Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 1

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flashquake

1.7M on Alexa, doesn't meet WP:Web, not notable, no indication of notability or importance, Delete Dbchip 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete webspam almost. MONGO 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Under 400 genuine references on Google, including spam in web forums. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fillet (webzine)

Delete; completely not notable and not significant enough for WP. #1 hit on google for this is a post asking how to drive more traffic to the site. I don't think the webzine is even in "business" anymore and even when it was, it was insignificant. No need to have a memorial for a failed idea here. Dbchip 01:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete mostly redlined links, absolutely not notable.--MONGO 02:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I do not think it was even notable in 1996-1997.Das Nerd 06:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I found this page in which the zine creator asks how to get higher traffic.
• Delete. Webzines come and go, one that only ran for 2 years and has no lasting effects will be unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Couldn't find hits on writer's market search engines. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death rattle orchestra

Non notable. Only 3 google hits Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per charges above --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Of those 3 Google hits, at least 2 are from user-submit web sites similar to Wikipedia. Obviously non-notable. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 13:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• WP:MUSIC is my friend. Delete.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 16:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG and as passing the litmus test for musical nonentity, a Myspace page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was This is a fascinating article. A situation ripe for administrator discretion to overrule the debate and retain an immensely interestin....oh....whatever. DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feigning interest

This isn't really an article. It's a few sentences of someone's opinion. Normally, I say "fix it" but I fail to see how a proper article could be written on this topic. It would either be opinion (forbidden by WP:NOR and WP:V) or maybe a definition at best. Friday (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Personally this looks to be the most one could give on this article. It is more of a dictionary entry than encyclopedic. Das Nerd 01:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Durova 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Flapdragon 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or send to wiktionary--MONGO 02:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with all of the above. Catamorphism 04:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Odd article. Long history. Could be part of a larger psych article but I'm not going to recommend merge, Bye. Herostratus 08:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Matt Crypto 09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sheep-delete--SockpuppetSamuelson 09:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• What an interesting article. Such fascinating content, and I'm delighted that somebody wrote it...ah, what the hell. Delete. Peeper 10:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  •  ;-) — Matt Crypto 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Social skills. --StuffOfInterest 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - heh this was my 1st article. Pretty lame, tried to add content, just never worked. wiktionary it is. -Ravedave 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M-Love

Non notable. (Google) Link looks like spam --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per charges above --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a "head count" or a vote, so you really don't have to put yourself down twice. The closing admin will take any intelligble nominations that doesn't say something like "abstain" as a recomendation to delete. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete shameless self-promotion--Hraefen 01:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete big deal? Nope.--MONGO 02:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Supergroup? Not notable. Herostratus 08:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 13:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG, WP:SPAM and probably WP:Complete Bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Friday already deleted the article, just closing the discussion. --RoySmith 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vlad Prost

Personal attack. Durova 01:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Personally upon seeing this I would have nominated it for speedy delete at a nonsense attack.Das Nerd 01:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Large farva

WP:NOT a slang dictionary; at best, redirect to Super Troopers. --Alan Au 01:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete can see no reason to keep as per nom. Das Nerd 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Flapdragon 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fanbader inc

Unable to verify, Google returns zero hits [2], probably does not meet WP:CORP. --Alan Au 02:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't even verify the town existed. Delete. Peyna 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears not to exist.Herostratus 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The company uses all natural dyes, etc., but it appears not to have risen to a level of success to even be mentioned on Google, so they're far from verifiable and far from notable enough to be appropriate encyclopedic content. Geogre 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable even if it exists... Olorin28 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No such place as Breckenreid, Ontario. Probably a hoax. Luigizanasi 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. It is patently absurd to call these things Laws of Energetics. The first two or three are laws of thermodynamics and have been around forever. Most of the rest are either moot or proposed. To retain this article borders on the incoherent. I hope those expounding cleanup and de-POV get their writing boots on right now. I came this > < close to deleting anyway. I would observe that unreasoned votes in a debate such as this should be rejected out of hand. The article faces serious charges of WP:NOR and without justifying your vote one way or the other, you should expect short shrift from the admin trying to interpret the debate. It's pretty plain to me that this material belongs in an article about the academic, rather than an article pretending to be about principles of energetics, established or moot. -Splash^talk 02:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of energetics

Article appears to be the original research of User:Sholto Maud, as per the discussion at ths articles talk page. (To be specific: the first three "principles" are centuries-old results from physics, yet are presented as if they were new-found jewels.) linas 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is one of a number of related deletion debates, you may wish to study all of them before forming a judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum power
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principles of energetics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy quality
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum empower

• Delete. linas 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is based on H.T. Odum's work, are part of an established body of knowledge and are based on published research. Guettarda 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It may be based on Odum's work; however, by the authors own admission, it is pure original research. I've nothing against Odum; however, this is not the right way to write about this stuff. linas 02:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to be more precise: Odum appears to be an ecologist, yet this article appears to be about physics. As such, it would earn a failing grade if submitted as an essay in a college freshman physics class. There may be some principles of energetics that apply to ecology, but this article does not describe them.linas 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What is with the header on there? Seems like OR to me from that alone. Wikipedia is not the place for peer review of scholarly articles to take place. Peyna 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A shame that wiki is not the place for peer review of scholarly articles. What is it for then? Sholto Maud 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia. For a list of some things that Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOT. Peyna 05:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the header that was there and replaced with an {{original research}} tag. Peyna 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I object to the label of "pure original research". I do not admit to this. Odum proposed principles 4, 5 and 6 and their corollaries in the referenced text. There needs to be an entry which details Odum's contribution to this field. I can write a different introduction, but Odum's proposals should be kept. If one reads Ecological and General Systems, one will find that Odum used the principles of physics to examine, model and analyse ecological systems beginning with analog electronic circuits. This reveals more about the ignorance of the AFD nomination than of any statement of fact about Odum's work. If there is "a right way to go about this stuff" then the author is invited to comment on this in the discussion section of the article.Sholto Maud 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Present the information as an objective presentation of Odum's work. Then it might survive as an article. Peyna 03:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How's does it read now?Sholto Maud 04:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not yet. Principles zero through four have got to go. Principle one is a quote from Sir Isaac Newton incorrectly attributed to someone from the 20th century. The 2nd and 3rd principles are taught in introductory freshman physics classes. Mis-stating basic principles of physics and attributing them to Odum is wrong. Odum is a smart guy; this article makes him look like a crank. linas 05:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep with a cleanup εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Put any useful information in Energetics. It sure needs the boost. --Apostrophe 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The intention was not to "Mis-state basic principles of physics" nor to attribute any of the first 4 to Odum. Principle one was not a quote from Newton, but correctly attributed to Hertz. The intention was to give Odum's statement of the principles in his words, and those leading up to them. I will remove the contents. I was wrong to think that wiki, like the principles of scince, was collaborative and emergent. My apologies. I yeild Sholto Maud 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it gains acceptance by scientists in that field. -- Kjkolb 05:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 05:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. I draw the court's attention to the second paragraph: This article pays tribute to Odum's statement of the principles of Energetics. Reference to the first four principles are included only to orient the reader and contextualise Odum's work. As noted, some researchers consider the Onsager reciprocal relations are loosely held to be the fourth principle, and so the situation is moot. Are we here to pay tribute? I think not. Is that paragraph comprehensible to a general readership, as the second introductory paragraph of an article might be expected to be? I'd say not, and some of my best friends are chemists. Is the subject of Energetics covered? Why yes it is! So did the author expand that? No, they just added a link to the new article and pasted in their end-of-term paper. And does this article have much substantive content beyond the flummery at the top? Actually not much, and some of it is speculative. If anyone feels wqualified to judge how much of this is verifiable then do feel free to merge it, the redirect will not, I think, be needed. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Apology My apology to the court. I have been a little desparate in my recent words & not used to the the level of attention, voting & review. Wiki has been of great benefit. I honour you all for your attention to this work. Odum was a great thinker, but we need not tribute. I get the feeling that there is some acceptance for the need of an article on energetics, and such an article might be the most appropriate place for some acknowledgement of Odum's proposals re 4th, 5th & 6th principles. If the court approves of such, I seek help in merging and non-original researching the history of energetics together with a better statement of Odum's work. I do not have alot of time, but I am at your service. Sholto Maud 07:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and continue Cleanup. I did some copy-editing to make it more encyclopedic, but it could do with more by someone with greater subject knowledge. The suggestion to merge is also one with merit considering the short length of the Energetics article.--eleuthero 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Gazpacho 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, remove POV and rewrite. Karol 06:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it is true that H. T. Odum was one of the founders of ecology. It is equally true that many early workers in this field seized upon thermodynamics and later information theory without really having a proper understanding of these rather abstract subjects, and hence came to grief in various ways which are still not well appreciated by many ecologists. OTH, as Linas's comment shows, not many physicists or mathematicians are aware of how physics and math has been used (abused) in ecology to dress up in fancy language some very questionable ideas. My point is that I think it would be valuable to have articles addressing the uses/misuses of mathematical and physical concepts in ecology, but sadly, I don't think many are well qualified to do this. No-one should attempt who has not studied at the very least ecology, thermodynamics, and information theory textbooks at the graduate level as well as having studied the relevant literature in all of those subjects, which is absolutely vast. So, while I agree in principle with those who suggested that the article be kept but greatly improved, I fear that that (unless I take a hand myself) the chances of this happening anytime soon are slim indeed.---CH 03:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (For those who know me mainly for my gtr interests, in previous instars I studied information theory and ecology.)

Even if this page were to be stripped of 99% of its content and remain a stub for 3 years... that is still not a reason to delete it, the way I view Wikipedia at least. I have encountered so many pages on less obscure topics that haven't been able to crawl out of the stub phase; but that is OK, as long as there is no OR and POV in them. Karol 16:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but with plenty of conditions. I basically agree with Karol. I went surfing and found this web page by H.T. Odum which is very enlightening. Odum is struggling with a legitimate question - the transformation and use of energy by life forms, particularly humans, and is genuinely attempting to use scientific concepts to deal with it, but as a hard science it falls short. He needs, as Karol said above, a better understanding of thermodynamics and information theory. I think a lot of people have picked up on the buzzwords, but have less understanding of the scientific aspects than even Odum had. It is an article about a legitimate object of study, but its going to take some serious work by some ground-based personnel to keep it from becoming a pseudo-scientific babblefest. PAR 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Caffrey

NN Flapdragon 02:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A "state renown chef" whose renown and restaurant are unknown to Google. Flapdragon 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no notablity--MONGO 02:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the linked image of the flier for the resturaunt (added since the AFD tag) makes it abundantly clear that the article is a joke -Meegs 04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete contacted friend from area, they never heard of it either. Das Nerd 07:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. --Impaciente 08:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Herostratus 08:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum power

Page appears to be original research into some basic principles of physics. linas 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is one of a number of related deletion debates, you may wish to study all of them before forming a judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum power
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principles of energetics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy quality
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum empower

• Delete. linas 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• STrong Keep - H.T. Odum's signature idea, well referenced. Guettarda 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move to maximum power transferMerge to maximum power theorem, which is what the article actually describes, and remove references to Odum's work, which isn't. Gazpacho 03:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support I support this merge if it can retain reference to Odum and the significance he atributed to in the functioning of ecological systems as the '4th' principleSholto Maud 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  If we have an article on Odum's principle, it should be separate from the one about electrical systems. The two are connected only by name and analogy. Gazpacho 04:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Huh? How is Maximum Power not Odum's work? Guettarda 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    1. Odum did not discover the principle of maximum power transfer in electrical systems. That goes back at least to Thomas Edison.
    2. Odum also did not discover the laws for the rate of heat transfer. That is due to Fourier and Newton.
  • If you take those two away, what remains is little more than a redirect to maximum empower. Gazpacho 03:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article describes maximum power efficiency and maximum power transfer. Odum used such in his analysis, modeling and simulation of ecological systems, and proposed it as the 4th "principle". Widely regarded as the "father" of ecosystems ecology, Odum's work is historically relevant and notable. Sholto Maud 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  He may have used it, but he certainly didn't invent it, at least as far as this article describes. Gazpacho 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is no claim that Odum invented it in the text. There is a claim that he proposed it as the fourth principle of energetics. If someone else proposed maximum power as the fourth princple of energetics before Odum, then this needs to be mentioned. Please include references to those people who have proposed that maximum power is the fourth principle of energetics (or thermodynamics) and then the article will be more relevant. Sholto Maud 03:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  To clarify the point, I have removed the parts that have nothing to do with Odum. Gazpacho 04:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• It might be good for someone to give an example of the electronic circuits Odum used to model and demonstrate the maximum power efficiency in ecological systems. This might help clarify the confusion. Sholto Maud 04:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep now that I have removed the non-Odum bits, at Maximum power principle, with appropriate disambigs. Gazpacho 04:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that the core of Odum's work has been removed it is worth much less as an article. Sholto Maud 04:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (second or third vote by this user Gazpacho) Maybe I shouldn't vote on this. Sholto Maud 02:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  This is silly. Are you saying that if Odum can't get credit for ideas that existed in their current form before he was born, as opposed to his original contributions, you don't want an article? Gazpacho 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• No. I'm saying that a key component of Odum's ideas was the application of the electronic understanding of maximum power efficiency to ecological systems. Thus the graph and table are key components to the article and an effective rendition of his approach. I am not saying that Odum should get credit for ideas that existed in their current form before he was born. He proposed that this should be considered a principle of energetics with wider application than electronics, that it could be applied in ecology. Sholto Maud 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  If you want the article to discuss his version of the principle and how he applied it, add that. Gazpacho 18:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until it gains acceptance by scientists in that field. -- Kjkolb 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• In the discussion page I report back that the previous edition had been given the ok by scientists in that field Sholto Maud 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteKeep(I don't know why I wrote delete) and rewrite this badly written article. Karol 05:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

comment Ok :). So. 1. It seems that the article on max power theorem could benefit the table and graph that used to be on the max power site. People happy if we put them on the max pow theorem in the section on efficiency? 2. This maximum power article could be deleted. 3. People criticised the article and the principles of energetics article because it did not properly refer to the history and development of the theorem. I notice that the maximum power theorem article has no historical discussion. It would benefit from this, with examples of applications. The history of the application, might be the best place to discuss Odum's use of the theorem and suggestion that it should be considered the 4th principle of energetics? How does that sound?Sholto Maud 07:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: to repeat in different words what I said in one of the other related AfDs: the immediate problem is that (as I guess) Sholto is not familiar with the physics literature, while Linas is not familiar with the ecology literature. The trouble is that almost no-one else is either! Linas: Sholto is right about Odum being notable as one of the fathers of ecology, and even about Odum's influential but questionable ideas which he is trying to describe in these articles being notable. Sholto: Linas is right that you have not written a good article even regarding a good summary of Odum's suggestions and later work in ecology, and he is even more right that to someone knowledgeable in physics, Odum's suggestions about energetics will appear rather cranky. The best solution would be for someone expert in ecology, information theory, and thermodynamics, to write much better versions of all these articles, but such a user will prove hard to find. Oh well, if nothing else at least this incident shows the value (and difficulty!) of breaking down barriers between disciplines. I suspect ecologists have more to benefit from a better understanding of thermodynamics and information theory than vice versa, but that it would be far easier to a smart physicist to read enough ecology to be able to speak the ecologists's language. Linas, if you want to spend some time, a very nice semipopular book is Paul Colinvaux, Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare, Princeton U Press, 1978 (also reprinted by a mass market publisher). After that, you would have to do a literature search in ecology and start sifting through literally hundreds of papers with the help of an abstracting service, then read the most relevant dozen or so. You also have to have studied a book like Cover & Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Wiley, 1991.---CH 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm on the hook. Looks like Principles of energetics will survive the AfD, and so I shall take a shot at editing it so that it has what I might have expected to see there. I am also concerned about the technical content of emergy: it sounds more like a concept used economics, where there are explicit equations that can value an object today based on the value that its parts may have had some time in the past. Although I know I've seen such equations in the economics lit, I certainly wouldn't be able to name these equations. Again, my complaint is that emergy sounded like something the economists have already been working on for quite a very long time and even awarded each other nobel prizes for (e.g. the LTCM folks).linas 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to draw the courts attention to § 16.11 Generalized Treatment of Linear Systems Used for Power Production (in M.Tribus (1961) Thermostatics and Thermodynamics, Van Nostrand, University Series in Basic Engineering, p. 619). Tribus draws conclusions and variables about maximum power efficiency of thermodynamic steady state from an article by Odum, H.T. and Pinkerton, R.T., "Time's Speed Regulator," American Scientist, Vol. 43, No. 2, p. 331, Apr. 1955. Tribus seems to be referring to this as the founding article in the analysis of "peak power". Would anyone like to comment on the implications of this in terms of our discussion of the status of maximum power re: Odum and re: the laws of thermodynamics? Sholto Maud 11:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of supermarkets

Very long, very red list, totally without WP:CITE. Thus if I came to this list looking for a Kenyan supermarket (for whatever reason) and saw Uchumi for example, I'd then have to Google "Uchumi supermarket" to verify that I wasn't being hosed. However, if I skip wikipedia entirely and simply type "kenyan supermarket" I get Uchumi as the number two hit. Thus we have long, difficult to maintain list that serves no purpose to our readers and is better done by an existing category. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and categorise per Brenneman. Saberwyn 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary list as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Split - Lists are useful for things categories can't do, identify elements of a set for which no article yet exists. Citing is good of course, but as a list, it provides a place to start to create articles. List of Supermarkets in the United States is very valuable, and I suspect this, or a split version of this (with a List of Supermarkets in X would be as well. I am not a supermarket historian (though they do exist), and someone should be able to make this more effective still. dml 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if you want to make a todo list, make a WikiProject, not a list. Peyna 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep by dml. Consider deletion again after most redlinks are gone and categorization can replace it. No need to make a WikiProject for this. Kusma (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to remove the redlinks, however in the past when I've attempted to purge lists it has met resistance. Also please note that where does already exist Category:Supermarkets. I should have made that explicit in my nomination, sorry. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "after most redlinks have become blue links", because only then the list will be redundant. It is the red links that currently serve as the source of information unrepresentable in categories. Kusma (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, how else can we quickly see which supermarkets still need articles. - SimonP 05:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you need something to write about, use Wikipedia:Requested articles. This is a mainspace article in an encyclopedia, not (per Kusma) a defacto wikiproject, and to use it as such is a mistake. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP. Herostratus 08:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but may need splitting up across continents. — JIP | Talk 08:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the only use for this is as a to-do list of articles that need making, use Wikipedia: space. I wouldn't object if this were moved to Wikipedia: space and the redirect axed, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What next, List of shops? --Ezeu 10:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Man In Black. --Squiddy 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but recommend Cleanup. Ve3 17:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a list of shops, and there is no indication that the list is presenting supermarkets of importance -- just a list of supermarkets. Therefore, the inclusion criteria are only "is it a supermarket." As for SimonP's question, the answer is RfA and user space and wikiprojects. What credit to anyone or anything is merely a "list of articles not appearing in Wikipedia?" That sort of thing is what namespace is for, not article space. (I.e. put it at Wikipedia:Supermarkets Needed, not Supermarkets, where there are none.) Geogre 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redlinks are a standard practice in the article space. Keep as a verifiable, userful, finite, and maintainable list. Turnstep 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I agree with JIP that it may need some splitting up because it is huge! --Coolcaesar 19:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or Wikiprojectify, or userfy) as an inappropriate list. As others have already pointed out above, the appropriate tool for compiling a list of supermarkets with articles is a category; lists of topics without articles do not belong in the main namespace at all. — Haeleth Talk 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but recommend Cleanup! It's been around for three years it has been edited on an almost daily basis since then by many, many different people, so it's clearly useful. The WP:CITE complaint is wrongheaded; so long as the national sub-pages or even the individual supermarket pages are cited, we're fine. This is just an organizational page; the cites would go over 40k all by themselves. Mareino 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename as "List of food-retailing chains" or something. "List of supermarkets" sounds like a list of individual buildings. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Citations for a list of supermarkets? You are joking aren't you? Sumahoy 00:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would I be joking? Welcome to Wikipeida, by the way. Edit this page and look right under where edit summaries go and see where it says "You must cite the sources for your edits so others can verify your work." And in response to Mareino, please do re-read my nominatation, where I specifically use the red links as an example of a problem with citation. Oh, and less than 150 edits so far this year is a fair few, but your "almost daily" comment isn't accurate. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh dear! Someone may have spent too long in an ivory tower. A list of supermarkets is a useful thing, but few other resources have one. Wikipedians can see what supermarkets there are in their country with their own eyes, and I'll trust them on the whole. i think you are being absurdly rigid and literalistic. Sumahoy 18:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not that much useful. SYSS Mouse 05:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Categories do not replace lists. CalJW 10:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but name could be improved. Rhollenton 18:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CLS. Kappa 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and split to make it easier to maintain for users familiar with a particular region. The information itself is easy enough to verify. Bmdavll ^talk 11:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crafting Worlds

Delete. Reads like it was written by Tristan Pope himself. Jumps from third to first person references repeatedly. Screams vanity.--Drat(Talk) 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tristan Pope Tristan Pope Tristan Pope. rodii 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tristan Pope's vanity page. Gazpacho 03:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Web Site not notable. Pure vanity. -Meegs 04:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. Delete. Herostratus 07:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity pure and simple.Das Nerd 07:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wikify for the challenge, then delete. --Ezeu 10:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Last Malthusian votes Delete. As does Bob Dole. --Last Malthusian 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per tristan pope (humor). Also make Ezeu cleanup and trim Miguel de Cervantes as apparently he wants a challenge. KillerChihuahua 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. Discussion elsewhere has resulted in an agreement to use the encyclopedic summary (added after the nomination) and not make an exhaustive list of its uses as a prop. Essentially, this is a merge and redirect result. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of appearances of the FN PN90 in media

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia, particularly in the case of lists that demonstrate no trend (making it an idiosyncratic non-topic, per the deletion policy) and cannot ever be complete. (Or, if you prefer, listcruft.) This article is just a list of pieces of fiction where the gun in question appears as a prop, often with little more impact, importance, or relevance to the piece of fiction than the appearance of a particular model of car or a particular model of furniture.

While this article could theoretically include some brief analysis of how the P90 is used in fiction, it doesn't currently have that info (thus a merge is inappropriate), and there's already some analysis of how the P90 is used in fiction in FN P90 (an article which is in no danger of becoming too large, removing the need for a content fork). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Section at FN P90 covers this just fine, and is all we need on the matter at this point in time. Saberwyn 03:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge all content. Its not trivia for someone interested in the P90, nor is it indiscriminate. The P90 is one of only a handfull of firearms to achieve such celebrity status, and very notable as such. Its a discredit to the 'pedia to try and block people's access to this information. Ve3 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with covering its role in popular culture (symbolism, typical use, etc.). I just don't think there's any value in a list of each and every appearance of the gun as a prop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I was refering to a comprehensive list (that includes both ficion/non-fiction uses). A understanding of its role in popular culture arrived is best arrived at by knowing the nature, amount, and kind of its roles. By censoring a actual listing, it denies readers the abilities to come their own conclusions as easily. Also, as a side note, the prop FN90's are often actual P90s (firing blanks). Ve3 03:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Hero

Probable band vanity, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. No Allmusic page, no hits on google for "cartoon hero" and the name of any of the band members. As such, Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the page is being vandalized by two different IPs. Be sure to look at a clean version when you judge it. -Colin Kimbrell 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Ezeu 11:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, its amazing how many nothing bands people try to put into Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 05:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This Article was an attempt to bring a bit of humour to an intellectual community, and has since been highly vandalized by two people who know the band and are purposly attempting to have the page deleted. If given the chance to fix this page, it will be made appropriate and was not intended to be selfindulgent or vulgar. If any changes should be made it should be to the deletion of the accounts of the two individuals who seem to take pleasure in vandalizying honest efforts and give little thought to the concerns of others. (Note: Unsigned edit by User:209.226.83.2) -Colin Kimbrell 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: That's not entirely accurate. There were four different IPs trying to vandalize the article, which is how I noticed that it existed in the first place. After I got done reverting the vandalism, though, I realized that the article probably didn't meet our guidelines for band inclusion, and thus nominated it for AfD myself. We aren't thinking about deleting it because of immature edits by random people; we're thinking about deleting it because there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the band is notable enough (yet) to belong in an encyclopedia like this one. -Colin Kimbrell 06:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle jacobs

This is already up for speedy, but I think it should be here since it does seem to assert notability ("most amazing girl in the entire world", etc.) Obviously a very sweet gesture by Mr. Shrewsbery, but it doesn't belong here. As such, Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• A boyfriend saying of his girlfriend that she is the most amazing girl in the whole world is a sweet gesture but isn't an assertion of notability nor is it verifiable. She is a uni student whose partner is in love with her which is touching but not an assertion of notability. Speedy delete. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It also claims that she is "the most gorgeous girl in all of history", which I would certainly consider notable if it were true. If somebody decides to speedy this, it won't break my heart. I just want to make sure it's handled the right way. -Colin Kimbrell 03:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole does not make the subject notable. Speedy delete.Some guy 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Criteria A7. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as per Encyclopedist. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• If it turns out she really is the most gorgeous girl in all of history, I hope you guys will apologize. :) rodii 13:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suv tipping

Does not seem to be encyclopedic content, would like some community input. HappyCamper 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but see [3] —Wahoofive (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it's not yet real. But do see the link provided by Wahoofive, there's an expression in the army, "If you want something to happen, just start a rumour that it already has." Ifnord 05:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Kreydon 12:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic or hoax JoJan 14:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Edgar181 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The Oregonian wrote a sub-article a couple months back describing the website as bad comedy. I disagree -- I think it's hilarious -- but if that's the only Lexis hit I'm getting, it's non-encyclopedic.Mareino 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the entry has already been BJAODN'ed too... --HappyCamper 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this was copied with minor changes from cow tipping. Firebug 01:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.impulsegamer.com

Non-notable website; vanity post which I suspect came from the website's creators. Tom Lillis 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom abakharev 05:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Kreydon 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sutcliffe Jugend

Googling around suggests to me that this group may not meet the notability criteria for WP:MUSIC Tom Lillis 03:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment The Band's proper name seems to be Sutcliffe Jügend (with umlaut). Google seems to indicate that this band has a significant underground following and may have been pioneers in their genre. This discography shows that they released on least six indy labels. That said, the article as it is is next to worthless. -Meegs 05:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps it should be recreated with the appropriate diacriticals, then, and the current article turned into a redirect? The problem is, I don't know what one might recreate it with; the content is nearly beyond repair. Tom Lillis 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --Ezeu 11:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a very high-quality article, but notability seems to be satisfied (see the Allmusic page and Google). and I don't see any foundation for the claim of vanity. With some cleanup and wikification it could be a decent article. I've tried to fix some of the more egregious misspellings and awkward wordings, but there's a way to go. If it is keepable, arguments about quality should go on the talk page instead of here. Note: the official band site does not use the ü. However, to complicate things, the website says "Sutcliffe Jugend have decided to use the name SJ for all future recordings and Live Assaults", so maybe that's where the information should live. (Disclaimer: I've never heard of this band before, so this is not a fannish defense.) rodii 14:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per rodii. Zordrac 00:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimatefarscape

A Farscape fansite/forum, now defunct. Absolutely fails to meet any kind of notability standard. Tom Lillis 03:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the article, the forum is defunct as well. Delete.Some guy 04:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't consider this a tribute to a once existing community? After all the forum did exist, and thus it can be considered part of history of online Farscape fandom. I'd leave it and let it be. Keep. Szaman2 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial or a collection of minor trivia. Tom Lillis 05:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, good point. Never mind then :P Szaman2 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kreydon 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korem Dollar

Probable hoax. No hits on Google. Some guy 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 04:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can find no proof of it's existence, even as a slang term. --Bachrach44 15:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. On a personal note, I grew and live now in the general area mentioned and never heard of such a thing. Hoax or not, it definitely needs verification better than "somewhere" and "largely unknown." Mark K. Bilbo 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, author has not responded to my request for sources. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 02:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Waters

Meets none of the criteria for WP:MUSIC, as far as I can tell. But, they are signed by a recognized label, so... let's discuss. Tom Lillis 04:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I almost nominated for deletion but left a note on the author's talk page instead. Let's see if he can add more content. Some guy 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The page was just created yesterday and the band has released an album on a reasonable label. Allow time for the article creator and the WP community to add to the stub and make the band's natability clear -Meegs 05:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to wait, but let's be crystal clear on one thing. If you want to avoid deletion, notability should be covered in the very first edit you make. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I waited until they were signed to write the article. I say: they're signed; let it stand. D. Wo. 07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, signed and released an album on a reasonable label. Kappa 03:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The information presented later is of overwhelming importance. -Splash^talk 02:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 163.com

Delete and Merge with NetEase. Article has been around for a half a year, has no content, no real inbound links, site doesn't seem notable or has no indication of importance. Dbchip 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Delete and merge are not compatible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• All we need here is a simple Redirect to NetEase. Saberwyn 04:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I will also support a delete. Either way's fine by me. Saberwyn 08:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC) but not based on the arguments below. Saberwyn 09:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete mainly notorious as a source of spam. Dlyons493 Talk 08:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to NetEase. This is substub spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and NetEase as well - merely a couple of sub-standard websites. --Ezeu 11:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 13:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is the 10th most visited website in the world according to Alexa.com [4]. Way more popular than Wikipedia. Sumahoy 00:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Please do some research before making nominations. Chinese people won't be able to vote to keep this because wikipedia is banned in China at the moment. CalJW 10:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Currently the Chinese article zh:网易 (I think that's the Chinese name for the NetEase company) is more about 163.com than about the company. Also unfortunately just a 小作品 (stub). Anyway, keep and expand as one of the most notable websites there is. Kusma (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The world's tenth most visited website is certainly a highly notable subject. The article needs a rewrite but should definitely be kept. Cool3 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kappa 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carl redsnap

Article is probably a hoax. No Google hits. Article is also written in essay form. Some guy 04:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone could find evidence that I was unable to locate.Das Nerd 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete .0 hits on all major search engines. --Ezeu 11:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The beginning of the article says it all..."Very few people know Carl Redsnap..." Olorin28 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24eyes

Delete this non-notable web site. Rank is nearly 800k on alexa, practically no google hits. WP is not a web directory, doesn't meet WP:Web, article has no content or indication of notability or importance and makes me want a stub/template that included all the usual reasons. Dbchip 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as spam, assuming your stats are correct. Herostratus 08:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nuttin special
• Delete pratically advertising and otherwise non-notable. Cool3 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable). --Nlu 09:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natalia May

This is a 15-year-old aspiring singer who performs in community theater and has performed in Fort Worth. I could find no relevant Google hits. I wish her the best in her career but at this time she is not particularly notable. •DanMS 04:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to fail WP:BIO. All the best for this girl, but she doesn't quite make it on Wikipedia yet. Saberwyn 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hmm i cant believe it lasted 5 months. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD criterion A7. NatusRoma 05:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as nn-bio. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. I am not ready to speedy delete this just yet. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wingit1 Global

Spam/ Advertisement. Delete. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Some guy 04:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- first person adspeak. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Olorin28 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is the real result. There are four delete votes and one clean up vote (both clean up votes below were by the same user, who also vandalised this AfD discussion), so the consensus seems to be delete. — JIP | Talk 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Rankin

Has some notability (or claims thereof), but I am not convinced this person is notable enough for an article. I say delete, plus most of the Google hits are basically talking about a different person. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A real link is provided that confirms most of the facts provided. Mr Rankin is a viable candidate in the upcoming federal election in Canada, and thus should be maintained until at least after the election. Regarding the lack of google hits, the name Ben and surname Rankin are very common names.

Perhaps you are right. That is why I didn't put a speedy tag on it. However, I don't recommend that this article stay on Wikipedia unless it is verifiable at the least. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it is verifiable, I am actually thinking about turning my vote to cleanup εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a cleanup vote, I have more information about the individual that I am collecting and will fix up the page within the next 48 hours to a higher standard.

• Delete. Being a political candidate is generally not sufficient in my view to meet WP:BIO unless you have other significant achievements to your name. This guy is the President of the local Greens at his University and a political hopeful in the forthcoming Canadian elections. If there was an article on the relevant electorate in the 2005 Canadian elections, it should be merged to that page but he is not notable enough at this stage to have an article in his own right. If he were to be elected, he would then meet our notability criteria but I wouldn't have my money on it. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. Ifnord 06:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

""cleanup" The first-past-the-post system has meant that the Green Party of Canada, whilst attracting 5% of the national vote has yet to gain a seat yet. The candidates for the party, however, have been some of the most influential in shaping the environmental policies of the other major parties. Mr Rankin is a rising star in the federal Greens, and is fighting a race against a strong separatist candidate. Though he may not win, he is an important player in the Green Party and thus I feel deserves an article. He is as relevant as, for example Gary Lunn, an ordinary MP. As a rising protege in the 5th largest party in Canada, and the 4th largest pro-Canada party in Canada, I feel Mr Rankin deserves mention.

• Delete, non-notable member of barely notable political party. He can come back when he wins. Which I'm sure will happen. Hell, I might even accept a really strong second, because of his party's notability but total lack of electoral success. Lord Bob 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close: a politically ambitious university student in a minor party (0.44% of the vote in 2003, according to the Parti vert du Québec article). Call it promotion or call it vanity; what you can't call it is encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Parti vert du Québec is a different political party. This is a candidate with the Green Party of Canada. --maclean25
    • My mistake. Look! Still zero seats! Still minor! Still a minor part of a minor party! Still vanity! --Calton | Talk 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

""cleanup"" The previous user cites the Parti Vert Du Quebec article, but that is for a provincial green party. This is a federal election candidate. Refer to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051201.wxibbit01/BNStory/National/ The federal green party consistently polls between 4-9% of the national vote. The source provided above is Canada's most reputable newspaper. I don't detect any vane statements or promotional material, it appears to be a short biography of a candidate in the next election. He is included in the news media in Canada. Eg. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/060/

• Comment. There exists an article called Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election whose purpose is to pre-empt attempts like this by candidates trying to get a little free advertising. With the 2004 candidates, their article spaces are redirects. If the redirect turns into an article (like this one) it is simply reverted. There does not exist a 2006 version yet. --maclean25 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. There's borderline support for the redirect, but I think it would be a very unhelpful redirect. -Splash^talk 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concur

Delete it is a dic-def; crazy "I-did-not-want-to-know-that-fact" at the bottom. Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dictionarial. (Hey, I made up a new word!) --Apostrophe 05:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a new editor trying stuff out.Herostratus 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more than a dictionary article.Das Nerd 07:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Concur --SockpuppetSamuelson 10:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Concurrence Concurrency. BD2412 T 14:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. - Bobet 17:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect As said above Otus 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This should have been speedied as a joke article, per WP:VAND.-Splash^talk 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydroconstictulator

Hoax or attempt to create a neologism. Either way, it's not a real word, generates no Google hits and doesn't belong on Wikipedia Some guy 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - likely a hoax. constictulator also gives no hits google -Meegs 07:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just seems like the author was trying to create a new dihydrogen monoxide situation. Das Nerd 07:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wish they'd put in the effort they put in here to improve another article. --Impaciente 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Nlu 08:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsensectomise. Or if you prefer, delete. It's good nonsense though, but those rogue apostrophe's are just unforgivable.Peeper 10:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Cummin

The material is of a reasonable quality, but I'm fairly sure that every last word of it is original research. At the very least, it's research presented in a completely inappropriate way. Perhaps this belongs in Wikibooks, but not here. Tom Lillis 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. It's not necessarily original research, as it just describes Cummin's published work (which is OR of course). But it doesn't Google well, I don't see Cummins or his work as notable enough. Herostratus 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikibooks would not be an appropriate place for this. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. You see, deletion review does work. -Splash^talk 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hellogoodbye

This article was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellogoodbye, subsequently re-created and speedied twice, and eventually created as a redirect to Hello Goodbye. It was then listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review, where consensus was to undelete and relist it here due to new information being provided, namely:

Can we please get this undeleted? The page is now redirected to a Beatles song, which is just incorrect. The original page was deleted. At the RFD debate, it was claimed it didn't meet WP:MUSIC. This is untrue, however, the band has "gone on ... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country", that country being the US (see hellogoodbye's site [5]), and has been "prominently featured in any major music media" (receiving plenty of press coverage including [Alternative Press [6] and their video on MTV). Whatsmore, there are over 300,000 hits on Google and they are signed to a major label (Drivethru Records). Additionally, they've only released an EP and a DVD: not quite the 2 albums suggested, but not far off. Halo 12:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup OK, I suppose they have had or are having a "national tour". It's not the Rolling Thunder Revue, though, is it? Problem is -- and this is really getting to irritate me about D-list band articles -- is that there's almost nothing in the article that can be used to make a real article. "All merchandise designs, and even t-shirt screen printing is done by Hellogoodbye"... what a freaken joke. That means somebody is going to have to dig through the seamy underside of American culture and find this stuff out. The band wants the article but they're not willing to do the work. Herostratus 06:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Just want it to be noted that I have no relation to the band at all - I just know of the band and think they deserve an article. It should be noticed they're doing a PROPER national tour: when they are touring with 3 other notable bands as part of the Xbox 360 tour. Halo 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable band. Criteria is a guideline, and while this band may just squeak through I doubt anyone is interested enough to read an article the band itself isn't interested in writing. Ifnord 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Have an EP and DVD out on a significant label and there is a great deal of verifiable material on them on Google News see [7] and will be touring the US early in 2006 with Panic! at the Disco see [8]. They seem notable enough for mine at the moment. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Have heard of this band before, and they seem to have a growing following. --Impaciente 08:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --SockpuppetSamuelson 10:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets requirements. Turnstep 18:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; WP:MUSIC has been very good in simplifying AfDs of bands. I could not care less of having an article on this band on the wikipedia: my opinion is just to follow the policy. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if for no other reason than original vote was actually 1 keep, 1 delete, yet it was *very incorrectly* deleted! Zordrac 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this should not have been erased Yuckfoo 03:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if my statements earlier didn't imply it. I came to check the Wikipedia page about the band, and IMO they are notable. I've also had a go at cleaning up the page. Halo 13:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - meets requirements for notability of bands, especially for their being featured on several half-hour MTV programs, as The Real World, Dew Circuit Breakout, etc., as well as being one of the Top 10 bands on PureVolume. HarryCane 19:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob MacKenna

has been speedied already several times so better settle it with AFd-- -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with the speedy- no real reason to drag this through Afd. Friday (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy I see no means of notability mentioned. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• He seems somewhat notable, Dean's Dozen was a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.241.217 (talk • contribs)

• The user was just banned for repeatedly removing the AfD notice. 68.39.174.238 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and now vandalism. Um, he was endorsed by NAMBLA? Sheesh. Herostratus 07:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I went through three rounds of listing the thing for speedy, having the speedy delete executed, and then having the author create the damned thing all over. As for the NAMBLA thing... someone was actually vandalizing this non-notable biography as it was being written, which is what caught my attention to begin with. The whole thing is very hinky. Tom Lillis 09:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Consider blocking the page to keep it from resurrecting yet again. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The content has improved a bit. However, his only claim to fame seems to be being an unsuccessful candidate for a minor office. If it had been better written and not vandalised, we probably wouldn't have considered it a speedy candidate to begin with. That said, nothing has swayed me away from my opinion to delete this. Friday (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and protect from recreation. Failed candidates for minor local offices are not Wikipedia material. — Haeleth Talk 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article being considered for deletion? It is an interesting topic for those concerned with grassroots politics. I could easily see a high school kid, for instance, being assigned a project on grassroots politicians, and MacKenna would serve as an excellent source. I understand that Wikipedia is concerned with levels of "fame," but "Dean's Dozen" was a well-known concept, and this entry can actually benefit others. Taking it down will benefit no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 December 2005

There are certain guidelines for notability, hence WP:BIO. If you take a look at WP:NOT, you find that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 22:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but as I've explained to you, being a member of "Dean's Dozen" IS sufficient, in my mind. I'm not Rob MacKenna, and I can't speak for him, but I find his biography useful and interesting. I understand that the administrators are trying to maintain a positive web site, but I believe the actions of some have been heavy-handed and borderline abusive, particularly "Drini," who seems to take this far too seriously. There is no damage being done here, and people can benefit from this minor celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 December 2005

Well that is where we disagree. I personally don't see that being a member of the Dean Dozen as a criteria of notability. I also disagree in your use of the term "minor celebrity". But regardless, this AfD is important because it helps define a standard of what is notable and what isn't. Also please sign your comments with ~~~~ Thanks. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

192.195.66.44 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)I think we can agree to disagree, then, without deleting the entry. This seems like a minor battle for you to be fighting. I know you Wiki people take this site EXTREMELY seriously, but you can't let your personal opinions keep the public from receiving information that could be valuable. I doubt more people in this country have heard of "Popo Bawa" than "Rob MacKenna," yet there seems to be no problem with the "Popo Bawa" entry. I ask you to reconsider this decision to delete, and back off just a bit. Thanks, and I appreciate it. 192.195.66.44 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the only meaningful content is being listed in the "Dean Dozen" but there's an article for that already. --Ajdz

Isn't the whole point of this endeavor to let people edit and write things? This tyrannical and arrogant attitude about deleting certain articles seems to go against what I like about this community. Everyone needs to take a step back, remember what this is all about, and just leave the site up. If you don't like part of it, edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.214.15 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 December 2005

While it is true that anyone can edit almost anything on wikipedia, there still exists standards. In this case, standards of what is notable. If the consensus is that this person is notable enough, then the page will stay. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 04:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep - Dean was a major contender for the Democrat's Presidential candidate, right? And the thing he was most admired for was the way he marshalled supporters over the internet, right? Didn't Dean come from nowhere, and rapidly raise way more money than all the other candidates because he raised money over the internet in a way all the other candidates were jealous of? If this guy was a key member of his team why shouldn't he merit an article? -- Geo Swan 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those are reasons to have an article about Dean (which exists) or about the Dean Dozen(s) (which exists). Should we make a page for every Congressional intern too? --Ajdz 05:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you know he was just an intern? -- Geo Swan 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If you would read my comment more carefully, you would see that I never said he was a intern, that's just another example of unremarkable people who are "members" of something that gets an article (in that example, Congressmen get articles, their interns shouldn't). All the reasons in the "keep" vote above are reasons to have a Dean article, not one for each of his unremarkable minions. How unremarkable he is is clear from the text of the article itself, which spends a significant amount of time talking about how he was a well-known internet troll. --Ajdz 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But he was much more than a Congressional intern. He played a significant role in a campaign that will likely change the nature of US elections. People like that deserve discussion on a site like this.Seymour Crane 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This guy obviously submitted a vanity page. If he gets a page, then I should have a page, since I probably couldn't get elected dog-catcher, either. unsigned comment from User:70.60.113.37

• Sorry 70.60.113.37, but I don't think your vote counts, unless you log in. -- Geo Swan 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep - This is far from a vanity page. All the delete-happy people keep saying that Dean's Dozen deserves a page. Well, what happens when someone wants more info on a particular Dean's Dozen member? What if you want to know what happened to that experiment? MacKenna's FAILURE, believe it or not, is newsworthy! It provides a lesson in American politics and depth/detail to a concept everyone agrees was interesting. Look, I can understand how some people might view this as a vanity page. But you also have to admit this is a borderline case. And I always, always believe that more information is better than less information, so in borderline cases, I will always urge Wikipedia to retain the page. Look at it this way: Keeping this page hurts no one. Deleting it potentially does hurt information-seekers. I agree with the poster who mentioned "Popo Bawa" -- I could come up with a list of 50 pages less relevant than this one. This page has been around since September, and no one would have said a word if it hadn't been valdalized, which has apparently been fixed anyway. So just let this go, move on, and everyone will be happy.
• Delete. I don't see this as notable. Unencyclopedic writing and likely a vanity page. Bmdavll ^talk 20:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Mad Tea-Party

Non-notable web comic. Ifnord 06:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and suggest transwiki to Comixpedia. Ashibaka (tock) 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Croat Canuck 05:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: wikify and stub. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as above - Hahnchen 20:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. wikipediatrix 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsupialia Snooktavius

Hoax. No Google hits, suspicious text abakharev 06:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Their population is staggeringly low". it's as high as it's ever been - i.e., zero. delete. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Snook have no legs, and that was the closest I could get for an actual animal, therefore I believe it is a hoax. Das Nerd 07:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Impaciente 08:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possible speedy as silly vandalism. Someone is cocking a snook at Wikipedia with this. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Articulus nonsensicalis Deleto. Peeper 10:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Carioca 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nexge

Advertising spam for a quite unnoteworthy company, ∴ delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 07:06:59Z

• Delete as per nominator. Upon further research and evaluation, I am disabused of any notion that the article might be worth keeping. Tom Lillis 09:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Olorin28 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G3 silly vandalism and G5 work of banned user WK Mathews. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Overland

This is a hoax. A Google for "Sam Overland" "Habsburg-Overlanders" returns 0 hits. In fact, a Google for "Habsburg-Overlanders" returns 0 hits. Jkelly 07:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It also claims that he "received the Nobel Prize for Literature." That is demonstrably false. -Willmcw 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, created to troll Mother Teresa. silsor 08:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. An obvious hoax, could fall under the patent nonsense clause. It comes with pictures (Image:Overland.JPG) and sockpuppets proclaiming "We have the right to TELL THE TRUTH about Dr. Overland." --Prosfilaes 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I think I've already listed five or six spin-off articles relating to this hoax through the speedy delete process. This one should be no different. (I also suggest a careful review of all the edits by the creators of the hoax. They did a lot of manure-spreading tonight... Tom Lillis 08:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article claims that the disappearance of Dr Overland came as a great surprise. The disappearance of this piece of silly vandalism should come as no surprise as yours truly is just about to speedy delete it. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 far-right with far right. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Far right

Redirect to Far-right Rangerdude 07:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Far-right - this page is largely a duplicate with similar text. It used to redirect to Far-right prior to November 26th when an editor began reposting content there. Rangerdude 07:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

*Redirect as Rangerdude said. Content on this page can be deleted. (Actually, FWIW, I think "Far right" should be name of the real page, I have not seen the term "Far-right" with the hyphen used except as an adjective.) Herostratus 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep current article but move text from Far-right to this page and merge, per explanation from Cberlet as this makes more sense. Herostratus 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Far right, and move Far-right to this name. Herostratus is right, it makes more sense at this name. Saberwyn 08:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Approprately phrase vote and reasoning so the text at "Far-right" ends up at the namespace "Far right". Saberwyn 19:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current article then move Far-right. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Now a redirect to Far-right which is fine by me. Capitalistroadster 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep current article but move text from Far-right to this page and merge, because Far-right is improper adjectival entry name.--Cberlet 13:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, see also extreme right. Sam Spade 15:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Far-right.--Dakota ^{t e} 19:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move the article at Far-right to Far right, per several above. — Haeleth Talk 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do the least complicated thing such that all verifiable information from both articles is at Far right with a preserved edit history. Jkelly 23:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Far-right - and make sure redirects include both names. Extreme right is a different type of movement. Zordrac 00:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  No, it's a different type of POV and should remain a redirect ;) Gazpacho 00:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry. How are Far-right and Far right different POVs??? Perhaps you misunderstood me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for a merge at Far right. Gazpacho 00:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• This title should remain, material should be merged from Far-right. I would think that separate articles at Right-wing politics (a broad article discussing what it means to be right of center and giving an overview) Far right (covering right-wing politics that is at best on the margins of liberal democracy, such as the John Birch Society) and Extreme right (covering right-wing politics that rejects liberal democracy, such as neo-Nazism) would be the right breakdown. Or it could all go to Right-wing politics, the rest being redirects, if that doesn't make Right-wing politics too large. But clearly the nouns should win out over the adjectives as titles. BTW, if the person who proposed this wanted a redirect, why start an AFD in the first place? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please cite some sources portraying a useful difference between extreme right and far right, much less far-right and far right... The difference between Right wing politics and the far-right is well known, altho at chips urging I have cited it at Talk:Right-wing_politics#Please_be_aware. Sam Spade 18:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues. One is that the page name Far-right is just bad grammar. The second is the confusion over the use of the terms Far Right and Extreme Right. There are several ways to solve this, as we have discussed on Talk:Right-wing_politics#Discussion. I am arguing that the term Far Right is used differently by different authors, and I disagree that the term is always identical to "extreme right." This is disputed terrain among scholars.--Cberlet 19:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No one (to my knoweldge) is suggesting that these terms are always used in the exact same way by everyone, all the time. No term is, but particularly not an inherantly POV term like "Far right". BTW, I could care less if the content all ends up on Far right, Far-right, or Far Right, so long as its all in once place. Extreme right should simply be a redirect, based on its low number of google hits and lack of unique meaning. Sam Spade 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So why don't we just move the page Far-right here, and then have a focused discussion about whether or not there should be a page Extreme right?--Cberlet 19:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Sam Spade 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that that makes sense. We don't need 3 pages about the same thing. However, I am not entirely convinced that Extreme Right == Far Right. "Extreme" and "Far" have intrinsicly different meanings. Whilst the use of the word "Extreme Right" is less common, it is kind of like having Death Metal as a kind of hyper-extension to Heavy Metal. I don't think that anyone today disputes that the two now mean different things. Similar kind of idea. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

A vote to "Delete Far right, and move Far-right to this name." will not accomplish that, since this is a vote for deletion not a vote to merge and most administrators will rule that the vote to delete won, and do nothing to ensure that the page Far-right will be renamed. It's always complicated. The wording should be: "Keep current article but move text from Far-right to this page and merge." --Cberlet 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And note that a WikiAdmin can do this in a way that preserves the text editing history and discussion pages of Far-right.--Cberlet 14:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The text was already merged, and the edit history is meaningless. Sam Spade 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is one point of view. The discussion on [9] offers a broader perspective. In any case, the title "Far-right" is bad grammar and a lousy title for an encyclopedia entry.--Cberlet 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that your wording is more likely to produce the desired result; it's a needlessly over-complicated way of phrasing it, and it's not immediately obvious that it's not proposing a cut&paste. We should say what we want, and what we want is for this article to be deleted and the "good" article to be moved to the correct name. The only risk is that the closing admin may forget to make the move, and surely any user who notices the omission will be able to rectify it? — Haeleth Talk 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you are right, but I recently went through a vote where the majority wanted something renamed or deleted and the Admin ruled at the end of the vote that since there was no consensus to delete that simply leaving things the way they were was the proper outcome. There is a way to tag for renaming and moving and merging, as explained on this page:[10]; but instead, this is a delete vote. Anyway, we can argue that the intent is clear, so maybe I am just overly sensitive to my last experience.--Cberlet 23:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 02:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service Members

I don't think this meets WP:FICT... also, the novels are written in Urdu and I'm not seeing English translations. Tom Lillis 07:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Imran Series or even Keep if there's major expansion on this whole thing. The fact that there's no English translations is not justification for anything; but Imran Series is certainly not too long to demand that it be split out, as per WP:FICT.--Prosfilaes 08:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no particular need to merge, and helps counter systemic bias since there are no English translations. Kappa 03:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It needs to be merged or renamed; the current name is certainly too generic.--Prosfilaes 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swiftek

NN, no potential, recent article creation by anonymous user --Impaciente 08:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable Olorin28 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chimpanman

A joke made to look credible. No Google hits using Chimpanman Jessica. Mysid 08:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Could actually qualify for BJAODN. --Impaciente 08:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this hoax article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 08:13:58Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 02:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ocuview

Brought to my notice by User:JiFish, this lights up every button on the spam-o-tron. Starts with the company name as a weblink, the company is not publicly quoted, the products are rebadged not manufactured by them, Google shows no evidence of widespread links into their site, the article reads like an advert, and many Google hits on the product and company turn out to be sites where you can submit stuff yourself. Also written in the first person. So, a non-encyclopaedic entry on a non-notable rebrander of minor PC components. Cue the Vikings.... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete For all the reasons listed. --Impaciente 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto. --DJH47 08:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as spam.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because... wait for it... <falsetto> I don't like spam!!!!!!!!! </falsetto> Mark K. Bilbo 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Painfully obvious linkspam and vanity. Tom Lillis 08:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the revised page????

• Yes, we have. Ocuview is not notable, and the entire page is from their website. Please post a signature with your comments to prevent confusion. --DJH47 03:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'd prefer to see a seperate (possibly bulk) nomination for the other 3 related articles, because they weren't tagged or overtly listed or anything. -Splash^talk 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moth Complex

I have nomintaed this article for deletion as it appears to be a vanity article. The release date of this otherwise unknown band appears on the 2006 year page. As well the article has been created and edited by only one person. The band members pages are only stubs noting only that they are members of this band. A number of other pages should be nominated for deletion after the matter here is decided.

Benw 07:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC guidelines (points 2,3,6 and 7. I can't find evidence supporting a pass of the other points, but I only did brief AllMusic, MySpace and Google searches) While we're at it, if I'm right about this mob totally failing WP:MUSIC, can we delete en-masse Damien Murphy (band's drummer, substub), Vin McCreith (band's bassist, substub), and Learned My Lesson (band's first single, substub)? Saberwyn 08:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG - nothing even released yet, so how can they merit inclusion? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. However, as the page seems to flout WP:AUTO, I have taken the liberty of userfying the page and moving it to User:DanielHirst/bio. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Hirst

Was tagged as a CSD, but I find the article asserts enough notability to warrant proper AfD debate. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. 809 Google hits, and director of research at an institute appears to be something significant. His name also seems familiar, but I can't remember where I heard or saw it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep adequate notability for INTSINT, ProZed etc. Dlyons493 13:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Zordrac 00:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

you are thinking of damien hurst

• Very Weak Keep with a large BUT. Look at the contribution history - the article was obviously written by Daniel Hirst himself. Coming from academia, this sort of self-aggrandisation seems entirely inappropriate, and I think unless we can get someone who knows about this subject to write an unbiased peer-reviewed article, we would be better off having no article at all. Articles such as this undermine the integrity of Wikipedia Twrist 18:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Q: is D.H. notable enough, strictly looking at the facts from his bio? A: Yes. Q: how notable is D.H. if 850,000 articles were written already, and nobody other than himself has bothered to write an article about him? A: not that much, apparently. What is worse, I saw almost instantly this was an autobiography, I didn't need to look at the page history. That's why I find the argument used by Twrist even more compelling: as far as Wikipedia's integrity goes, this is not a good option. GregorB 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack page). (Yes, I am taking a relatively bold step in doing so.) --Nlu 09:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Morgan

Was tagged as CSD but I am presenting it for proper AfD because it asserts a modicum of notability. I vote delete. Note how all the wikilinks have been written as external links, even though they lead back to Wikipedia. Why is this? — JIP | Talk 08:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 03:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dee Brown (Illini)

In my humble opinion, non-notable (a college basketball player). Ingoolemo ^talk 08:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Even though I'm not a big college hoops fan, I've heard of him plenty of times, seen him on TV., etc. He's certainly notable. Google gets 293,000 results, and google news (subject to change) gets 1870 results. That's certainly notable. --Bachrach44 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A Google search for "Dee Brown" Illini gets 69,000 hits see [11]His Illini page shows he was an All-American and college player of the year see [12]. He gets 1,320 Google News hits see [13] and will be drafted to the NBA when his college career finishes barring serious injury. Capitalistroadster 16:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable athletes at major division I universities. And don't ask me to define notable or major, please... ESkog | ^Talk 18:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable basketball player. Carioca 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand; he was quite a big name last year and is on course to be just as big this year. (P.S. Go Illini!) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 20:56:29Z
• Keep LOL some kind of record breaker, even at college level, is notable as he is a prodigy and is highly likely to be very notable later on. Probable olympian. Zordrac 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per above reasons - seems to be somewhat notable (if Google hits are yer thing) Barneyboo (Talk) 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per everyone else. Sumahoy 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep one of the most recognizable college athletes. 18:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If he had not broken his foot in June, he would be in the NBA already. -- DS1953 00:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think all college athletes should qualify, but those who win major awards should. -Colin Kimbrell 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 03:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Chase

Was tagged as CSD but after reading the article and the talk page I find it meets the standars of a biography, but may still be non-notable. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The leader of a religious denomination is certainly notable. Logophile 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This biography is about the current leader of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. More work needs to be done to it and it will be tended to shortly. A simple Google of this individual brings up several dozen hits. He has authored nine press releases, been a guest on the Art Bell Coast to Coast radio show, and has been the subject of papers and a book written by the Professor Rob Balch of the U. of Montana as well as the historian Vernon Johnson. He is a central figure in the BUPC's history. He meets every requirement for a biography. User:Jeffmichaud
• Definitly Keep. To delete this page would be going against every standard of Wikipedia. Neal Chase has been one of the most prolific writers/contributors to the BUPC and has made more discoveries than can be counted in regards to the salient features of the truth to the Baha'i Revelation. He was the one who compiled the historical and accurate genealogy of Baha'u'llah that traces Baha'u'llah's lineage back through the Exilarchs seated on the Throne of David in Babylon,in an unbroken chain of father to son descendants of David all the way back to King David himself. He has been acknowledged by local and national media as being the one who accurately predicted the first bombing of the Trade Towers on February 26, 1993 as well as the Towers collapse on September 11, 2001 continually warning the world through press releases and published material of the exact scenario of the war in Iraq and the final attack on New York City. Neal Chase is acknowledged throughout the globe, in France, England, Austrailia, Africa, Russia, The United States, India, the Netherlands, the Dutch West Indies and the Comoroes Islands as the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, that descendant of David through Baha'u'llah who is seated at the head of the true Universal House of Justice. Whether you believe that fact or not, does not mean that it should not be given its equal space on this forum. This is the essence of Justice. The facts speak for themselves. User:Vwoodsong
  • Above was actually posted by 63.251.185.5 (talk · contribs)
• Keep. Deleting this page is to be actively against the provisions of the Will and Testament of Abdul Baha ! Rastaprezident
• Keep, as obviously notable. Carioca 19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as obvious as it gets. Zordrac 00:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep As I read the guidelines for biograpies this individual does not meet these criteria.

:This individual is still alive and does not meet any of the specific criteria for people still alive. If Chase has indeed authored a published book, and that can be documented, then this vote would naturally be Keep. Authoring press releases doesn't get over that bar. Googling '"Neal Chase" Baha'i' generates "about 100" hits — hardly "lots." (By comparison, Googling '"L. Ron Hubbard" Scientology' generates "about 779,000" hits — 7,790 times the Chase hits.) :Further, no reliable sources are cited for this article. The only sources are online which are considered dubious sources. As near as I can tell these pages are basically original research which is not allowed. MARussellPESE 14:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The original editor has finally produced independent documentation on notability. The books cited below can not be found at Amazon.com so they can't be verified. Many of the items noted below are not published or mirror sites, and there are several sources that wikipedia specifically bans: usenet boards and chat rooms. That's for other editors to clean up. However, the subject apparently has been the subject of much local media coverage, which does make it over the bar. MARussellPESE 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP (duplicate vote) As it is that the previous user is a member of the "Baha'i World Faith" who are in direct opposition to those who are Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant, it seems that the only reason this user would seek to delete this page is that it is about a person who espouses different beliefs than his own, hardly a reason to delete other than religious prejudice. Mr. Chase has a number of published works through Page10 Publishers Inc. as well as BUPC Publishers which are neither "Dubious" or misleading or otherwise. Mr. Chase is not only the author of several notable publications but also is the Head of a recognized religious denomination, whether the previous user agrees with this fact or not.user:Vwoodsong

• KEEP-His contributions, publications, and notability are as follows:

PUBLICATIONS

Neal Chase is the author of several published books, of note are:

• Lazarus the Sick World (1987) by Neal Chase
• Ezekiel’s Temple in Montana (1990) by Neal Chase
• e-Book: King of Terror (2003) Foreword and Afterword

He has also been published in Harper’s Magazine (February 1995), and the Anthology, The End of the World (1997) by Lewis H. Lapham

Anthology, Includes:

• Epic of Gilgamesh, Moses Genesis, Plato, Virgil, Isaiah, Mark, Josephus, Pliny, John, Augustine, Joachim de Fiore, Da Vinci, Columbus, Nostradamus, Shakespeare, George Washington, Mary Shelley, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Jack London, Freud, H.L. Menkin, Primo Levi, and Neal Chase

MEDIA

Radio and Television:

1. He has been guest on the Art Bell Radio Show in 1994,
2. He appeared on Michael Moore’s TV Nation, aired on NBC and BBC
3. He has appeared on KUFM Public Radio in Montana
4. And for 9 years hosted the television program Baha’i Phone-Live on MCAT from 1992-2001

Newspapers:

1. “Killing People to Get Elected” (1992) by Neal Chase
2. Published in the Phoenix Liberator
3. Articles about him and his work:
4. The Missoulian (January 29, 1991) “Baha’i: Deer Lodge Sanctuary)” Front page.
5. The Montana Standard (Feb. 9, 1991) “Ezekiel’s Temple in Montana!”
6. The Missoula Independent (July 17-24, 1997) “Millennial Fever” Front page.
7. The Missoulian (Sept. 20, 2001) “9-11: A Time to Weep”

ACADEMIC STUDIES:

Chase and his work is also the subject of several academic studies concerning the Sociology of Religion and the History of the Baha’i faith. Two of these are:

• Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements (1997) by Tom Robbins
• Expecting Armageddon (2000) edited by Jon R Stone

ONLINE publications resources:

Harvard University Committee for the Study of Religion

Wikipedia

Publications: “World Civil War”, referred to in 15 Wikipedia pages:

1. [14] Whose Assassination Sparked World War One?]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]
7. [20]
8. [21]
9. [22]
10. [23]
11. [24]
12. [25]
13. [26]
14. [27]
15. [28]

Other references:

1. Mason Remey and his Followers - 2002 edition
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]

Legal Cases:

United Nations (WIPO)

User:Jeffmichaud 23:07 2 Dec. 05

• Weak keep I just want to point out that the 15 URLs listed above are mostly wikipedia mirrors and open resources such as wikis. The "Other references" refer to personal websites and forums..... A teeeny bit of self-referencing is going on methinks... Nevertheless he is (as far as I'm aware) a religious leader

• Keep. Given his position in a real religious organization [33], his newspapers' appearance and his publications, he has passed the notability tests. Besides, I think this biography article has more information/assertion on notability than an average one in Wikipedia.--Hurricane111 15:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pepe Remey

Like Neal Chase, was tagged as CSD but I find it meets the standards of a biography, however non-notable. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The leader of a religious denomination is inherently notable. Logophile 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This is a biography of a central figure of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant's. His father Mason Remey was The Second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and Pepe was considered by many to be his successor. There were several different groups of Baha'is that formed after Mason's death over who was his actual successor. There are pages for the other leaders of these divisions. Pepe's deserves to stand along side of them as a significant number of believers believe he was the true Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. User:Jeffmichaud
• Keep or merge into Baha'i faith or maybe Baha'i faith (leaders) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitly Keep Joseph Pepe Remey Aghsan was the adopted son and successor of Mason Remey and the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith after Mason's death. This Pepe himself attested to even though there are those who dispute with this fact. On this page, as I'm sure it will evolve, it will site letters in Pepe's own hand that testify to this important fact, that he was a Baha'i and firm supporter of Mason as well as the successor of Mason - the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. He adopted Neal Chase as his successor and this page is of utmost importance and is extremely relevant to the unfolding of the Baha'i Revelation in the world. user:Vwoodsong

Delete Keep As I read the guidelines for biograpies this individual does not meet these criteria. *Pepe Remey is deceased and the criteria is simple: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" The BUPC is a very small, if vocal, group and its size of the is very difficult to independently verify with any degree of accuracy. I can find no online references that specify this group's size but this: ReligiousTolerance.org notes that "They claim a membership approaching 144,000" [34]. This site is mirrored in many places but there's no way to confirm the number. Adherents.com' widely mirrored "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents" site doesn't mention the BUPC. (The section "What is a "religion" for the purposes of this list?" is pertinent.) This doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of "widely recognized" and "enduring record." *Further, no reliable sources are cited for this article. The only sources are online which are considered dubious sources. As near as I can tell these pages are basically original research which is not allowed. MARussellPESE 14:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The original editor has finally produced independent documentation on notability. Many of the items noted below are not published or mirror sites, and there are several sources that wikipedia specifically bans: usenet boards and chat rooms. That's for other editors to clean up. MARussellPESE 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• KEEPAgain, the previous user is a member of the "Baha'i World Faith" who are in open opposition to the teachings of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant and thus want to delete any pages that profile members of the BUPC simply because he does not agree with the teachings that these individuals represent. A clear case of religious prejudice. Mr. Remey was the succeeding Guardian of the Baha'i Faith after Mason Remey who has a profile page on Wikipedia that is not in contest. Mr. Remey was an intergral part of the development of the Baha'i Faith and his page needs to be continued and expounded upon as the previous user has correctly cited the BUPC are numbered in the thousands throughout the world. user:Vwoodsong
• KEEP In response to the question:

"Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?"

Pepe’s widely recognized contribution to the enduing historical record of the Baha’i Faith concerns his specific efforts and focus on preserving and rehabilitating the good name of his father Mason Remey, and the validity that in fact his father Mason was the true Guardian after Shoghi Effendi, and not a Covenant-breakers as non-authoritative people have levied against him.

Anyone and everyone that supported Mason as true Guardian was supported by Pepe of which he contributed a tremendous amount of personal and historical information pertaining to the Baha’i faith, which is recognized by both the Guardian groups and sans-Guardians alike.

In their publication “Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him” the sans-guardians quote Pepe as an expert source and eye witness authority pertaining to the history of the Faith, the role of his father Mason, and his personal stance regarding his own role as guardian. No history of the Baha’i faith can ever be complete without the recognition of Pepe as the world’s leading eyewitness authority and chronicler concerning the person of his father Mason Remey. Though their motives are plainly to malign Mason and disparage Guardian groups, and confuse the issue, and though the do not produced the letter which Pepe had written to them, nevertheless their reliance upon Pepe as their source inherently shows his own undisputed and lasting contribution to the specific belief of the Baha’i faith – let alone the fact that he truly the guardian after Mason Remey and the grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Baha in the aghsan line. Other scholars of threw Baha’i Faith, such as, Brent M. Reed, has also commented on Pepe’s role in this as well: “letters from Mason Remey and Guiseppe Pepe, critical to understanding what really happened during the mid-1960 period of Mason's Guardianship.” (Reed, Beliefnet.com)

Sources for Pepe’s enduring contribution is further documented in:

• “The Most Mighty Document” (1979) by Dr. Leland Jensen which is recorded in
• “The Baha'i Faith: A Historical Bibliography” (1985) by Joel Bjorling
• “Bibliography of English-Language Works on the Babi and Baha'i Faith” (1990) by William P. Collins
• “Charles Mason Remey and the Baha’i Faith” (2003) by Francis C. Spataro
• “Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him” (1997 updated 2002)
• The Babi and Baha'i Religions: An Annotated Bibliography ( 2005-6) by Denis MacEoin

Online

• Harvard University, Committee on the Study of Religion
• Wikipedia

Etc

1. Fact Bites:Mason-Remey
2. Fact Bites:King David
3. Bahai-Library Bio
4. Baha'i Faith Site
5. Mind Spring
6. BeliefNet Discussion
7. Mason Remey.NET

• User:Jeffmichaud 00:03 03-Dec-05

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gray order

Proposed delete: fan fiction. Starwars.com has never heard of this supposed order of Jedi who walk the line between Light side and Dark, and Google shows mostly fan-run RPGs. Could certainly be notable if it were official, but it isn't and isn't. Let's be rid of it. -Marblespire 09:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-canonical Star Wars fanfiction. Saberwyn 10:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I may be incorrect in my reasoning, per the anon below. If my previous belief is incorrect, Delete as a very minor plot hook in a Star Wars videogame.
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless a source is provided. Gray Jedi might be canon, but they certainly aren't notable enough for their own article. Furthermore, all of the history in the article is false. -LtNOWIS 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Leave- its from Knight of the Old Republic. play the game youll see it.
  • anon contrib by User:210.233.201.33. ~Mbsp

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 03:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Pagano

This, too, was tagged as CSD but I find it asserts notability. Delete because it's not notable enough. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Nlu 09:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete under 700 Google hits, but author is a genuine editor so this is probably not vanity even if it reads rtather like it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - directed Funkstörung music videos if nothing else. Seems notable enough. Zordrac 00:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - i originally posted this page because i felt Mr.Pagano's work merited inclusion in sections such as video artist. Mr.Pagano curated/produced a DVD which was reviewed in the WIRE magazine and shown at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. This DVD, Reline, was a collection of a new generation of video artists - including one piece by himself featuring music by Twerk. i didn't mean for this to be a vanity article, but I suppose it's up for you to vote. BlueProcess 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 03:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forest dweller

Contains very little content and is unlikely ever to grow beyond a dictionary definition. Stemonitis 09:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - could very easily be turned in to encyclopaedic article with a bit of help from some environmental activists, for example. I believe that the term exists in paper encyclopaedias too. Zordrac 00:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded from current dictdef during Afd Dlyons493 Talk 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, likely link/search term, potential for expansion, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 03:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pwnership society

Neologism. Delete. -Sean Curtin 08:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; neologism. Johnleemk | Talk 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - A neologism, to be sure, and not in widespread use - but a funny neologism. Conceptually, at least. BD2412 T 13:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• de1337 nonsense. Can it be speedied? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• D31373 - Pwned! Zordrac 00:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - And "pwned" used to be mildly funny, too. --Alcon San Croix 00:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 what content this has into Podcasting.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper podcasts

This absolutely reads like a copyvio. At best an essayish ode to the topic rather than an encyclopedia entry. Marskell 08:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — It seems like a potentially encyclopedic topic, if it's massaged a bit. I couldn't locate any obvious copyvios. — RJH 01:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. No obvious copyvios. "Media convergence" is pure POV speculation. Merge "Why news papers podcast" to podcast article. -- Perfecto  01:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: relisted for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research and speculation, or userfy if author wants to keep it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per RJHall. Banes 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a magazine piece, definitely reeks of copyvio or original research, and is simultaneously not very informative. Accordingly, I vote to lose it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep , seems like a damned good written article with great research thesis statements. Just needs some ommission of the POV and it'll go far.-MegamanZero 19:37 8,December 2005 (UTC)
• On second thought, merge; the content is neat and somewhat informative, but lacks the stability and forwardness of other articles, if the article can't be found a suitable place, or can't be wikified, delete.-User:MegamanZero 20:55 8,December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic and does seem to come form an anon for advertising their site/nwespaper/wahetever --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Podcasting--MONGO 20:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Pi Sorority

Non-notable article about some random sorority. If we had these then wikipedia would be full of them. Stifle 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; no claim of notability made. Just another sorority. Johnleemk | Talk 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - single-school orgs are not inherently notable, and this one has done nothing above and beyond the norm. Wait until you have a half dozen chapters or so. BD2412 T 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Punk

A non-notable website, Alexa ranking 579,519. The sub-genre/culture itself (if you call it that) may well be worthy of an article, however this isn't it. Randwicked 09:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Fairly notable among punk listeners. Low Alexa ranking is due to that the site was more popular around election times. Punkmorten 21:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB karmafist 18:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The website is quite notable amongst punk fans such as myself. Although, it should probably be a disambig, with a page for the movement being the main article. Bands like the Dropkick Murphys are now achieving much success playing a conserative brand of punk, whereas the website has lost any mainstream appeal after 2004. AKMask 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm a punk fan also, but never really heard about this till I came across it from typing in "anti flag sucks" on Google, just to see what people thought of anti-flag, then I found this on here after typing in it in search and I believe I also came across it from the article on Michael Graves of Misfits fame. It would be better it was restructed as a representing a movement within the punk scene and not just one website (as there are more blogs out there run by conservative punks). Conservative punk is one big oxymoron though... --Saint-Paddy 01:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turramurra High School

Vanity school article, promo. –Mysid 10:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I retract that—looks like a really decent stub now. Keep. –Mysid 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Cut the guff and keep a stub. I thought high schools were inherently notable now? (I can't keep up). - Randwicked 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into school district or town. This school is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on their 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. The article itself should be replaced by a redirect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nice to see. May be the ball is still rolling on the a school talks? I have started adding schools to the school watch clean up. Hopefully that will be the start to circumventing pointless Afd's. Others should consider listing the microstub schools there instead of Afd untiol a consensus is reached on merging. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Fine as it is. Rhollenton 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good school stub. Capitalistroadster 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Keep — valid high school. — RJH 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep more than a stub. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 19:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid High School.--Dakota ^{t e} 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and no merge. Good progress on article at this time. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and do not merge as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 20:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline merge into local town article per Hipocrite and WP:SCH.

  To any of the "keep" voters who voted "keep" automatically: please consider adopting the WP:SCH proposal instead, which I believe suggests that this article should be merged. By doing so you could hasten the adoption of a guideline which could help bring an end to these pointless and time-wasting AfD nominations. Please consider either changing your votes to "merge", or expanding the article: a couple more verifiable sentences, or a good photo of the school, would bring this undisputably over the threshold set by the WP:SCH proposal, making it a clear "keep". — Haeleth Talk 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia school proposal is a last desperate attempt to get school articles deleted against consensus. No one is going to do the mass merging anyway, so what's the point? You deletionists can't even be bothered to nominate many and merging will be more work. CalJW 10:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What nonsense. It is an attempt to get a clear consensus on the criteria for merging to prevent edit wars in the future. Merging is not more time consuming than an AFD. Frankly your input has been cynical all along and is wearing a bit thin. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm trying to be nice here, CalJW, but if you'd like me to be nominating school articles, why all you need to do is ask. How about taking a pleasant pill? Denni ☯ 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid school article. Cnwb 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to South Turramurra, New South Wales as per User: Haeleth --A Y Arktos 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is a important school and the article is nice Yuckfoo 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IanBailey ^(talk) 03:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no reasonable basis for deletion has been offered. Another notable school that should be in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge scrapes past verifiability --redstucco 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep First one for a few days. Hopefully the last. CalJW 10:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you cannot get it through your head that a compromise on this issue is in everyone's best interest, I can guarantee you that you will be spending a lot more time in AfD rescuing your school articles. Your belligerent attitude does not serve to win you allies. Denni ☯ 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Please join us at WP:SCH to work out a school article policy that works for everyone. Denni ☯ 00:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Closing admin please delete the copyvio versions from the history (Prior to Grutness). Kappa 03:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghosts of modern man

It saddens me that I have to take this to AFD and can't speedy it, but such is Wikipedia. (non-notable band) Stifle 10:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't bother to even assert notability, so maybe it is a candidate for speedy? -Parallel or Together ? 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't. PJM 12:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -- Saikiri 11:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, WP:MUSIC. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 14:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sole claim to fame is "playing very loud and drinking too much",which I venture to suggest does not make them stand out from the crowd. Especially when the crowd is made up of musicians. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyranno

Non-notable webforum. Stifle 10:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No Alexa ranking [35], only internal hits on Google [36]. –Mysid 10:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharifuzzaman Choudhury

NN/Vanity. Notability not established at all. The person in question is not even notable, well-known by any means in Bangladesh.

• Delete: NN/Vanity. --Ragib 10:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn-bio. PJM 12:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep or Merge to Institute of Water Modelling which is a notable institute - thus giving its directors some claim to notability. Dlyons493 13:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN/Vanity. --ppm 20:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Institute of Water Modelling (written by the same author !) JoJan 09:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle 10:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO so deal with it that way instead. -Splash^talk 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jalaluddin Md. Abdul Hye

Notability not established at all!! I am from Bangladesh and can say that this person has is not even well known there. Seems like a vanity page.

• Delete:NN/vanity bio. --Ragib 10:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn-bio. PJM 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete, nn-bio. --ppm 20:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Institute of Water Modelling. See also : Sharifuzzaman Choudhury, nominated as Afd. These three articles are all written by the same author 202.22.194.43 - In case both are non-notable, then delete both JoJan 10:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A7 and possibly a copyvio. Stifle 10:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so deal with it that way. -Splash^talk 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emaduddin Ahmad

Non-notable, vanity biography. Same user uploaded 3 vanity bios ... all officers of an organization, without any justification of their notability. These persons are not notable in Bangladesh, or outside.

• Delete: NN/Vanity biography. --Ragib 11:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn-bio. PJM 12:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep or Merge to Institute of Water Modelling which is a notable institute - thus giving its directors some claim to notability. Dlyons493 13:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable as per nom. Olorin28 04:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN/Vanity biography. --ppm 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge: biography that should have more info in it. Expansion would be good for this article. Lincher 15:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Don't know about notability and such, but this seems very likely to be a copyvio from http://www.iwmbd.org/html/eua.htm. That page is on longer online, but this article seems to be copied pretty much verbatim from Google cached version of the page (unfortunately it's been here too long for me to speedy outright under WP:CSD#A8 (or am I just beeing too "by the book" on that whole 48 hour thing?)). Anyway I blanked it (except for the AFD notice) with the {{copyvio}} notice, but I didn't list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, as that seemed redundant with this AFD process already underway. --Sherool (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This article, (and two more similarly dubious articles) are all from the same person 202.22.194.43 (talk · contribs). WhoIs queries show that the IP is from "Institute of Water modeling", the same institute the person promoted via copy paste jobs. My guess is that this is yet another case of some guy promoting three of his bosses, or perhaps the subject promoting himself. I'm from Bangladesh, and have never, ever seen these guys mentioned in any news papers, or technical communities. Promoting the officials of every institute is not encyclopedic!! --Ragib 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7 or A8. Stifle 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by RHaworth.[37] I am adding the closure templates for completeness. AJR | Talk 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The sports page

Hype about a non-notable blog. Gets 2 hits on Google of which one is on the site itself [38]. –Mysid 11:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the subject matter on this topic.

I think this meets the criteria for speedy deletion, so I've added that tag to the top of the article. (Please let me know if there's a standard way to approach this situation). Lunkwill 11:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable; BTW speedy delete A7 just applies to persons (regretfully) JoJan 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 03:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bogrolls

This article doesn't meet Wikipedia's music notablility guidelines. A google search turns up only 138 hits, most of which are from varying subdomains (i.e. users) of the dmusic.com site. I originally had this as a speedy, but a sysop said it might be better placed on AfD. The pages the article linked to, John Lemmon and Nohl Grohl were speedied as bios that didn't attempt to argue notability. Obviously, I vote to delete. Parallel or Together ? 11:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. –Mysid 11:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, WP:MUSIC. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lemmon: "Oh dear, it looks like The Board/The Commitee/The Chairmen/Suited Topdogs have voted us out."

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect, as the article is a misspelling. —WikiFanatic 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diphendryamine

The page title appears to be a misspelling of Diphenhydramine. Uthbrian 11:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. This has happened elsewhere, too: this page suggests taking "Diphendryamine/Benadryl" for widespread rashes—the Diphenhydramine article lists Benadryl^® as one of its trade names. Other Google hits are mirrors of it or Wikipedia. I would vote on delete. –Mysid 12:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. PJM 12:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just redirect. --Apostrophe 17:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• When someone has not only made a mis-spelling but has been so convinced of that mis-spelling that they go to the length of making a real article on the subject, we Merge and Redirect the article with the mis-spelled title, because if it happens once, it will no doubt happen again. Better that people who spell incorrectly go to the correct article than that we continually have to bring such articles to AFD.

  Furthermore, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, three doors down. Uncle G 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Underdifferentiation

Definition of an infrequently used word, which rarely has this meaning, if Google is any indication. -- Kjkolb 11:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nominator. Stifle 22:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for the existence of Bigfoot

Mostly duplicates a significant amount of text in Bigfoot. Merge and redirect to Bigfoot. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly rename to cover arguments both for and against - Bigfoot is currently 56k, and needs a chunk sloughed off anyway. BD2412 T 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That information has it's own article as well Arguments against the existence of Bigfoot--The_stuart 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Bigfoot article is already too large. Duplicated information should be removed from it. That was the orignal reason why I created this article in the first place...--The_stuart 14:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep given size of bigfoot article. It needs better cross referencing with the arguments against. By the way, you don't need to take merge proposals to this forum. Capitalistroadster 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. If it duplicates info from the main article, then delete the material in that article and make sure there's a link here. 23skidoo 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the Bigfoot article is too big. Carioca 19:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Both of these articles are badly titled. Attempting to fork articles for individual sides of a debate is a short route to a perpetual NPOV dispute. (The neutrality of these articles has already been the subject of dispute, and will no doubt continue to be so again and again.) See Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism for examples, and lessons that should be learned from. These articles should be merged into an Existence of Bigfoot article that encompasses the entire debate. Bigfoot can then have a small summary style section that links to that as the main article. However, this isn't a matter for AFD. Uncle G 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, there isn't a single argument on that page. --BadSeed 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seperate argument to Bigfoot so no need to merge. Zordrac 00:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please the other one is too large Yuckfoo 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steep Nose Hammer

A fictional tool. From a song. Not Very Notable, I hope. Randwicked 12:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Squiddy 13:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - author doesn't seem to know what the object is, let alone why it's noteable. At best, Merge with At Folsom Prison, the album containing the song. -Meegs 15:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete as per all valid votes.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PICTAR

Delete: Not notable as provided for in Wikipedia:Notability and Music Guidelines Naturenet | Talk 12:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, WP:MUSIC. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Bluezy 12:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not delete a thrilling tale of a young band's willingness, against all odds, to strive towards success, despite the thoughts of many doubters ^^^ MasterOfPuppets 21:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Above comment actually by User:81.97.124.31 - Naturenet | Talk 22:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not Delete Notable according to to guidline 13 of music and ensembles guidelines Wikipedia:Notability and Music Guidelines Gomez 12:02 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Above comment actually by User:81.97.124.31. Guideline 13 briefly (until reverted) read, "Is called Pictar". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooo, my aching sides ;) Naturenet | Talk 16:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable vanity Stephenb (Talk) 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omer Sheikh

No such notable player Tintin 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Tintin 12:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No hits on CricketArchive, nor on Cricinfo, which means he hasn't played first class cricket, and therefore unverifiable. Sam Vimes 13:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per sam vimes. Olorin28 04:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Expand with more info. Ill research it a bit, see if we can turn this into a productive article yet :-) Bourbons3 09:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gemini Nucleus

Future product, delete as per WP:NOT.--nixie 13:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability yet Naturenet | Talk 21:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN Olorin28 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and etc. Stifle 23:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Y (podcast)

Podcast as the anme suggests, unencyclopedic, delete.--nixie 13:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep – seems like a notable podcast to me (30,800 Google hits). (What makes articles on podcasts unencyclopedic? Notable ones like TWiT do have articles.) –Mysid 13:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the hits for the search above are about the actual term, "generation Y". The podcast itself gets probably somewhere around 120 hits, most of them on podcast directories. Ashibaka (tock) 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

True – seems like I shouldn't trust googling so much. –Mysid 14:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Naturenet | Talk 21:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears from iTunes that there is only one (1) show that has been produced and it's not in the top 100. Pottercast, which was deleted a few days ago, is 66/100. Jtmichcock 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 00:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genomeceutical

Neoligism describing a product that doesn't exist beyond the concept stage, delete

• Keep - patented legitimate product of scientific significance, very encyclopaedic. This kind of article is why wikipedia is better than the bought kind. Zordrac 00:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - Agree with Zordrac that this is a very clear keep -- Geo Swan 06:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Use

Non-notable band. Only claim to fame is getting in trouble at school for stealing instruments. Currently under hiatus and "When the band will resurface is still unknown." Randwicked 13:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Alhutch 13:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, WP:MUSIC. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to self-reference. — Haeleth Talk 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joeri van Riel

Non-notable guitarist of aforementioned non-notable band. Randwicked 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --YHoshua 13:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete member of a non-notable band that is headed for deletion.--Alhutch 13:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MOVE DISCUSSION TO WP:CFD. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African American basketball players

Given that over 80 percent of current NBA players are black, this category would include most of the NBA and would be similar to a "Category:White ice hockey players." There are no similar categories for black football or NHL, or categories in any of those sports divided by race. This is an unnecessary category. YHoshua 13:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• AFD deals with articles (thus the "A"). You want to be at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if we are going to allow minority groups, then we obviously have to allow majority groups. Its not only against encyclopaedic norms to exclude them, its also racist. Zordrac 00:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then we'll also need to add categories for white NBA players, white NHL players, white football players, etc. Will you be in charge of creating those? And if wanting to ignore race as a qualifier makes one racist, we'll need to add MLK Jr. to the racist category, too. --YHoshua 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • ..then we obviously have to allow majority groups This is some strange new meaning of "obviously" I wasn't previously aware of. Next up, Category:White country singers, Category:Male boxers, Category:Blonde Swedes, Category:Females who wear dresses, and Category:People of average height. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or limit to black basketball players born in Sub-Saharan Africa.--T. Anthony 06:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless. CalJW 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this belongs to WP:CFD where such cases are solved quite frequently. It should be closed here and moved on CFD. Pavel Vozenilek 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to Humanity

See also the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to Humanity.

This is a personal project / original research. It should be moved back into User:Ewok Slayer's userspace and Delete the redirect --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article is an attempt to start a collaborative project using the wiki process to create a message that can be sent to extraterrestrial civilizations. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for the benefit of anyone who wants to set up their own collaborative project to create stuff. It's a specific collaborative project in its own right: the creation of an encyclopaedia. This is most definitely not article namespace material. Uncle G 19:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - wow that is so awesomely cool. Zordrac 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is a cool idea. But that isn't a reason to keep the article if it breaks wikipedia policy. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But how does it break wikipedia policy? Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host_or_webspace_provider says quite clearly, "You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). ". I don't see how this breaks that. Zordrac 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This page is an something other than an encyclopedia entry. It is a wiki-based collaborative project of another type. The policy you just quoted clearly states that this is not allowed and directs you to where it should be hosted. How is it not breaking it? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 02:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a message board for aliens. Peyna 02:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Send this to Wikipedia:BJAODN once it is axed. Peyna 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That is insulting. This isn't a joke, the pioneer plaque was not a joke. If you don't want to contribute, you don't have to.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 08:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not that the article is a joke per se; but that when considered in the context of what Wikipedia is, it qualifies as something that ought to be listed there. Consider it an honor. Peyna 08:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete under patent nonsense clause two, namely: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it. On the other hand, if its object were to be changed from aliens to A.L.I.C.E., the robot, she does need to understand humans better. Metarhyme 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering that NASA wrote something similar, I don't see why this is confusing at all. That was, after all, the whole point to the space stations. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps an article about contacting aliens or attempts to would be appropriate and where this belongs; or maybe as a section under Extraterrestrial life; but as an attempt to contact aliens it does not belong here. It will never contain any information not already covered at human; humanity; human culture; etc. Peyna 16:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is true that it reflects material from other articles - however an alien would not be able to read those articles so a pictoral guide is neccesary as a starting point for them-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 17:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • en.wikipedia is intended for English readers and an English reading audience. If you want to create an alien.wikipedia.org with aliens as an audience, go ahead. Peyna 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is the best possible host for this type of article - I understand that it may not meet the defn of what wikipedia is exactly - but where else can this type of collaborative effort take place? This is an article explaining humanity - an encyclopedic subject - it is explained in pictographic terms here so that it can link to many other wiki entries. Ancient languages are impossible to understand without some kind of rosetta stone. In 1000 years that is what english will be. A project like this will live on far past us. This is so cool!--64.107.201.150 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Where else? How about Wikicities? There are also many other free wiki hosts. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uncle G. You can link to wikipedia entries from anywhere on the Web. FreplySpang (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep

  - 1. There is no alien.wikipedia - that's ridiculous
  

  - 2. This article is an encyclopedic entry. Humanity is a subject worth studying.
  

  - 3. Wikipedia is the best place for this type of project. The "sum of all human knowledege" needs a starting point to even begin to understand it.
  

  --So, if it's an article about an encyclopedic subject, what is the problem? You all seem to disagree with the presentation. In the future, aliens or human archeologist will find this database and not be able to interpret it. A pictoral representation is the best way to communicate to them. Think of it as the Main Page of wikipedia a millon years in the furture.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • An objection under consideration is that you are being creative and original. The big three Policies are NPOV, Verifiable, and No original research to collaborate the encyclopedia wiki into a valuable reference. Is that ridiculous? If you think so you are not alone, but there are former doubters who've noticed that some of the content sparkles and is reliable. Is your idea unoriginal? --Metarhyme 09:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the English Wikipedia, whose readers are members of the species Homo sapiens and will be able to get this sort of information from the article Human. A Guide to Humanity would be better suited for an Alien's Guide wiki (which may make a good Wikicity). --Wikiacc (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This does not have to be for aliens. This could be for humans in the far distant future who are trying to understand english. This page will have sections to teach english to someone without knowing what their language is. It belongs in the english wikipedia.-- --(U | T | C) 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly a violation of the wikipedia hosting policy and probably counts as OR too. ManoaChild 01:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is not original research. All information was taken from other articles relating to the subject.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is original research or something similar, because it does not contain facts, only opinions and statements about what you hope the page will become. It would not be out of place on talk pages or project pages. However, if you move the introduction elsewhere, you have only pictures without context. ManoaChild 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme Delete on the grounds of its massive retardation. "And who better to represent humans to the universe than the Wikipedia". This is definitely NOT something for Wikipedia or anyone for that matter to be working on right now. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your input. Perhaps you could explain the line of reasoning that lead you to the conclusion of "massive retardation"?-- --(U | T | C) 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• The idea that with all of the factual errors and bad prose and all of the cleanup that has yet to be done on Wikipedia, that we should be focusing any amount of time to doing something like this is patently absurd. The idea that we are the best representitives of the human race is also patently absurd. Category:EHG is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, absurd. I'm No Parking and I approved this message
• You do not have to edit this page if you don't want to. You can completely ignore it and it will not disturb you. I only ask you not to delete so that those who want to can continue this project.-- --(U | T | C) 18:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• They can work on it when it is moved back to your user page. Peyna 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless you can find me references where somthing is called "Guide to Humanity" and is the same thing described in the article. Articles aren't projects, they are about projects. You might want to move this to wikicities or maybe wikibooks. Broken S 18:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I heard that a lot of stuff is being deleted over at wikibooks for not being a textbook. I'd advise Wikicities over wikibooks for this project. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• ¿Compromise?- I could move the project to Wikipedia:Guide to humanity - like other wikipedia projects-- --(U | T | C) 18:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How about an Extraterrestrial Life stub? You could furnish links to Radio_source_SHGb02_plus_14a and Panspermia#Disputed and Pioneer_plaque. This film of life - the biosphere - around the surface of earth (which we take for granted) quite possibly contains the entire extent of protoplasmic entities that exists in the universe. Instead of assuming that extraterrestrial life akin to us exists, start an article detailing the efforts to find it. You would get contributors. --Metarhyme 06:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You have a good idea for an article. You should start it :) But that is not what I had in mind for this article.-- --(U | T | C) 07:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Protoplasmic entities seems to be available. This widens the field from your intial concept. An explanation of how life works as if to an utterly alien intelligence would be useful to humans - an evolution of the Lynd's Middletown approach. I think that jibes with your intent. Still belongs in userspace or uncyclopedia, though Metarhyme 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

        • The article already exists: Extraterrestrial_life. Peyna 20:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks sharp one - lc the L needed. Killer of cuddly ET critters not into study of Extraterrestrial life - has other designs. --Metarhyme 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopædic, at least for English Wikipedia. User who created it also has a history of creating trollish articles and then responding with personal attacks; I suspect this is simply yet another. Perhaps time for a RfC/RfAr. —Psychonaut 13:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest trying User talk:Ewok Slayer, and looking at Ring size (AfD discussion) (User talk:Uncle G#Re:_Ring_size), first. Uncle G 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I saw his edits to ring size, and I know he's done a lot of useful stuff. But he also tends to do a lot of less constructive editing, like creating insulting redirects to George W. Bush and then swearing at editors who revert the changes or chastise him. You might also like to check out edits such as this one protesting removal of a copyvio. —Psychonaut 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a personal project and original research, without malice to the creator. ESkog | ^Talk 17:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, orginal research. Might be nifty at Wikicities, though.--Sean|Black 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN or just plain old Delete more something for uncyclopedia methinks.  ALKIVAR™ 08:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - has been duplicated at Wikipedia:Guide to Humanity. Off to WP:MFD FreplySpang (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rossami has kindly taken care of cleaning this up. Never mind MFD. FreplySpang (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone can download the WikiMedia software and launch their own wiki. This page has no place in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Key policy #1 states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further." I don't know whether communicating with aliens is a worthwhile goal, but it's not one of Wikipedia's goals. Chick Bowen 01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete unencyclopedic Pete.Hurd 07:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I've little choice since the sources cited certainly don't include the word with either spelling (and English sources are better on the English Wikipedia). I hope this is not systemic bias, but, if it is, then either Deletion Review will fix it, or a comprehensive rewrite with good, reliable sources will do. -Splash^talk 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Treigloffobia

Unverifiable neologism [39]. Delete. Ze miguel 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN as hoax. Look at some of the wording used in the article. Things like "where words you would expect to find in the dictionary are not there". Big red flag there. This is a joke. Quite a funny one if you think about it. Zordrac 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, but this is not a hoax. Ask any Welsh speaker (there are 600,000 of them). Try phoning the University of Wales.

  To cite the most simple of examples - "cath" = cat.

  Now consider these instances of it occuring in a simple phrase - Mae gen i "gath" (I've got a cat - soft mutation) Ci a "chath" (dog and cat - aspitate mutation) Fy "nghath" (my cat)

  The word is "cath", but anybody looking for either "gath", "chath" or "nghath" in a dictionary would not find it there.

  Another example - try the town of "Porthmadog" (though not in a dictionary)

  Dw i'n mynd i Borthmadog (I'm going to Port.)

  Dw i'n byw ym Mhorthmadog (I live in Port.)

  Dw i'n mynd i Harlech a Phorthmadog (I'm going to Harlech & Port.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.230.40 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-02 20:38:17 UTC

• I am a native Welsh speaker. I am sorry, but the complainant is uninformed. The content of the article is correct. More than that, the piece he/she has put in quotes is not a direct quote from the original article and unfairly represents what was said. I have two friends who are learning Welsh. They have real problems with mutations, and I have to say know more about the rules than me. They say their tutor often refers to treigloffobia. Anwen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.231.20 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-02 18:16:50 UTC
• The article cites no sources, the anonymous editors above offer no sources, and no sources can be found describing any such fear of consonant mutation. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 21:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• As has been mentioned above, the original content of this page can be easily verified by contacting the Department of Life Long Learning (Welsh Dept.), Stryd y Deon, Bangor, Wales. They will readily confirm that 9 letters of the Welsh alphabet mutate (in up to 3 ways, as stated), that a dictionary will only show the unmutated, radical, form of the verb, and that the vast majority of adult Welsh learners understandably perceive mutations to be a problem, especially when first starting. Some of these develop an irrational complex/phobia about making mutation errors, in complete disproportion to its importance. Tony.
• The reluctance of some Welsh learners to speak - for fear of making mutation errors - and ways of addressing the problem early in order to prevent it becoming a phobia, are referred to on the following web pages -

  • http://www.bangor.ac.uk/ar/cb/cymraeg/cyrsiau_allanol_treiglo.php

    http://users.aber.ac.uk/bmj/Tr/Cym/tr_rhag.html

    http://www.caerdydd.ac.uk/learn/cymraeg/lang_level1.html

    http://accac.org.uk/word_files/arweiniad_lefel_1.doc

  Tony

• Keep, it's now verified. Stifle 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: None of the quoted sources mentions the word Treigloffobia (or Treiglophobia). Still unverified. -- Ze miguel 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucinda Lewis

Either a non-notable vanity page or largely invented information or both. Reasons:

• There are Google hits for a Lucinda Lewis, but she seems to be a photographer of cars and diners, not rock stars.
• There is a Lucinda Lewis on IMDb, but her credits don't match those in the article.
• The books listed in the article either have a release date in the future or can't be found on Amazon.com
• Three of the external links domains are registered to a Lucinda Lewis, but two are not even in use.
• Also, the anonymous user who wrote the article has reverted a cleanup note several times.

TerokNor 13:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 13:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I suspect vanity. Particularly from the comment on the talk page about getting her into imdb.com. They're so thorough, you can find bit players with one appearance on a cancelled TV show. While it's possible they could miss somebody notable, it's not very likely. Mark K. Bilbo 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up article to conform to Wikipedia norms of Neutral Point of View. Danny 16:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable probable hoax. As there are no reputable sources to support these claims, we cannot have an article. The links in the article do not support the claim. Capitalistroadster 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, little of this is on Google. Jtmichcock 02:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 00:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Hit List

Some guy's newspaper column, probably not very popular. To be quite honest, I don't think it matters how many people read this or listen to the podcast-- it has zero influence on anything and thus cannot ever be notable. Ashibaka (tock) 13:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 13:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 14:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• No, it's quite popular, especially in Canada. It's also quite a big deal to be on it too.Undercooked Sausage (tock) 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, if anybody is interested...this is the hit list being referred to: Hit List. Oh, Tarzan Dan, you were so funny when I was fourteen. --maclean25 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- It's a well-known, major newspaper column. I'm curious how the nominator knows that "it has zero influence on anything", especially since (s)he only speculates that it's "probably not very popular". Skeezix1000 19:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've lived in Toronto for the past 20 years and I've never heard of this. What part of Canada is it exactly popular? --supers 14:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. You've never read CANOE, eye weekly, the Toronto Sun or the Toronto Star, apparently. Bearcat 19:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Publications don't compete for the right to publish columns that aren't popular or influential. This one, however, has been the focus of a bidding war between two competing media organizations. So you've got two choices: either you're wrong about its notability, or Torstar secretly has a policy of paying big money to poach unimportant journalists from its competitors just for shits and giggles, and of building its primary venture into webmedia around a journalist nobody's ever heard of. But considering that the Toronto Star is the single most widely read newspaper in all of Canada, any notion that they don't know exactly what they're doing flies right out the window. Which leaves us, therefore, with you're wrong about its notability. Keep. Oh, and for what it's worth, I created this article, so it ain't vanity spam — I'm not John Sakamoto, and I'm not known around here as a person who creates new articles based on an overly generous standard of notability, either. Bearcat 19:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karma Sutra (band)

Yawn, another non-notable band Stifle 13:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The only Karma Sutra I found was [40], and that doesn't seem to be the band described in the article. PJM 14:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, WP:MUSIC. Get a contract with a label, get a few albums out, and then come back. --StuffOfInterest 14:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wiki-Band anyone? A place where you can put your crap bands up and not waste our precious time. Croat Canuck 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename (no redirect) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Founder of the Bulletin Board System

Article does not follow naming conventions. Mr. Shannon's claim to be the founder of the BBS is contradicted by reality, but that claim can be covered in the BBS article if necessary. Delete. --Stephen Gilbert 14:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Merge into Bulletin board system if feeling especially generous. --StuffOfInterest 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• ALTER --Somehow I knew this would happen. In my opinion Ward was first, Steve Punter second, however the systems they wrote for were highly price and not bought by the general public. Wards system worked for only a handful of people in his general area who had access via hobby. Electric Magazine was the first written for the Commodore Vic 20. The Vic 20 was considered to be a game machine and not a serious business manchine. The Commodore Vic 20 and C64 were the first affordable personal computers. As to Steve Punter...he had a system which was not really a bulletin board for the PET 32. My program predated his BBS for the newer and personal Commodore systems. I am open to an alteration and suggest words more appropriate. Bob Shannon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.55.63 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-01 17:15:15 UTC
  • It seems highly likely that 216.178.55.63 is also Eqshannon (talk · contribs), from the above comment. Mr Shannon, Wikipedia is not in the business of taking people's word for what they say about themselves. Neither is it in the business of forking articles over content disputes, such as the one that you are having at bulletin board system. If you wish this information to be included in Wikipedia, please do what every single edit form here has told you to do, and cite sources independent of yourself that can be used to verify the addition that you are trying to make to bulletin board system. Uncle G 18:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - in addition to being simply wrong (which is fixable), the subject is not notable, and the article is poorly named. Nandesuka 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article is a fork over a content dispute. The content dispute should be settled, by editors citing sources, in the original article. Delete. Uncle G 18:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• INDIFFERENT. Hi, Mr. Shannon. This is Jason Scott, who did that documentary on dial-up bulletin-board systems. While I appreciate (more than most) that you have a long and respectful history with both bulletin board systems and the early personal computer revolution, I think you're going to encounter a lot of pushback and dispute calling yourself the "founder" of anything related to them. When you find yourself having to resort to semantics or trivialities (something being "too expensive" is not a reason for it not to be considered a precedent, something lacking features you later added does not make it an example of a BBS), then you're going to find that this environment, which depends utterly on semantics and trivialities, will not be welcoming. I offer you respect for your efforts at the dawn of widescale personal computing, but can't endorse your modifying history to aggrandize. --Jscott 19:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK Agreed to Delete. Thanks for at least some good woods Jason but I have to agree with you that getting into a semantics debate is not a cool idea. I'll just let the thing go. I'm too old to debate such things. This was the notion of a friend who worded it for me and I posted it. I see it as true but I don't want to sound like Bill Clinton defining the words. It does make me feel a bit sad however. Ah well life is that way to some of us retired folk.
  • Well, just so we're clear... Communitree BBS is from 1979, and ran on an Apple II, which is one of the first personal computers. (You can browse the circa-1982 commercial version's manual at http://www.flyingsnail.com/missingbbs/CommuniTree.html). RBBS, which was created around 1978-1979 and implemented Ward's CBBS program, ran on both inexpensive CP/M compatible machines and later IBM PCs. (I have photos of a circa 1980 CP/M machine running a modified CBBS with notations going back a year or two by different programmers who were adding features, including both messages and file sections). Also pre-dating you by a few months are Citadel-based BBS programs, which Taren ran on a variety of computers, including the Ohio Scientific and similar brands. It's not really a debate, per se, whether you are a founder. It is a debate, and one I think you could win, that in the beginning of the story of personal computers, you were one of the guys working right there in the trenches to spread the word on these marvels. I would suggest focusing on that. --66.92.84.190 20:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• RENAME to Bob Shannon - he is notable. This is the wrong title to talk about someone who claims to be the founder. Zordrac 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK to RENAME to Bob Shannon....I had my son alter the wording. Now we are open to renaming instead of deletion.
• For some detailed background and analysis of the claims, Jason Scott (creator of the magnum opus, the BBS Documentary): ASCII . — 83.227.238.221 07:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK...This here is Bob in the flesh...or in the binary...whatever... I am at the present time, sending Jason every citation I have or can find. It may take a while but my wife and I will dig it all up. We still have a large bag of memories...and I will not be ground into dust on this. My wife, I, several personal friends and some purchasers of Electric Magazine have good memories and we will make sure to put this matter to a rest one way or another.--Bob Shannon also EQSHannnon...which is me...thanks for pointing that out..and my IP is quite correct.
• Rename to Bob Shannon - the information is of some historical importance, but shouldn't remain under its current name. Timsheridan 13:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I will agree to Rename to Bob Shannon as per the few who suggested, however at this time I am still in the process of sending Jason Scott my citations and he is responding. I believe that Jason, being a notable historian will be able to do this better then my friends have done. I appreciate the more neutral tone that some have taken. I might note that there is another notable Bob Shannon who is a long time network DJ in NYC, This NY Bob owns bobshannon.com and he can be seaarched under that URL heading, while I have owned bobshannon.org for some time now. I mention this because at one point, Mr Shannon of New York might wish to be included in some way, shape or form under the suggested Bob Shannon name.-Sincerely Bob Shannon-Malo WA
• Unusual Alterations --Bob Once more here. I find it interesting that someone from Wenatchee and also from my ISP altered the present edition..and then another person from Virginia altered it to read I live in a shack. This ends up making me look more like the Uni-bomber in isolation. While we do live in relative wilderness territory, we have stores and neighbors close by. Our home was built 25 years ago and is a 3 bedroom octagon, NOT a shack. I have asked Jason Scott to rewrite the whole thing for me and do it justice. It would be appreciated if others ceased making obscure alterations. - Bob Shannon Dec 6, 2005 1:45 PCT

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trisha Krishnan

This is just advertising. Not suitable for Wikipedia -- Snalwibma 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - According to her IMDB page she's been in many films, some with near-top billing. The article just needs serious attention.-Meegs 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable actress who meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, as per IMDB. Carioca 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - meets criteria so easily... Zordrac 23:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tintin 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep, cleanup, and shrink the giant photo --Ajdz 00:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But it needs to be kept NPOV! I have reverted the text to an earlier, better version. I have no means of judging accuracy, as she is virtually un-Googlable! Hugh2414 18:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reprodiction

Neologism. Term (cross between reproduction and diction) doesn't Google; is this a hoax? If it's a definition then should it be in Wiktionary? RobertG ♬ talk 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 18:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom abakharev 02:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was irrelevant (page speedily deleted). RobertG ♬ talk 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTT WILSON

Delete. Google search for "scott wilson town crier" / "scott wilson town cryer" returned no relevant results, the NZAS Journalism award page lists no Scott Wilson, Amazon has no hits for Town Cryer/Crier or Scott Wilson.-- Syrthiss 14:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nevermind - Speedy Delete (page blanked by article creator "removed per author's request")

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nigeria/exiommedia

advertising for non-notable company

• Delete - non-notable company (not covered by CSD A7) JoJan 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, from the article:"To see how far they have gone, follow this link". It's not even trying to be encyclopedic, and qualifies as an ad. And it's not notable either. - Bobet 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 19:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as patent nonsense. Wikibofh 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Janice carter

Delete: Created by school proxy IP that is responsible for a lot of vandalism. Google searches for "Janice Carter" guiness and "Callum Patton" murder Elliot return nothing of value. Likely a hoax, but as it stands, not sourced, not verifiable. I almost speedied as patent nonsense, but took the safe road here. Wikibofh 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. I find nothing on this either. PJM 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a hoax. Googling Eve Valois shows that it's the birth name of Lolo Ferrari, from which the first part of this article is pretty much copied. - Bobet 18:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good find. Given that I think we can speedy this. Wikibofh 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Turnstep 19:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 19:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 68h

Appears to be nonsense. If not nonsense, then redundant. Mirror Vax 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I regard more than half of it as nonsense, as I've previously stated on the talk page; the rest of it could be made into a category, if it even merits that. (n.b.: if the article is, in fact, removed, Category:Motorola products will have to be edited or reworked a bit.) In any case, I weakly support deletion. --moof 00:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• It took less than a minute to do a google search for "68h microprocessor" which produced 1200 links. Most were either reprints of the wikipedia's article, or the 68h was 0x68. But several of the links were real looking authoritative links:

...The Motorola 680x0/0x0/m68k/68k/68K family of CISC microprocessor CPU chips were 32-bit from the start, and were the primary competition for the Intel x86 family of chips. The 68k family built upon Motorola's 8/16-bit 68h series of processors. -- Geo Swan 06:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That link you cite? It's a summarization of the Motorola 680x0 article from Wikipedia! Talk about circular references... and it's nonsense there, too. If you're going to cite, please cite non-wikipedia sources. --moof 07:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep precursor to 68K family hence notable --Pypex 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Pypex, but the inclusion of the 65xx processors in this article is perhaps questionable as Dogcow has said on the article's talk. -- AJR | Talk 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (updated, see below)
  • Which parts of this article do you think are true? I can find no evidence that the subject of the article, the "68h family", exists. Since the whole point of the article is to explain the "68h family", it ought to be something that exists outside of Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 03:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • move to Motorola 6800 family (or something similar, if people don't like that) and remove references to 65xx processors as unverifiable. Rationale for keeping 6800 family content still as per Pypex -- AJR | Talk 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - Links do exist documenting the existence of the 68h and its relationship both to later motorala designs and the 6502. -- Geo Swan 06:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe Wikipedia is a cancer on the web, if people believe nonsense due to "real looking authoritative links" containing copies of Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Granted many of the links google turned up were clearly copies of the wikipedia. But what makes you claim the link I offered was copied from the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 15:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you serious? It says "preview: http://en.wikipedia.org" and when you click on it, it goes to Wikipedia. So that's a little bit of a hint, plus the fact that the text is the same. Mirror Vax 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or rename to Motorola 6800 CPU family 132.205.44.134 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT look at FOLDOC entry: http://foldoc.org/foldoc.cgi?query=6800&action=Search — 132.205.45.148 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT the MOS Technology 6502 article also says that the 6501 was pin compatible with the 6800. 132.205.45.148 18:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos E Nemer

Nn-bio; university professor with several degress.-- PeruvianLlama^(spit) 22:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Abstain - Subject is probably notable for writing books on such diverse subjects... unfortunatly the article currently provides no details. Nevertheless one of the two authors has continued to improve the article since it was flagged. -Meegs 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, the authors have continued adding content to the article since I the nom for AfD, and at least seem genuinely interested in making it encyclopaedic. I'm still unconvinced that the subject is necessarily noteworthy, but I'm quite willing to give it some time to see. For the moment, my vote should be considered Abstain. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since it has been several days, and I've not seen any significant efforts to add any true assertions of notability, or even plain references to this man's existence. I find it odd that each [41] of [42] the [43] items [44] listed under the Biography section turn up no Google results. I'm also put off by the fact that Google searches for "Carlos Nemer", [45] and "Carlos E* Nemer", [46] do not give promising results. In fact, the only legitimate looking mention of anyone resembling the Carlos Nemer in our article, is "Carlos Nemer Vieira" [47], and even he doesn't seem that promising [48] a match. This is all a bit too much, and so I've changed my vote to it's current state of Delete. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the publication claims made in the article would certainly satisfy notability. However, I have not been able to verify any of the publications with search engines either. I don't understand much Portuguese, but I'm pretty sure this is a list of the faculty of the DEI department of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and this is a list of the DEIN faculty at the Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro. Carlos Nemer is not on either list. Despite overwhelming evidence, this just doesn't smell like a hoax. Nevertheless, I changed my vote above from keep to abstain, but I'm not strongly opposed to a delete any more. -Meegs 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• CommentYes, the article is improving, but currently no sources are sited and it includes references to Mr. Nemer's hobbies and interests, which are practically impossible to verify. Also, is the original author going to take ownership and continue maintaining the article? So my vote should also be Abstain.TheRingess 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus. There are only two votes other than "abstain" which I think is too few. Relisting. Please add comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject gets almost no Google hits. Short bibliography is incomplete: nearly all university professors publish papers of some sort. This fails to state share of authorship or distinguish type of publication. The subject's home country may have different academic standards from the United States, but from my knowledge of academia three baccalaureate degrees and two master's degrees is not particularly impressive in the absence of a doctoral degree. Durova 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Google hits there are Wikipedia and mirrors. No Google book results and the only reference in Google Scholar was a reference to a chap by the name of Carlos Nemer Vieria here [49]

Not verifiable. Capitalistroadster 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splash^talk 00:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons of Battlefield 1942 mods

To me, this article does not belong on wikipedia, and as others from the IRC channel noted, "Wikipedia is not IGN". I say this article should be deleted NeoThermic 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - along with most of the "articles" it links to --Ajdz 00:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a good way of sorting the articles it links to. Kappa 02:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- It in no way violates any rules I'm aware of, and in fact helps out readers in viewing articles linked to the same topic Takua108 20:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. - Mailer Diablo 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniell cell

Wikipedia has an article Daniel cell on exactly the same topic. Google search shows 1,010 entries for Daniel cell and 815 hit for Daniell cell DV8 2XL 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant. DV8 2XL 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• When someone has not only made a mis-spelling but has been so convinced of that mis-spelling that they go to the length of making a real article on the subject, we Merge and Redirect the article with the mis-spelled title, because if it happens once, it will no doubt happen again. Better that people who spell incorrectly go to the correct article than that we continually have to bring such articles to AFD.

  Ironically, for both Google and the nominator, it is this article that has the correctly spelled title, John Frederic Daniell having two 'l's in his family name. Counting Google hits is not research. Keep. Uncle G 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It wasn't over the spelling, just the duplication, and the fact that the single 'l' article is more complete. Regardless which one is kept, only one is needed. DV8 2XL 19:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is why Wikipedia:Duplicate articles exists. Deletion does not form a part of the process at any stage. Uncle G 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Uncle G I was not aware of that process. Can arrangements be made to transfer this over there? DV8 2XL 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Closing mod. This AfD was raised in error. Please close ASAP, as keep and I will processes it via the proper route. DV8 2XL 09:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Time

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is redundant to Time. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as violation of WP:NOR. Mark K. Bilbo 15:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - from best to worst, this is either reduant to Time, original research, or pure opinion --Meegs 16:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. ManoaChild 23:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, time to delete this article. Croat Canuck 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heuristic Squelch

Heuristic Squelch is a student newspaper published at UC Berkeley.

I deleted this article based on an earlier AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heuristic Squelch), which reached a 4-1 vote. I took this as consensus, but Zippy later argued that I was wrong in doing so, citing the comment he made on the earlier debate: 'as evidence of its noteworthiness, the phrase "heuristic squelch" yields 20k hits on Google, with a quick scan of the first 30 results showing that most point to this paper (~ 2 results appear to be dictionary spam pages) and the paper has been published for > 3 years.' Because I may have acted improperly, I am undeleting the page and resubmitting it to the AFD. Future commenters, please consider Zippy's evidence. Ingoolemo ^talk

Thank you, Ingoolemo. I appreciate your going the distance on this.

Briefly, the Heuristic Squelch, despite the (intentionally) silly name, is a humorous paper (like The Onion) published at UC Berkeley's main campus. The student population is over 20,000, and the paper is widely read. Given its 14 year run, a large fraction of 280k alumni (14 years x 20k students/yr) are directly aware of the paper. That, plus the Google evidence that mentioned the paper (20k matches to the phrase "heuristic squelch"), to my mind, make a very strong case that the paper is notable. For those of you tuning in, the previous vote was that it was not notable, but the first four voters of five had not seen this evidence at the time they voted. So ...

keep, notable.--Zippy 14:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The student population is over 20,000, and the paper is widely read. I read that as a handwaving attempt to link the student population (which is actually closer to 30,000) with the unspecified circulation figures.

...a large fraction of 280k alumni...are directly aware of the paper A large fraction are also aware, as am I, of the statue of the pelican by the Pelican Building, the fire trail up Strawberry Canyon, the coffee house by McLaughlin Hall, La Val's Pizza, and the kiosk by the BART station which sold Chinese buns for 75 cents apiece. I doubt any of them would be considered worthy of an article, even La Val's. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Second time through the mill with the same solo defender. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Berkeley happenings are notable. --Pypex 19:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Discovering Plutonium: notable. A student publication: not so much. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If there was a dispute, it should have gone through Deletion Review. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, again. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - newspaper of notable Berkeley university makes it notable in its own right. Zordrac 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zippy's google test. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a fairly quality publication as far as student magazines go, and as a major publication at a major university, is notable. Catamorphism 07:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable, although I commend the author for making the best possible case. Jtmichcock 02:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable -- and I speak as one who used to read the damned thing. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 found; based on accompanying debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IA-8), decision made to redirect to 4-bit. Johnleemk | Talk 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IA-4

Appears to be nonsense. If not nonsense, then redundant. Mirror Vax 16:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The phrase IA-## didn't come into use until the 64-bit architecture was released by Intel. At that time references were made to IA-32 and IA-64 to keep the lines and technologies separate. Back in the 70's there was no reference to IA-4 or IA-8 and no reference to such on the Intel website. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to 4-bit Intel CPU architecture. 132.205.44.134 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 found; decision made to redirect to 8-bit. Johnleemk | Talk 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IA-8

Appears to be nonsense. If not nonsense, then redundant. Mirror Vax 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The phrase IA-## didn't come into use until the 64-bit architecture was released by Intel. At that time references were made to IA-32 and IA-64 to keep the lines and technologies separate. Back in the 70's there was no reference to IA-4 or IA-8 and no reference to such on the Intel website. --StuffOfInterest 19:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. If the phrase didn't exist in the past but does exist now, it would seem appropriate to focus the user mistakenly thinking IA-8 exists because IA-32 does to the correct article.--eleuthero 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to 8-bit Intel CPU architecture. 132.205.44.134 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)