notation of importance or considerable notoriaty. I have been researching this man in particular since 2003. I attended the University of Miami law school & attended the Miami-Dade Police introduction seminar. I heard his name brought up after the topic came up of the 1998 robbery of DEA agents and Drug trafficer Argeno Castillo in South Miami

NSUGRADUATE97

if you can merrit and allow other entires of silly and childish value then why is it a notorious criminal and his biography are booted. Also he just so happend to be a local football phenom during his highschool years, after his arrest his conviction was mention on ESPN2, he was in the herald...

Also he is currently a Reggaeton artist with Wisin y Yandel

Comment cite some sources and clean up the article then. Some categorization of the information and formatting would really help.

Delete unless verified and notability is established. I couldn't find a single relevant Google result, which I wouldn't expect if he actually killed multiple people and cut off their lips and fingers. -- Kjkolb 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax Josh Parris#: 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, 0 google results (same with just "Octavian Contreras"). I asked the creator of the article to provide references when this was last here, but it's probably not forthcoming since it's most likely a hoax. - Bobet 01:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment sounds like the name of a Roman Emperor. I will wait to see if references are cited before putting in a vote. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:41, 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 delete. – Rob e rt 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redseven

appears to be advertising for a non-notable US computer store. Peeper 15:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete advert --File Éireann 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete badly written. --18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 00:58, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popumentary

neologism Melaen 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Madman 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete random neologism. Stifle 00:57, 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 and redirect to Windows Media Player. howch e ng {chat} 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Media Player Errors

Shouldn't this be part of Windows Media Player since the article isn't that big yet? A new article just for "errors" isn't needed at all, not now anyway. Thorpe 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge per nom or keep. Kappa 20:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Mind you, we don't need to go to AfD for this. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Recommend being bold. Stifle 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge --82.18.248.126 12:57, 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 delete. Should have been speedied under A7. howch e ng {chat} 21:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew perkins

Non-notable, possible vanity Mayur 18:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Please delete this nonsense.....these guys are spoiling this wonderful site --213.89.172.157 19:07, 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 delete. Mind matrix 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W2N

NN CORP. Assertion of multiple office unverifiable. Corporate web site is single page MNewnham 18:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 00:57, 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 speedy delete by DavidWBrooks (hoax, vanity). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Gorman

NN / Vanity Mayur 18:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, per nom.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Deltabeignet as nn-band. – Rob e rt 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Noise Crew

nn band Melaen 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. B.Wind 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- 'Tis speedied. Deltabeignet 04:03, 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. – Rob e rt 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rome Total War Military Tactics

Game cruft. Deletable as self-confessed original research. -- RHaworth 18:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Original research as per nom Davewild 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OR how-to-guide. Perhaps userfy. Punkmorten 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above. Stifle 00:56, 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 speedy delete by DavidWBrooks (CSD A7). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Pallen

NN / Vanity Mayur 19:01, 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 speedily deleted four times in 10 minutes by Pablo-flores and Malcolm Farmer. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cole Stant

NN / vanity Mayur 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that was a speedy delete! B.Wind 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Andrew Lenahan (CSD A1). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Pop'n Fresh

vanity Mayur 19:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete doesn't even attempt to be encyclopedic. --MisterHand 19:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vanity page. Had been created twice today by a user of that name, deleted twice (once by me); this was recreated again within minutes of the last deletion by a user with a new login.... Malcolm Farmer 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete and padlock - too many reasons for deletion to be ignored (POV, vandalism, unencyclopedic...) -- one sentence does not a sentence make, "resurrection" of a deleted article.... B.Wind 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by me, criterion A1, no context, no content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Thue (nonsense). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max Range

Does not make sense. Compu ter Joe 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another empty one - Speedy delete. B.Wind 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
comment seems to have been deleted before anyone could have a say!?! Jcuk 23:45, 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. – Rob e rt 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Lutheran Ministries

Article is shamelessly promotional and non-NPOV. It could, perhaps, be re-written; but if it does not improve very soon, I think it should be deleted. Gaius Cornelius 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - as non-notable as you can get. Madman 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - godvertising MNewnham 20:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
comment as it stands its a copyvio anyhow. Jcuk 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertizing and probably copyvio. Stifle 00:50, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Beat Monks

Nearly invisible band & copyvio from http://www.myspace.com/thebeatmonks. Madman 19:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they may be obscure, but that still does not warrant the deletion of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information, and this band does indeed exist. So my vote is to keep it up. By the way, I greatly wikified the article so it should at least please the casual viewer if nothing else.Turk Ranma 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In regards to the copyvio, I personally know one of the members of the band and he gave me permission to use the pictures. Of course, this can't be directly proven. The best thing to do is send a comment to User:Beamguarden who started the article for proof.
If I may ask, what is the reasoning behind deleting an article just because it is obscure? So far no one has seemed to justify why exactly they have a problem with this fact. Sure, I could understand if it was a complete vanity article; simply showcasing some random person or thing. But this group does indeed fit a the ambient/instrumental genre of music and has released multiple records and songs fitting said genre. Lastly, (and believe me I'm not trying to gloat) the article does indeed fit the wiki requirements in regards to format and appearence. So at least, as I stated above, the casual passerby who does not intend to delete the article, will get more than their share of info on the band.Turk Ranma 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Turk Ranma did indeed update the page. It looks pretty darn right good now (better than many many pages). Still concerned about the non-notability of the band, and the fact that much of the verbiage is taken from http://www.myspace.com/thebeatmonks. Madman 23:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
keep as per ranma Jcuk 23:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, can we say SOCKPUPPET! 68.162.40.100 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't intentionally creating a sockpuppet, I just sometimes forget to log in.!Turk Ranma 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom; despite the release of 3 CDs, they were on an indie label. The Influences section is now a black and blue wall of words that exhausts the reader by the time the fifth line is read. Regarding the pictures: there's a difference between giving an editor permission to use the pictures and giving Wikipedia permission, and it must be verifiable that permission is given to Wikipedia to use them if the pictures are to be part of an article. B.Wind 16:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A search for band name combined with album name gives 2 hits. Perhaps userfy. Punkmorten 16:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not all information has to have its own article, plus no single article links to the Beat Monks! --DelftUser 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC FCYTravis 22:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Rappers Rapp Group. – Rob e rt 03:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rappers Rap Group

Non-notable hip hop collective that apparently never released an album. Some members of the group are seemingly notable enough, but their info should be filed under their respective names. Madman 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep hip-hop collective with multiple notable alumni. Kappa 20:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep had a definite impact on hip-hop music, but move and redirect to Rappers Rapp Group as that was their actual name, per AMG and that seems to be what they were creditted as in the few songs [they released (e.g. [36]). --W.marsh 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per w.marsh Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:39, 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. – Rob e rt 03:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Null Website

Not a notable site/group, no pages link to it other than a disambiguation page, seems more of a fan listing than anything else. --nihon 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom; or per name Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete silly junk. Stifle 00:50, 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 speedy delete, since there was no assertion of notability. -- SCZenz 03:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Skuds

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 16:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 00:49, 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 Redirected, no need for deletion. HappyCamper 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Popes

Nominated for 2 reasons: (1) Obscure non-notable rock band, (2) article is patent nonsense Madman 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Shane MacGowan and The Popes 23skidoo 22:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
merge useful info with Shane MacGowan and the Popes and Redirect Jcuk 23:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Shane MacGowan and The Popes Bezthomas 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Shane MacGowan and The Popes Kevin 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Boldly redirected to Shane MacGowan and The Popes. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:51, 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. HappyCamper 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ikezuagu

A rambling story WP:NOT MNewnham 20:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

deleteseems to be a story pasted from www.yourtruehero.com written by Gabriel Nsofor and thus a copyrite violationObina 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Obina, any chance we could do a speedy on this? Jcuk 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete copyvio. Stifle 00:49, 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 speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oroville Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Oroville Dam is the highest dam in the United States. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Only gets 7 Google hits [37]/ Chaotyczny 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sock puppet? Correct Google link is [38], 35,700 hits. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the sake of the dam geeks. Kappa 20:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm for keeping the entry -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.142.210 (talk • contribs)
Keep all the dam articles, or give a better dam reason why they should be deleted! --MisterHand 20:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep The dam thing belongs here! Flyboy Will 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
keep <insert dam pun here> plus keep all the dam articles listed today J\/\/estbrook 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- JJay 21:22, 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 speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Bullards Bar Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kappa 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all the dam articles, or give a better dam reason why they should be deleted! --MisterHand 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep this and all other dams nominated today.Gateman1997 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or face eternal dam-nation. Flyboy Will 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- JJay 21:23, 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 speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Melones Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kappa 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all the dam articles, or give a better dam reason why they should be deleted! --MisterHand 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm running out of dam puns. Flyboy Will 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Gateman1997. -- JJay 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Pedro Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Kappa 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all the dam articles, or give a better dam reason why they should be deleted! --MisterHand 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Oh no, not the DON PEDRO dam! Flyboy Will 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Gateman1997. -- JJay 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Oaks Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kappa 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. It seems that someone doesn't like dams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.142.210 (talk • contribs)
Keep all the dam articles, or give a better dam reason why they should be deleted! --MisterHand 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep dam it, Jim! Flyboy Will 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Gateman1997. -- JJay 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shasta Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kappa 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep If we have an article on fuck, we should certainly have one on dam. Flyboy Will 21:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Gateman1997. -- JJay 21:25, 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 speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Kappa 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all the dam articles, or give a better dam reason why they should be deleted! --MisterHand 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep even though the title is quite blasphemous. Flyboy Will 21:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Gateman1997. -- JJay 21:25, 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 speedy keep per overwhelming consensus. Dams are major public works. FCYTravis 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pine Flat Dam

Delete I propose deleting this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Dam geek's reference book. --Choesarian 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - major public works projects are highly notable. Is this vote for deletion done in good faith? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep All of these dam articles are either informative, or workable stubs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep the dam article, per ChrisRuvolo --MisterHand 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all major public works projects.Gateman1997 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and that's the last of them! Thank you everyone, I'm here all week. Flyboy Will 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Gateman1997. -- JJay 21:25, 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 speedy delete - unreferenced. -- RHaworth 04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik_hidle

One line, non-verifiable article. Who is this guy? What is the Eltor function? Smitz 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete added CSD tag. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete; why not speedy? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
delete non verifiable Jcuk 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. HappyCamper 03:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humor Ed

A fake and non-existant episode of Ed, Edd n Eddy? What's the point? --Khoikhoi 20:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Jcuk 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fake epsode and difficult to find information on it. Most likely unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fake. Stifle 00:49, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Anyone voting keep is welcome to rewrite it. howch e ng {chat} 19:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hair_police

nn band vanity also appears to be copyvio TMS63112 21:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

keep appear to have discography, allmusic listing, verify copyright issues MNewnham 21:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per MNewnham Jcuk 23:00, 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 23:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Movement and Action for Social Services (MASS)- India

NN org, google test provides 1 other website besides linked site J\/\/estbrook 21:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

comment google search here
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert and probably a copyvio. Stifle 00:48, 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. HappyCamper 03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H.F.K.

Fails WP:V only 14 goggle hits non related. [39] Possible Hoax. Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non verifiable. Jcuk 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 00:48, 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. HappyCamper 03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambusiness

Neologism with 0 google hits MNewnham 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
either send to Wiktionary or delete Jcuk 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:48, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 漫画

This is the English Wikipedia. Why do we have a page with a Japanese title? --Khoikhoi 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I don't even think the search engine for English Wikipedia can even accept those characters. 23skidoo 22:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Yes it can....however the average English keyboard is probably incapable of rendering them, you have to cut n paste. That having been said, the characters do seem to point to words that when Anglicised sound something like Manga. Jcuk 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nothing links to it, and nothing ever will. Flyboy Will 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ It's possible to search for this article by typing in with the correct input methods, and it doesn't require a special keyboard or hardware to input Japanese text. However, thinking about it, I don't know if this article can be useful or not. Having one extra article with not many words doesn't seem to make any difference. Also, I made a list of redirects of Japanese articles, such as 折り紙, 日本政府, etc. They redirect to their English counterparts. But on futher thought, if a person doesn't understand English and types those characters onto "search", maybe they shouldn't be reading the English Wikipedia at all? --Ichiro 03:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete On the second thought, these articles may not even show up on most computer which doesn't have Asian font installed, so it will be useless for most people. But then again, does anybody reads every article on wikipedia? --Ichiro 03:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect - nothing wrong with redirecting this to a disambiguation page in English. Better yet, move the article to an appropriate disambiguation page title. --HappyCamper 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, regarding redirection in English, this title is written the same way in three languages, but are pronounced differently. It's mainly because the fact that we Japanese people, borrowed (and never gave it back btw ^^) Chinese characters and we are still using them today. We developed different pronounciations, but we write the word 漫画 in the same way it is written in both languages. So which one of the reason why I created this article, but right now maybe this article is pointless. --Ichiro 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another comment, the text 漫画 in both Japanese and Chinese, refers to the same thing, comic books. Japanese even uses the word manga to describe American Comic Books. However, in the context of English, the word manga (漫画), strictly refers to Japanese comic books and not comic books in general. So there is a difference.--Ichiro 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I forgot about this subtelty. Well, as they say, 'redirects are cheap' :-) Would it be better to redirect to manga instead then? --HappyCamper 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I am happy for this as a disambiguation page. It is quite reasonable to suggest that a Japanese user might not know the English word for something and might type in the Japanese word (above) and then want the English words that it means (it is one word in Japanese, 3 words in English). They might be confused which word it means, so this is reasonable. They are looking for English words, but don't know the English words to look for. I can see the use for this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete why the hell would anyone search for that title??? Grue 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If we have a Japanese Wikipedia, transwiki this to it, otherwise delete per Grue. Stifle 00:48, 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. HappyCamper 03:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fumifugium

While John Evelyn did coin the word, its related to something else. Probably a hoax google +fumifugium +sex +cigar scores 0 hits MNewnham 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Jcuk 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Condemneth to Wiki-Hell!!! BD2412 T 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Leitmotif Even if it were true, the style of language used is inappropriately subjective. It reads like somebody was trying to see how much they could get away with having on Wikipedia. I vote: delete. 23 December 2005
Delete with a possible BJAODN. Stifle 00:46, 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. HappyCamper 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global delivery

Incomplete original research MNewnham 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Jcuk 22:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:45, 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 (nomination withdrawn). howch e ng {chat} 19:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Ward

NN Session singer MNewnham 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable. Jcuk 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Au contraire, my friends! -- Robin Ward had a million-selling hit, "A Wonderful Summer," that hit #14 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the fall of 1963.[40][41][42] This alone establishes her notability for Wikipedia. Neither the author of the article nor the previous poster did their homework. Save for a complete rewrite. B.Wind 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I used the three references to start a complete rewrite of the article. If all go well, I should have a more worthwhile one for here... and hope this meets with people's approval (and after I post "Part II", I can use a few keen spotters for finding gaps and typos). B.Wind 07:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, good enough for me, although I DID do what seemed a pretty thorough search engine search. Having said that in view of the above, I hereby change my vote to Keep Jcuk 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Article has been substantially rewritten - I guess thats the problem with submitting stubs, if it had started even half the way it is now it would have never entered the AFD process MNewnham 15:16, 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 keep. HappyCamper 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Orientalism (book)

~~Fixing mis-formatted AfD nomination only. --Metropolitan90 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete - per nomination. The article is exceptionally content-free. It solely consists of a (the?) list of chapter and subchapter headings, in addition to quotes from the work in the introductory paras. D.valued 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - How can a 2000-word article be "exceptionally content-free"? It is anything but the case that "it consists of a (the?) list of chapter and subchapter headings, in addition to quotes from the work in the introductory paras." "D.valued must have failed to scroll down... Ah well, errare est humanum. Mark K. Jensen 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Orientalism is a well-known book by a prominent author, regardless of my own views about that author. However, the entire "detailed synopsis" is unencyclopedic -- it's basically a summary of each page or group of a few pages of the book -- and should not be kept in this article. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
KeepKeep as is, a highly influential text in post-colonialism. However, Saad is particularly hard to digest and while the summary of the text is open to revision and argument it is a powerful start to understanding Saad's intentions.--Porturology 07:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This currently looks like just a dump of someone's notes from the book, but could potentially be turned into a decent article by someone who was knowledgeable enough about the text to turn them into coherent paragraphs. But in the end it is actually a better article on the book than most of our articles on books, which tell you absolutely nothing about the contents. Not really an encyclopedia article yet, but a start. And yes, the book is notable enough. --Fastfission 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep the subject is encyclopedic. It's an influential work in scholarly circles. Durova 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Fastfission. Stifle 00:45, 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 speedy keep per general consensus that high school articles are to be kept. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Quartz Hill High School

~~I see nothing this entire page thats makes this worthy of an encyclopedic entry. The fact that the school exists is not enough for a wiki entry. Jporcaro 21:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep, per precedent that all high schools have been kept, and that this one meets the WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 21:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, good article, valuable to the citizens of Quartz Hill. Kappa 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Like every day, I support all high schools. -- JJay 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is not a stub, has verifiable info, and is notable in the area. -Willmcw 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per my usual reasons and per Gateman Jcuk 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCH. Even after some fluff removal, this meets required content requirements. Also, I've added a notable alumni. --Rob 23:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above. Calsicol 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain While this is a particularly well-written school articles, it is nonetheless an article about a school for which nothing spaecial can be said. I see nothing in this article which raises this school above anything ordinary. Howevere, I am abstaining from voting to delete school articles as long as discussion at WP:SCH is ongoing. D e nni ☯ 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Quartz Hill just became a lot more notable. It shows why we need more school articles. -I added some info about the arrests. - JJay 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep clear past precedent to keep high schools. This one is among the better and more informative of the high school articles as well and it is too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep — can AfD focus more on articles that are likely to get deleted? This is getting silly. High school articles are approaching a bad-faith nomination IMO. — RJH 16:33, 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. HappyCamper 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Orbital VX Corporation

~~NN software corp associated with myorbital.com, already speedied MNewnham 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
~~If theres an article that this can be Mergeed with great, if not delete as (almost) unverifiable. Jcuk 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:44, 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. Note that this page was deleted by Deltabeignet as a speedy earlier. HappyCamper 03:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Dave Mann And The Lategates

~~Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Ya know was quite impressed with the 3,430 google hits........till every last one of them took me to the same webforum! Delete unverifiable Jcuk 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 00:43, 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 REDIRECTED. -Doc ^ask? 23:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] sithism

~~A definition. Any content is covered on [Sith] Obina 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sith Jcuk 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
redirectBanana04131 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Boldly redirected to Sith. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:54, 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. HappyCamper 03:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Nautical Almanac (band)

~~NN Band, fails WP:MUSIC MNewnham 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Delete Self promotion (or whatever it's called.) Probably unverifiable too, as the website you're taken to seems to be run by them. Jcuk 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 00:41, 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. HappyCamper 03:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Directing Duos

~~Maybe there's an article in this topic, but this is just a bare list of two notable pairs and one that that author likes Richfife 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete - Looks like the creator is an employee of The Brothers Strause (look at his copyright attests in his contribution history). This list appears to exist to equate his employers with the Wachowskis and Coens. --Richfife 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. It's a sound idea, but needs a lot more content. For instance, discussion on how the DGA doesn't allow co-directors except under certain circumstances, Robert Rodriguez withrdrawing from the DGA for this reason, etc. --MisterHand 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep...sorta....pretty darn weak one though Jcuk 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete A3, no content other than links. Stifle 00:41, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] SAM Pro Enterprise

This appears to just be an advert for a relatively obscure piece of software; looking through lots of google results, I could find advertising and directly copied press releases, but no serious material. I marked it to be verified, but no response, so I assert that it's unverifiable or not sufficiently important to be encyclopedic and should be deleted Mozzerati 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I think this article was made by the company makeing the software. (User talk:Tripletmot)--Banana04131 22:35, 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. Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laser Invasion

From this link, a game called laser invasion exists, but not with the plot described in the article. Banana04131 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn Banana04131 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep article about NES game. I believe this article began as a hoax - I haven't been able to find any info on a title with that home-invasion plot. The second editor categorized the game as an NES game and dated it 1991, clearly identifying it with the same game the article linked by the nominator is about. Here's another article. That game, one of only a few hundred licensed NES games (and by a major developer Konami), does warrant an article. I jumped the gun and rewrote the article as a minimal stub for that game, then reverted so that others could see the article about the game in question. My rewrite, the one I vote to keep unless someone can verify the home-invasion game, is here. ×Meegs 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten by Meegs I'll be bold and just change it. Banana04131 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:29, 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. HappyCamper 03:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JotSpot Live

spam spam spam, glorious spam. Delete --MisterHand 22:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Banana04131 22:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough. utcursch | talk 03:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete reads like an advertisement --Darrylv 23:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable whateveritis. Stifle 00:39, 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. HappyCamper 03:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pastor Harry Walther

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine MNewnham 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep but edit for NPOVJcuk 23:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable pastor. --Last Malthusian 13:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. FCYTravis 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is not even close to an encyclopedic article. Cleary biased. May be kept if completely re-written. Jporcaro 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per FCYTravis. Stifle 00:38, 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. HappyCamper 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Pitchcock

Fabricated entry with no references and no value - Delete Tim Fellows 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: NN-Bio. Nonsense, really... KC. 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pending references: I gave the author benefit of the doubt on this one, and put the "unreferenced" tag on here, but it does seem to be pure fiction. --MisterHand 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. Flyboy Will 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have now added references to back up the article, which can be verified by reference to Church records.

Sorry to have gone about this in the wrong way, but, stupidily, I accidentally posted the article before I'd mentioned the most important aspect of Alfred Pitchcock - that is, his design for a more efficient type of stirrup. It has often been argued that the old design resulted in undune pressure on the instep area of the foot, and, over time, can lead to various medical problems, including excessive pronation of the feet.

I'll have to check some of my medical evidence, and then I'll finish it off.

Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Unsigned comment left by Archibald Wednesday

What are you talking about? There isn't a single source listed on the page Pitchcock's notability (the stirrup invention)! --MisterHand 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, what else do you want? I've given the Church records, and now I've checked I've given medical evidence, and also links to pages with descriptions of the areas of the feet that could be damaged, and that Pitchcock intended to save. (Sorry for not signing the last comment, btw, I'm a bit new to this, as you might have guessed)

Um, and, sorry, but can you clarrify what you mean by "Pitchcock's notability (the stirrup invention)!" - Archibald Wednesday 12:16. 20th December 2005

Delete - neither reference cited (further reading) mentions Pitchcock. No evidence anywhere to suggest that he is anyone. Similarity in name to Alfred Hitchcock suggests a hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes I know neither of those mention Pitchcock, they're about the areas of the foot that the old stirrup design damaged, and that Pitchcock's design protected. As far as I know, Suffolk Church records aren't online at the moment, and so I can't provide a link to them. As for his similarity to Alfred Hitchcock - that's partly why I've mentioned him. One of the reasons there has been interest in Pitchcock is because his name is similar to Hitchcock. In all honesty, an alternative stirrup design is quite boring, and I would have ignored him, has it not been for the comical similarity of his name to Hitchcock, and it is in this way that most people will come across him. I'm sorry I can't provide more references, but he is quite an obscure figure, and there aren't many sites that contain obscure local history on the internet - Archibald Wednesday, 1:41, 20th December 2005
  - If, by your own admission, he is an "obscure figure," then he has no place here on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. --MisterHand 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete non verifiable Jcuk 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In reply to MisterHand: I'm sorry, but I do not agree with your last statement at all. I don't want to get too heated about this, but, I feel that I should defend myself by quoting Wikipedia's first of the five unchangeable pillars which states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I think the word "specialized" is important there, since it does suggest that Wikipedia goes beyond including every day knowledge that can be Googled and found anyway. Notability, on the other hand, is a controversial topic anyway - and indeed, the article you cite contains numerous references on why Pitchcock should be included as well as why he should not. As it states, if he is not important, no one will search for him, and, as such, will not constitude a significant server load. Indeed, having read that, I feel even more so that this is a valid entry for Wikipedia.

Now, I'll admit that Pitchcock is an obscure figure, however, I don't see that as a reason for not including him, nor the fact that there is very little about him on Google - if anything that should be a reason FOR including him. Now, I also know that he is perhaps not the most important figure in the history of the world, but I still think he should be included:

1.) He is an historical figure in the town of Bungay, and is known in the surrounding areas. Indeed, he is viewed upon in rather a sympathetic life, as a voice of common sense that was ignored (despite being right about his alternative design), and this is something that many people in the surrounding areas feel they can sympathise with.

2.) His alternative stirrup design, although unsuccessful does present an interesting thought - after all, his design was superior, but, due to poor "marketing" if you want in the middle ages, it never took off. It's quite an interesting parallel to modern life and shows that "marketing" has always been important.

3.) The similarity of his name to Alfred Hitchcock presents him as a slightly humorous figure, and does provide a wider interest for people - I don't doubt Wikipedia is browsed by people looking for articles that attract their attention and curiosity, and I believe he does that.

4.) I also think his re-design of the stirrup is interesting in light of contemporary events, mainly the Peasants Civil War. It does reflect the contemporary attitude that things should not stay the same - admittedly, on a much smaller scale that the civil war, which believed the fundamental basis of society should change, but it does suggest that attitudes existed at many levels of the peasants psyche. - Archibald Wednesday 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I accept it is probably verifiable/verified, but he is utterly, utterly, non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Stifle 00:36, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global wireless Internet Backbone

Delete Hyperbolic ad copy Richfife 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio, and so tagged. 81.193.159.230 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Changed template and placed on copyvio page. -- JJay 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This has been sent to copyvio handling. Stifle 00:35, 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 and redirect to Quizzing. howch e ng {chat} 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National Quiz Circuit

Self promotion for NN corp MNewnham 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, Quizzing.co.uk is pretty well known, amongst the Quizzing fraternity at least: they organise the UK leg of the World Quizzing Championships for example. Matthewmayer 23:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep per comments from British editor Matthewmayer. -- JJay 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

comment I'm British myself , and I've never heard of it. google of 'National Quiz Circuit' brings 4 hits. Respecting Matthermayers position, I'll designate this quizcruft MNewnham 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge The title of this article suggests that this is the National Quiz Circuit. A more appropriate place for this article would be in a section on a page about Quizzing Ltd as it is their series of quiz events rather than something as official as this title suggests. Other quiz circuits are available, and the title makes no reference to this either being UK specific or company specific. Jw6aa 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree that a merge to Quizzing.co.uk would probably be best. Matthewmayer 01:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Matthewmayer. Stifle 00:35, 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. howch e ng {chat} 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reproductions

University film club. Produced Martyr Machiavellian likely to be deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyr Machiavellian MeltBanana 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to NUS Faculty of Law, no need to merge since all of this is already listed there. - Bobet 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge if need be otherwise redirect as per Bobet Jcuk 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Bobet. Stifle 00:35, 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. HappyCamper 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Barlow Compound

Googling on "Barlow Compound" gets hits (just 121), but "Barlow Compound" along with the name of its purported discoverer, Blackfield, gets zilch. I'm calling hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete apparent hoax. Kappa 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete This has been researched in Barlow's book, "The Compound." It is not a well known book, and is published by a small company, so it is understandable that there are no results for it. The company does not keep online logs of their books.User:Amenos42 This vote is actually the second edit of Amenos (talk · contribs), not Amenos42. Amenos' first edit was creating the article under discussion.
Do not delete I've been searching the internet for an article such as this for ages. I have seen a national geographic special on this a while ago. Look it up there if you'd like.User:luaplevap This vote is actually the only edit of 141.158.5.152 (talk · contribs), not luaplevap.
Delete Apparently an interwiki link from another dimension. :-) Crypticfirefly 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Crypticfirefly. Stifle 00:31, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ^ask? 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Mole (emcee/producer)

"Jonah Mociun" (the Mole's real name) produces only 12 unique Google hits. We don't need this level of obscurity in Wikipedia. Madman 23:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. Notable performer and Google hits aren't the only criteria. Besides, if you Google "The Mole" and "Whirlwind World" together you get nearly 400 hits, and they all seem to refer to this individual. Searching for Google notability using an MC's real name doesn't work unless the MC is really well known. 23skidoo 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
keep as per skidoo Jcuk 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
keep - I like that Wikipedia preserves the underground and its key players as much as the goings on of Madonna and U2, and certainly punk groups lesser-known than the Mole have made the pages. Moodybrutha

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. HappyCamper 02:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Brett Compeau

Recreation of previously deleted content, no such player existed MNewnham 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. Article is not true, he is not in the HHOF. -- JamesTeterenko 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Tried to find out whether it had been previously deleted but couldn't find it. There are absolutely no reults at all for a Google search on "Allen Compeau" see [43]. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete A complete crock. No truth to it. OK, we've been given an empty net to shoot at, this one's EASY Chris the speller 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete unverifiable Jcuk 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Chris the speller. Stifle 00:30, 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. – Rob e rt 03:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian Sketches

I think it's too NN, and no one really knows what they're talking about in the article. -- King of Hearts 23:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - The topic is not bollocks and as most definitely IS notable enough to support an article. That said, aside from non-NPOV praise, there's not much there now. There is much better coverage in the paragraph about the sketches in Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov. I don't oppose deletion just because the page adds nothing to the bigger article, but I'd rather tag it NPOV and leave it as a stub to encourage development ×Meegs 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep exceedingly famous composition, indeed the most famous piece by Ippolitov-Ivanov. You'd recognize it if you heard it. Desperately needs cleanup. I'd do it now but I'm at work; I'll try to get to it later. Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Calsicol 01:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Wish they came up with a better translation from Russian for the piece. Caucasus Scetches or something. Flyboy Will 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and wait more than a minute before tagging something for afd next time :( - Bobet 01:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
keep-- I buffed it without adding or subtracting any facts. It is now a respectable stub or short article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alteripse (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2005 December 20 (UTC)
Keep, it has improved greatly ×Meegs 18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Ghirlandajo 07:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep per Alteripse. Stifle 00:29, 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. Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Itisaneggpudding.com

Appears to be a non-notable website made by a group of friends. Bezthomas 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a delete vote. David | Talk 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of web directories. Stifle 00:29, 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. – Rob e rt 03:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bar bet

it's sifferent from the common bet only for drunkness. NN Melaen 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as neologism, dicdef, slang, barcruft...Eddie.willers 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase is not a neologism, the article is not a stub, and the title is not slang. And there are plenty of sources on the subject of bar bets. Keep. Uncle G 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Well Done, Uncle G. With that much new material, I hereby retract. Eddie.willers 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, thanks Uncle G. Kappa 03:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Uncle G. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - very obviously. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Emphatic keep - the term may have originated in a bar, but has been in common parlance for decades. B.Wind 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - possibly merge with an article about gambling? Jcuk 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A toast to Uncle G. -- JJay 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Origins

piffle masquarading as fact. bad capitals too. BL kiss the lizard 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete - nothing salvagable here Barneyboo (Talk) 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - the article is linked very prominently in Ocean. If the content is valuable, it should be merged into that section in Ocean. ×Meegs 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - but surely there's an article in Wikipedia that talks about where the oceans came from? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per TikiWiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is nothing in Wikipedia that explains where the oceans came from. I was hoping that other users could help expand this article in time, but appearantly no one has. Roman Soldier 01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

-how about recreating the page under Origin of the World's Oceans? Roman Soldier 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I think the best way to go about it would be to include that information as a section in the Ocean article, and then if that section gets so big that it doesn't fit well in the main article, it would then be appropriate for it to "bud off" as a separate one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As Roman Soldier points out, there seems to be nothing on the Wikipedia on this topic. The closest that I could find in a quick search was a brief mention at Early bombardment phase. Unfortunately, this article is not was is needed. This article should be deleted, and hopefully someone will soon create a non-stubby Origin of Earth's oceans, which will cover the different theories on the ocean's origins. ^Blank^Verse 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename the current, stubby rewrite. ^Blank ^Verse 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I've left a note at Talk:Ocean#Origin of Oceans? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Proven to be highly relevant. See Google "Results 1 - 20 of about 145,000 English pages for ocean's origin (0.30 seconds)". The topic is also distinct from "Ocean(s)", in that it can be expanded with sub topics, such as "non-scientific theories" which would be inappropriate for a standard "Ocean" page. "Past Non-scientific theories" as to the origin of the ocean might reference examples of Greek Mythology, and "current non-scientific theories" might reference modern day religious belief(s). We should not force topics into mergers based on a common word, or into constrictive brevity as a result. Topics should be given room to grow where there might be interest. Good candidates for this might be topics that are 1) highly relevant and 2) distinct, by virtue of the types of sub categories that could possibly follow. This topic is both and has been prematurely put at risk for deletion. Moreover the user might not continue to contribute if they feel the environment is overly critical and has wasted his/her time. The user was correct in understanding the value of the topic as separate from "Ocean(s)". I have added a few additions to the topic to improve it. A reference and internal link should be placed on "Ocean(s)" to Ocean Origins --TikiWiki 05:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but rename - looks stubby, but at least it's a start (I agree with BL Lacertae's original comment though. What was there when she put the notice on looked rubbishy). The name needs an overhaul though - I'd suggest Origin of the Earth's oceans or similar. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Rename per above. Some moons may have oceans as well, so it is necessary to distinguish the world. An explanation is probably needed due to Giant impact hypothesis, which stripped off a good portion of the Earth's surface layers. — RJH 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Grutness Jcuk 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Trite. Simplistic. The number of Google 'hits' has nothing to do with this articles significance. The article contributes no information. 82.38.97.206 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL

CommentIt's relevance is a verified fact. Significance can be an opinion as it seems to be in your comment. A contribution should stay as long as it's relevant to a reasonable number of people. It's not trite. Kids write papers on the origins of all kinds of formations for school. They could pick this up on a google search and find Wikipedia. --TikiWiki 00:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep There should be an article here about the origin of the oceans. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment After a week and a half this page still hasn't closed. I'm still shocked that anyone even nominated it for deletion. All of the crap on Wikipedia and we can't have an article about the origins of the oceans? And the capitialization problem can be solved simply by moving the page. Roman Soldier 02:32, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] December 19

[edit] Worms schemes

[edit] All Things Forgotten (Band)

[edit] Adam Ostrowski

[edit] Allen Bolyard

[edit] Florian Segginger

[edit] Elektronikticaret.org

[edit] Nyoplaid

[edit] B-major

[edit] Frontiers of Science

[edit] Fabian Basabe

[edit] White rose challenge walk

[edit] Black Dragon Temple Society

[edit] Inevitability theorem

[edit] Spectacle BASIC

[edit] Desktop_post-it_sticky_notes_and_how_to_send_them_to_others

[edit] Compair Maxam

[edit] John A. Castro

[edit] Laredo SDA

[edit] Riki-Oh

[edit] AwesomeRadio

[edit] Aileen Passloff

[edit] H.A.M.B.

[edit] Romso

[edit] Al queda number 3

[edit] Neo-patriotism

[edit] Cingular experience

[edit] Circe's Rule

[edit] City of chicago pipe band

[edit] Chris phelan

[edit] Clan Toru

[edit] Clan fate

[edit] Allan Brett Campeau

[edit] Rodes of rome

[edit] Capital Scholars Program

[edit] Rachel Kent

[edit] TYF

[edit] The Suburbanites

[edit] I-def-i

[edit] Influation

[edit] Shmeng

[edit] Splunge

[edit] Mae sakharov

[edit] IRV - Sample election - favorite season

[edit] List of metropolitan areas in Australia by population

[edit] Matys Brothers

[edit] Caffeine logic

[edit] ISmart Create

[edit] Kgmb rt

[edit] John Ianni

[edit] Luke Ong

[edit] Louise Torp

[edit] Tropical flowers

[edit] Spartan (weapon)

[edit] Urapopstar, URAPS Awards

[edit] Seth Oberlander

[edit] Magical nonfiction

[edit] Stephen Quadros

[edit] Palbar Couluers

[edit] Guillemots (band)

[edit] Tath

[edit] Ellis Lawson Banister

[edit] Maxeen

[edit] Nernberg corollary

[edit] Telephonemail

[edit] Smithsonian Platinum Technology 21st Century Pioneer Partnership Laureate

[edit] Marlins Stadium

[edit] DiscussionBoard

[edit] Elzafir

[edit] Classical Theism

[edit] Michael Clipper

[edit] Eclectic metal

[edit] Central Space

[edit] Dr. Kitchener's pudding

[edit] Ci-Xi

[edit] Ten Fingers

[edit] Symfight