Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 28

< December 27	December 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for deletion, but I'll try to merge this with Oral Fixation 2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal (Shakira)

The song has not been released as a single, and therefore is non-notable. Should it be released as a single in the future, the article could be restored, but as per present day, it is an extra egg in the nest. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nominate and delete. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank goodness. Few nominators in today's busy AfD environment take the time to add a bullet point to explain that they're the nominator. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't know if I should feel complimented or insulted. ;) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Insulted, but with a smile :). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      - ... —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Okay, the basic point (stripped of any attempt at humour) was that, with a well-written nomination, you don't need to (and shouldn't) make a "vote" on a separate line, let alone point out that you're the nominator. AfD is not supposed to be a vote, and doing this just increases the perception that it's all about the tally. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I don't usually vote in an AfD I've nominated, does that mean I am assumed to have voted delete anyway? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        Who cares? If you've written a good argument, that's as good as several no-reason-given votes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Uh, sure. I think. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Oral Fixation 2 (parent article). Movementarian 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doesn't warrant merge, IMO. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, recorded song by Shakira, why shouldn't wikipedia users be able to read about it? Failing that merge with album. Kappa 10:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with album, per precedent and because it makes obvious sense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if that fails then merge. Hey, HW! --DrippingInk 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hello to you, DI. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep iff source is given for rumors. If not, merge -- article does have some actual information on the song. --zenohockey 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable song as not released as a single yet. --Terence Ong ^Talk 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

*reverted blanking by User:Rodrigogomespaixao Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with album article. There's no reason to lose the information here just because the song doesn't warrant an entry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AdwareAlert

This page is (and was) just advertising. This program is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, whether a rogue antispyware program or not - delete. --FlyingPenguins 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad; also, two sentences do not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: Ahh, the irony of the creators of technology for removing other technology abusing technology for advertising, abusing another technology for advertising :) While I agree the motive behind creating this article is obviously advertising (see initial revision), we do keep more prominent anti-spyware software such as Ad-Aware. adwarealert.com has Alexa rank of 55,247, borderline notability. --Quarl 05:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't trust Alexa much, but that number seems supportive of notability... Looking at the history, there seems to be some POV warring between the company fans (minions?) and those that want to point out that this product is considered rogue by some... getting past that, there is a fair bit of info that could be gleaned from the various versions and put in. Enough to take the article to Featured status? Probably not, but a decent article. Failing that, merge it with antispyware++Lar 07:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam, not encyclopedic.--MONGO 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, linkspam. R adiant _>|< 10:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete since much of the inbound traffic seems to be ads, 55k is above the usual Alexa rank for WP:WEB, and I hate spam. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Linkspam Compu ter Joe 16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is linkspam, and this article does not have much to expand on. Ajwebb 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment before you decide it's linkspam and vote that way I suggest going through the history. For example this version is not linkspam: [1], nor is the 2nd one after it, or the 4th one, etc. The anons keep restoring it back to an advert, but the versions where it is not just an advert (particularly this one [2] do seem potentially encyclopedic, if a bit thin. I guess if there is no way to stop the revert warring, then yes, delete it, but wouldn't it be better to have a useful article there? I already "voted" above, so this is just a comment. I also tried to put some of the content back.++Lar 04:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Add. Is it for just $19.95 too? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detva District

Page has absolutely no content. (nomination by User:Liface )

If this is a real place, then, if somebody can write a stub about it, keep. If nobody does anything n five days, delete. Previous content was an ad, which was blanked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Was tagged for speedy delete for being empty, but content had been blanked. After restoring the content, it turns out it's an article about a Slovakian company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. howch e ng {chat} 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Howcheng. -- ReyBrujo 02:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, misleading title. Detva District (with diacritics) may became real and valid article in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NeoJustin 05:32, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn--MONGO 09:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above VegaDark 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletions. -- Rob 09:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dtcon

Was tagged for speedy deletion for being "pure advertising," but that's not speediable. Brought it to AfD instead to respect the desire of the anon user who tagged it. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Advert. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as ad -- Hansnesse 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company, advertising --Quarl 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it's an ad, not notable, not NPOV. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non notable. Job e 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:33, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn--MONGO 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7. -Doc ^ask? 01:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krešimir Čorak

Delete - No Google hits outside of Wikipedia (unless you count a member of a Karate club) Lars T. 00:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also delete the entry in List of fantasy authors - the novel mentioned there also gives zero hits

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio; marked as such --Quarl 00:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Zoe|^(talk) . -Doc ^ask? 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Mwalmart Directory

I can't work out what its about, but it certainly isn't encyclopaedic. o__O - FrancisTyers 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom! - FrancisTyers 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense; marked as such --Quarl 00:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (but a possible merge/redirect, as much as I a Sox fan loathe to admit). -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 05:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yankees Suck

Non notable neologism with no meaning outside of a small number of sports fans - delete . Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. But then again I'm a Yankee's fan. --Pboyd04 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a highly notable, oft-written-about sports chant that ended up being a regional phenomenon, spawning shirts, rival chants, etc. I could have sworn this went up for AfD before. Also, with the Red Sox being the biggest MLB road draw as well as one of the more popular baseball franchises, I'd imagine Red Sox Nation would resent being considered a "small number of sports fans." --badlydrawnjeff 00:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- That was Boston Sucks (AfD discussion). Uncle G 04:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
(see below) ~~Delete~~ as attack page and non-notable neologism per nominator. We need a new speedy-delete category for these bad neologisms. Every rival sports team has pejorative chants against each other. P.S.: I don't follow baseball so I don't favor Yankees or anybody else. --Quarl 00:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This phrase gets 205,000 hits on Google [3], is the title of a book "Yankees Suck! The Unofficial Guide for Fans Who Hate, Despise, Loath, and Detest Those Bums From the Bronx", has its own clothing line [4], and articles in USA Today [5] and MSNBC [6]. Although unfortunate, it's one of the most common chants at a Boston Red Sox game, even when the Yankees aren't the opponent. Carbonite | Talk 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough to warrant an aricle. No Guru 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Chant has been in wide use for at least five years and has received substantial press coverage. I've even heard it at games on the west coast where neither the Yankees nor the Sox are present. ×Meegs 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've removed the blatant anti-Yankee POV from the article. There's no reason to have a defense of the chant in the article. Carbonite | Talk 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not neutral and it's fancruft. I would say keep if it was made more neutral and lengthened. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- In what ways is the article not neutral? Obviously the phrase itself is extremely biased, but I believe the article is rather balanced. I do agree that it can be lengthened, but it already covers the essentials. Carbonite | Talk 03:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Per badly drawn jeff. Job e 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable regional (in this case, most of New England) slogan. Haikupoet 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:36, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rename Football chant to Sports chant per Talk:Football_chant, as it already discusses sports other than American football; merge Cheering; then merge Yankees Suck into Sports chant per PJM. I quote PJM from AFD/Boston Sucks:
- Because there are so many chants in Major League Baseball, one article should be made to feature such entries, like Football chants. Otherwise an article of this nature seems excessive and non-encyclopedic, IMHO PJM 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete (or at best merge into Sports Chant). Are we going to have an entry like this for every chant or T-shirt slogan for every sports team around? Shall we have Sox Suck? Or maybe it would have to be both Sox Suck (White Sox) and Sox Suck (Red Sox) ? Get a grip folks, it doesn't deserve its own entry. Madman 06:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete, Every popular sports chant should not be included, and there is no precedence for this kind of thing. Every chant has background and is marketed. Croat Canuck 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Although it is undisputably true that the Yankees DO suck, (and how!)... Merge per User:PJM and user:Quarl... their rollup plan seems to make sense. ++Lar 07:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep weakly...not sure what the purpose of this is...maybe better off in the new upcoming ma.wiki.....that's Massachusetts Wikipedia.--MONGO 09:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete of course. Do we need an encyclopaedia to tell us that sports fans shout insults at their opponents? It's ridiculous. However notable the teams might be, it's still ridiculous. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not the notibility of the teams that matters here (though they do each have million of fans), it's the notibility of the chant itself. In this case, it's (unfortunately) the most known chant in sports. It's cetainly more notable than the vast majority of schools that are kept on a regular basis. Carbonite | Talk 11:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That is the "soem cruft justifies all cruft" argument. The genuinely encyclopaedic content of this article could be covered in a single sentence in the article on the team. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. It would more than serve its purpose in Red Sox Nation. PJM 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Keep Anyone who voted Delete on this knows nothing about the sports landscape of New England, hatred of the Yankees is part of our cultural heritage. One time I was at Fenway Park and fans chanted "Yankees Suck", even though the Yankees were two thousand miles away, at a game that hadn't started yet. That's not the best one though, i've heard "Yankees Suck" chants at hockey games, during commercials involving Derek Jeter, little league games, and one time even in a church (although they were really drunk that time.)"Yankees Suck" is more than just a chant, it's a motto for a Nation... karmafist 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your crass generalizations are odious, and ergo I vote Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget the "Yankee Suck" chant at the Patriots Super Bowl rally. Yeesh. --badlydrawnjeff 13:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a motto for Red Sox Nation and that's where it should be merged. I'm frequently in the New England area and outside the realm of Red Sox fandom, it's not a major cultural staple. PJM 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: NPOV, fancruft Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- You do realize that NPOV is a good quality for an article? If you mean that the article is biased, could you provide some specifics? Of course the phrase itself is biased, but that's irrelevant to whether the article is biased. As for fancruft, this is the most famous chant in American sports (probably in the history of American sports). Carbonite | Talk 13:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete Compu ter Joe 13:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per the other keep votes. P.S., they really do suck. :) --King of All the Franks 13:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per King of All Franks. :) Youngamerican 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep That neologism is probaly known to millions of sports fans out there. It has cultural significance to sports. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Red Sox Nation. PJM 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires attribution of edits, thus that choice isn't possible. However, Merge and redirect would be a valid option. Carbonite | Talk 18:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. PJM 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge I suggest creating a baseball chant article......or perhaps a List of baseball chants, where the major chants could be placed in a central location and perhaps be given a small paragraph each (so the amount of detail in this article could be retained). SoLando (Talk) 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It didn't get much feedback when I first suggested it, but it's certainly not a bad idea. PJM 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked it, still do. A merge to either of the places suggested, then some crosslinking, and a redirect, seems perfectly fine to me. ++Lar 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, overall I think a merge is the best route. PJM 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Merovingian. It's definitely in use outside Red Sox Nation, and it's one of the most (if not the most) prominently-used baseball chants. To suggest that it's only in use by Boston Red Sox fans is highly inaccurate. --Idont Havaname 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm a Red Sox fan -- I've worn my Red Sox cap to Yankee Stadium and had beer thrown on me as a result. Nevertheless, I see no reason this can't be covered adequately by a passing mention in Red Sox Nation. A redirect to there would be OK. The idea for a comprehensive article on sports chants is a good one, too, and that might make a better redirect if it's created. JamesMLane 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per JamesMLane. Monicasdude 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Red Sox Nation -Andrew 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Red Sox Nation. This chant doesn't deserve it's own article, it's not that important. But then again, I guess a simple southerner like me should just let the Yankees (northerners that is) fight it out on this one ;). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect are what I see as a better solution. Never delete, cause its a factual part of baseball. And I hate the Yankees. - [tangulo88]
Merge and redirect To keep this as a standalone article is the height of silliness. D e nni ☯ 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then create a redirect to Red Sox Nation. —Cleared as filed. 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it seems that most folks who want to Keep this "article" are Red Sox fans who want to use Wikipedia to vent their spleen. C'mon, guys, try to hold back. BostonBay 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S. as you may guess, I'm a Red Sox fan too, but there's a place for fandom and it's not here).
Keep - long-term cultural phenomenon. --zenohockey 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm a rabid Red Sox fan and Yankee hater, and there are millions like me. 129.98.197.253 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This chant is part of the fabric of New England sports. Fans were chanting this after the Patriots won the Super Bowl for godsakes!

Phantasmo 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete as vanity. - Szvest 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] Christopher Galas

nn. Google search just shows wikipedia mirrors, nothing on google scholar or google book search Pboyd04 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 00:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability in his field. (Also, not verifiable per nom). — ERcheck @ 01:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy - fails Google Test and Professor Test (from WP:BIO). — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete It does not have any content or notability. Ajwebb 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sewcom

Reads like an advert for the subject. It was initially marked for speedy back in March, but the admin suggested that "This should probably be a VfD not a speedy." Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete quickly, obvious advert for non-notable (company?). :( that it was changed to cleanup instead of vfd. --Quarl 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- advertising. NN. — ERcheck @ 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete lol teachers and students do often use search engines to locate information on the Web O RLY? - FrancisTyers 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, NN. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:43, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- This is probably copyrighted material somewhere. TheRingess 04:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this appears to be advertising.--MONGO 09:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article is not notable and does not contain original research. Ajwebb 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 00:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samhwa Crown & Closure Co., Ltd.

Advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable company, advertising. No website as far as I can tell. --Quarl 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, likely copyvio based on user's recent contribs and article's tone. Gazpacho 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It is. More C&P right off of Doosan's website. - Lucky 6.9 00:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 06:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Figure of Hate

Non-notable, no indication that they meet WP:MUSIC, despite the claims on the article that they are "one of the biggest metal bands to emerge out of that area of England." There is no entry on them on allmusic.com, and their official site has only had 3500 visitors. They have released one album. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom! - FrancisTyers 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You can say that again. Or, I will. Delete per nom! - Lucky 6.9 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and based on WP:MUSIC. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. Not even the author may consider to dispute the assertion. -- ReyBrujo 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom and ReyBrujo. If the speedy tag isn't already on it, I'll add it myself. Ifnord 03:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per new, shiny CDS A7 expansion. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:45, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under A3. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mirmo! external links

Wikipedia is not a link repository. I don't believe in articles set up only to be lists of external links. Recommending deletion and any external links added to Mirmo!. -- Jugalator 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination Deathawk
Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. Speedy reason #3: No content whatsoever. Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per comments above. Ajwebb 02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Mathwiz2020. I deleted quite a lot of links from the Mirmo! article, it seems they were moved there. -- ReyBrujo 02:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:46, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Mathwiz2020; marked as db-empty. --Quarl 07:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organized Konfusion

This page was deleted before as Organised Confusion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Organized Confusion) this appears to be an alternative spelling that the creator redirected. Delete Deathawk 00:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The AfD log linked to in the nomination doesn't have a vote for "Organised confusion" or the misspelling noted. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok fixed it I think what I saw was a list of deleted articles but regardless if you look at "what links here" and click on the Deletion Log thingy you'll see it was deleted once. Deathawk 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Allright then, Delete -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. WTF? I mean, seriously, WTF? Organised Confusion (as deleted by VFD consensus in November 2004) was apparently "an independent rockband from Amelia, Ohio", with no assertion of notability. This article, Organized Konfusion, predates the other (first revision, April 25, 2003), and is about a totally different band. Organized Konfusion had multiple releases on notable independant labels, which are all still widely available (search amazon.com or music.barnesandnoble.com), and member Pharaohe Monch has a currently active solo career. Clearly meets notability criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep as misinformed nomination, per Stormie. --Quarl 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep - three albums on two major labels (Hollywood and Priority) qualify as notable, but the article needs updating. B.Wind 07:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or speedy keep if the nominator will withdraw this nomination. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Is it just me or are we playing a lot more Pin-the-AfD-on-the-Article these days? --Agamemnon2 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not just you. -- JJay 08:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
keep please this notable erasing it does not make any sense at all Yuckfoo 08:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable group, despite sharing the name with a non-notable one Tuf-Kat 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exhalted

Notable as one of the only Melodic-Death-Metal in the NY area.

No hint of an album, plus their "Official Site" brings a 400 error, equals not notable enough for Wikipedia.

Delete per WP:MUSIC guidelines. -- Grev 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom! - FrancisTyers 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. WP:CSD covers bands too. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Bundle with the articles of the band members (also under AfD) and speedy delete per above. Had they spent as much time demonstrating notability as they did describing the group's sound in the article, there would have been no AfD for this article... and the others. B.Wind 05:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. -- NeoJustin 05:08, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-band; marked as such. --Quarl 05:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lessons learned

AFD improperly performed by User:Dcabrilo GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral - filling out AFD procedure. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Vote to retain for further expanson of this topic ... Review where lessons learnt is cited (internally)
Business Process Improvement
Cambridge-MIT Institute
History of rail transport in Great Britain - RJBurkhart 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - FrancisTyers 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it seems I screwed up the procedure, have no idea how. Anyway, I am sure the term is used, and would perhaps be useful for wiktionary (though they must be sick of us dumping stuff on them), but the term as it is seems hardly applicable to ever become an encyclopedic entry. --dcabrilo 01:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As to what went wrong, see WP:AFD/Today#AfD_footer for the full procedure. I'm personally in favour of switching to a one-step process, but that's the way it goes. :) GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - no context. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
very weak Keep - There is a little more meat here than just a dictdef if it's spun correctly. I work in the consulting biz and "Lessons Learned" are often a significant part of the process, or component of the deliverable. Right now there are some interesting links which, if the article is deleted perhaps should go in Project Management? ++Lar 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per Lar. -- JJay 02:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. A lot and really, most of "what links here" links are recent. No doubt the links are made to strengthen the case for keep only after this vote was called on. Do check all the "what links here" and when it was added to ascertain the real importance of this article. And lesson learned, the phrase itself is self-descriptive and doesn't need a page of its own on Wikipedia. __earth 02:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Project Management. If redirect fails, I vote for deletion. __earth 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Expand I can't sit in a meeting without hearing about this stuff. I'm not even sure if the people know what it means anymore. Having an encyclopdia article I can point to would make my life easier. --Pboyd04 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because it is a generic term. It has been used in reviews of every kind sunce reviews were invented, and the meaning is blindingly obvious. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Project Management. Yes, this is an important part of the standard project management program/toolbox, but it doesn't rate its own article. Madman -- who is PMI-certified, by the way. 05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete hopelessly a mess...they can start all over if it can ever be an article.--MONGO 09:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete since this is a completely non-specific (to say nothing of blindingly obvious) phrase cited as having a specific restricted meaning. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - having looked at Project Management, Lessons learned is not a technical phrase from the article - so why redirect? Saltmarsh 11:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - a mess with ext links to Google searches on the name spelling??? And then use this fiasco as a lesson learned or learnt. Vsmith 03:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
A rat's nest of an article, but keep and clean up. D e nni

☯ 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Revised: Fresh review of content requested with balanced feedback on both style & substance. RJBurkhart 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete a mess for several reasons. PatGallacher 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete: This article has no real information and is unencyclopediac. It is a hodgepodge of junk, including recycled management double speak. It's a mess and is just clutter. Get rid of it. Hu 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and I'm closing it. If someone can write a better article (and by that I mean a completely new article with some semblance of order) that is not a dicdef, by all means recreate. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Mouhteros

Only notability is in the band Exhalted, which is also up for deletion.

Delete per above. -- Grev 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per ReyBrujo. -- NeoJustin 04:48, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Bundle with the other articles of the current band members and Exhalted (all also under AfD) and speedy delete per above. Had they spent as much time demonstrating notability as they did describing the group's sound in the article about the band, there would have been no AfD for this article... and the others. B.Wind 05:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7; marked as nn-band. --Quarl 05:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Bellone

nn filmmaker no IMDB entry, google search reveals wikipedia entry and a video still from something done in 1999. Pboyd04 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - FrancisTyers 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Google Test and Professor Test on WP:BIO. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Speedy Delete, per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Rob 09:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete lacks notability for now.--MONGO 09:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ItEndsHere

Most likely vanity, the article was written by John Robert Connelly (one of the owners/managers of the website), as stated on the creators user talk page. Also possibly non-notable (though to be honest, I don't know what the standard is for website notability). Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:VANITY. Self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Mathwiz2020. By the way, Akamad, see WP:WEB for web notability (which seems to fail too). -- ReyBrujo 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 04:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity and non-noteworthy. Ifnord 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:54, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 13:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 13:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hard to argue. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A7). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Graham (Exhalted)

Only notability is in the band Exhalted, which is also up for deletion

Delete per above. -- Grev 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete All in the band. Job e 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. Tagging the article as well. -- ReyBrujo 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Bundle with the other articles of the current band members and Exhalted (all also under AfD) and speedy delete per above. Had they spent as much time demonstrating notability as they did describing the group's sound in the article about the band, there would have been no AfD for this article... and the others. B.Wind 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Hagges

nn writer. He has contributed to one magazine/webzine. Google search finds nothing else. Pboyd04 01:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO - fails Google Test, Professor Test. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 04:55, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete currently lacks notability.--MONGO 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by User:Pablo-flores - "blatant copyvio, nothing but advertisement". --Stormie 05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clubbity

Advertising. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom! - FrancisTyers 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Hansnesse 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment- Possibly also copyvio from a Clubbity press release [7]Hansnesse 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete per FrancisTyers and Hansnesse. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy per nom. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete along with the rest. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Saldana

Of the two bands he's credited in, one is a red link, and the other is up for deletion.

Delete per above. -- Grev 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Not nearly notable. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I have tagged it as Speedy per CSD:A7. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Bundle with the other articles of the current members of Exhalted and Exhalted (all also under AfD) and speedy delete per above. Had they spent as much time demonstrating notability as they did describing the group's sound in the article about the band, there would have been no AfD for this article... and the others. B.Wind 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete the lot, I agree with the above comments. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Wright (massuer)

Excuse my ignorance of English football clubs, but is the team massuer really deserving of a wikipedia article? Pboyd04 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Important for the team, no doubt, but not notable for WP. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - fails Professor Test. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Stephen Wright. Job e 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. -- JJay 02:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per above. But do we need it as a redirect? Is anyone going to search for this guy by this misspelled title? Grutness...wha? 04:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable biography, even speedyable. Doesn't need a mention at Stephen Wright disambig page. --Quarl 05:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete next up will be the waterboy?--MONGO 09:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete mis-spelled title, unimportant subject. Nothing worth keeping, as far as I can see. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's bad enough third-stringers get their own articles. Massuer (?) - I think not. D e nni ☯ 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mopac Trail

It's just some country trail without any special significance. It is too nn to have an article. It should be deleted. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - see my comments on User_talk:76. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Many former railroad beds are being converted to trails across the United States. There are Rails-to-trails books giving descriptions of these. Endomion 02:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per Endomion. Important for relationship with railroad history. Good background at the BBC's website [8]. -- JJay 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Please allow editors more than 2 minutes to edit before tagging. -- JJay 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, please and thank you.Maybe it is just another trail, but it is history. The fact that now defunct railroads are being converted into walking or bicycling trails is quite efficent. It should be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand This article contains notability. It needs to be expanded in order to survive deletion. Ajwebb 03:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep geographical locations --Quarl 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep plenty of other trails and such have articles here. -- MisterHand 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete How short can a trail be before it's non notable? The rails to trails phenomenon is important but are individual trails important? Will people actually seek this info? Maybe it should be merged somewhere? (maybe I'm a mergist! Here I thought I was inclusionist... ack!) ++Lar 07:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per above Jcuk 08:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Endomion and MisterHand, appears to be a precedent in place for these. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and I am inviting a Nebraskan from Lincoln to help expand it.--MONGO 09:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've expanded the article significantly. It's one of four or five long-disance recreation trails in Nebraska, and it's part of the American Discovery Trail network. It should stay. –Swid 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per policy of keeping geographical locations. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Important trail in Lincoln. I remember riding it many times out to Eagle, Nebraska. Probably could find a better picture, since my dad runs a website for the trail.--Rayc 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep former rail trails have historical significance. I have walked many trails and have looked them up. Q Q 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Surely Keep because this article has been built upon excellently since I began it. There is no reason to delete it. 76 who started the Mopac Trail article
keep please this is not nn really Yuckfoo 00:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep rails-to-trails conversions. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep I see no valid reason for this to be deleted, and to quote the ever popular deletionist RickK "KEEP ALL REAL PLACES". ALKIVAR™ 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. - Sikon 09:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nejaa Halcyon

Non-notable fictional character, aka fancruft. Delete or merge with list. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC) This article should not be deleted. He is a notable character in Star Wars books. --Starwarsfreak41 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:FICTION. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Mathwiz2020 Merge and Redirect per Saberwyn -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mathwiz2020 Merge and Redirect per Saberwyn Ajwebb 03:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Grandfather of Corran Horn. Associations with Anakin Skywalker during the Clone Wars. We have several places for minor Star Wars characters, so Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters (if a better target can be found, I will also support it). Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per the comments above by Saberwyn. -- NeoJustin 04:59, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per Saberwyn. --Pboyd04 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per Saberwyn. --Stormie 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Saberwyn. Then delete the target as fancruft ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - FYI, there's a separate wiki for Star Wars material: Wookiepedia [9] Samw 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete regardless of copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University in Novi Pazar

Not only a pretty blatant copyvio, but what was copy-pasted makes absolutely no sense and cannot be possibly salvaged. This is better deleted and started blank. Circeus 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy - copyvios should be speedied, not AFD'd. I added template db. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was created in November, so it fails the "The material is identified within 48 hours of upload" test that WP:CSD applies to obvious copyvios. This should certainly be handled by the full copyvio process rather than AfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I decided to submit it here is that the material currently in the article is useless anyway, while most otehr I taggedtoday culd probably be reworked toavoid the copyvio, this mess can't. Circeus 02:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete and rewrite --BrenDJ 02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

copyvio - I used the {{copyvio}} tag on it. This is not a commercial content provider, hence speedy would never have applied, even if it was caught early. Also, AFDs are not needed for coyvio's. --Rob 09:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete obvious copyvio--MONGO 09:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr

Article should be deleted and the information should be saved into Abu Jahl. His contribution at Badr was not notable enough to warrant him his own article on it. Pepsidrinka 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: previous AFD result was "no consensus", but the votes were "Merge", "Delete", "Keep or merge", "Interwiki or merge". I think nobody cared enough to do the actual merge. --Quarl 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If possible, add Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr to this AfD. This should be merged to Walid ibn Utba. Pepsidrinka 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge to either Abu Jahl or Battle of Badr; delete article as named. If nobody is willing to do the merge, Delete, since it's mostly just some long quotes. --Quarl 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete apparent original research and far to narrow in scope. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Abu Jahl. Isn't OR since the source hadith are quoted (assuming on good faith that the citations are indeed accurate). The other article on the other hand is a complete shambles and should be deleted. Zunaid 14:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Guy, and because nobody cares enough to merge it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:12, Jan. 5, 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was already been merged and redirected. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schwarzer bass

Corrupted nomination by User:Sb1234 (completing steps 1 and 3, but not 2), after which point the user blanked the page. Assuming the user still wants the page deleted, I have completed the nomination. Abstain - Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to basso. This is a minor term and rarely used outside Germany, but fits easily with the content in basso so there is no obvious problem with including it there. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to basso as above but with an obbligato bottom B♭ --Alf ^melmac 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. - Sikon 09:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTV Generation

Delete. This article violates the following policies required by Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources | QzDaddy 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep r430nb This page has more sources than Gen X, so how can it be deleted? Please, instead of deleting it, can't you give any specific suggestions? How can I change it so you wont delete it? (This question refers to all people voting)

Cite sources that have defined "MTV Generation" as a generational gap with the dates provide on this article. If there are no reliable sources to verify the this definition, then this article is therefore original research. | QzDaddy 12:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the misinformation. Please don't be offended by the use of the word MTV Generation. It's only a name, which may have nothing to do with the Strauss and Howe generations, but it has been used to describe a group of people nonetheless. I have changed the article so that it is not a generational gap, but a cusp encompassing the tail end of X and the beginning of Y, but not a separate generation. This is verifiable in: ::::[10] and [11]

I plan to change the name of the article when this discussion is over to XY Cusp. [12] Actually, it is called Xer-Millennial cusp, but since there is no agreement yet on the name for Generation Y, I used XY Cusp. But I plan to refer to the MTV Generation in passing not as a generation, but as a description of the influence of MTV on this group of people within the article. r430nb

Delete i am sorry to say because r430nb is trying but its just that you source statistical facts that have no point or are irrellivent, the sources are about drug statistics from a certain period not about the MTV gen per sey. I think your skills may be bettter suited to pages on drugs. The first three web pages [13], [14] and [15] don't really deal with MTV gen more X and Y. We need sources about the concept of a MTV generation existing in the manner laid out in this article. --Fabhcún 02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fabhcun! Part of those articles do acknowledge a gap or a cusp, which is not acknowledged by Generaiton Y and X pages in wikipedia. So, if I change the name so it is not a generation, but a cusp, would it still be ok?

[16] says There is one other group that's important to mention. The "Cuspers" are those who are born in the transition between generations. If you couldn't neatly place yourself in any of the above categories, then you're probably a Cusper. 1943-1947, 1962-1967 and 1978-1982 are each considered transition times. Many people born during these cusp periods identify with the generations on either side. Often, Cuspers feel like they belong to neither and belong to both. This population caught in the middle can play an important role in ministry. They are generationally bilingual. They can act as translators and ambassadors between the generations.

[17] Ok, I will delete that one

[18] Rainmaker's Martin feels it's necessary to classify the 1978 to 1988 cohorts as a unique, mini Gen-Y. According to Martin, "the problem with longer definitions is that they're too huge" -- in other words, they cover too much societal change. This analysis puts the Gen-Y teens of the early 1990s into a unique buffer zone between X-ers and Millennials.

I'll remove the drug section.

Again I appreciate the suggestions, you're good. Ok, I made the changes, but I'm still waiting on the question about: 1. the name change from a generation to cusp? (as that will cause a redirect) 2. Will you change your vote after I do it? r430nb

Strong keep. There are problems with the article, but nothing that can't be fixed. The concept is notable and verifiable, I can't see how it can be deleted. Ifnord 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, Thank you! If there is any suggestions you have, please let me know. r430nb

Keep if it can be cleaned up. There is a lot of data there but it lacks coherency. Is the huge list of bands actually necessary, for example? I was not sure what exactly the article was telling me. PS r430nb, may I suggest that you use the : character to get indenting so that your comments are easier to follow... and for deep discussion on how to improve the article, I suggest using the article's talk page. ++Lar 06:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Lar! I removed the list of bands, but I plan on putting one or two examples of each musical type.

No worries. BTW r430nb, it is not necessary to respond to each and every comment from everyone expressing an opinion, especially if you're just commenting on their comment... that can make these quite long and hard to follow for the "closing admin". What may work better is to try to address all the concerns in one comment that you tack on the end of the discussion, instead of individually. Hope that helps. And thanks for signing your comments, it's hard to remember to do it every time but it really helps if you do. ++Lar 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep for now, but revisit in a while. This article needs a scythe taken to it: the phrase "MTV generation" has some currency and deserves documentation, but there is no need to list every band, every film and every other cultural influence here; these are already covered in the articles for 1980s and 1990s, so much of this is redundant. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but if every cultural influence is moved out, what should I keep? The list of bands has been moved over to the talk page for the article. Then, for the hard subject of the the phrase "MTV generation" I can't find a source matching it to the specific dates mentioned, like he said up above and that it describes a gap between X and Y. So, while I like the term MTV generation, it doesn't match the specific group we're trying to get. This term overlaps with any teenager born anytime who is influenced by MTV. The only claim we have to it is that we were born around the time it first came out, like how Generation Y has always been surrounded with computers and they don't know about a time before that. Believe me, I don't want to change the name "MTV generation" but to comply with Wikipedia, I have to change it to match the sources or else it's deleted. I hope this doesn't change your vote. r430nb

Keep This is well known. At the very most - rewrite. Compu ter Joe 13:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool! r430nb

Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 13:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, more power to you! r430nb

Keep and cleanup also. Evil Eye 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, thank you! r430nb

Revamp It needs to be mainly redirected to Generation X and have most content cleaned out. 63.18.176.181 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but if I put any section of it in Generation X page, they will most likely put it in deletion again. r430nb

Delete as NPOV/NOR violation. Monicasdude 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Please give examples? r430nb

Keep and SERIOUS cleanup. This was the version of the article that I saw when I edited it. Now it looks like a tornado had gone through it. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, it does look like that. Thank you Andylkl and Thank you to everyone who votes "keep" and the love and support everyone gives to this article! I will divert all my other comments to the discussion page. Please look at the old version that Andylkl had because I had to rip it up due to the threat of deletion.

Keep and revert from original into new. 217.129.169.105 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep so that people of my generation aren't left to wonder why they don't fit in with Generation X or Y.70.124.135.121 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per others. It's a popular/notable enough expression. - Liontamer 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as per others above. Piecraft 00:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and revert to last edit as per Andylkl with added changes, notable term and definition encompassing the cusp of both Gen X and Y. 82.155.1.151 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and expand. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wyckoff Farmhouse Museum

Seemly a non notable place. ReyBrujo 02:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I would think that a place that has an entire museum dedicated to it counts as notable. Perhaps a move to a page called Wyckoff house would be appropriate, however. --Hansnesse 02:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: probably the oldest home in New York City. The house, built around 1652, became the City's first landmark in 1965. -- JJay 03:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately also a copyvio, I've tagged and listed it. -- JJay 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If rewritten to non copyvio status then keep - And Rey, you really need to learn the difference between the meanings of seemly and seemingly - it's starting to get on my nerves :) Grutness...wha? 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Learned! I promise! -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

keep although it doesn't have a museum devoted to it - it is a museum. And by the looks of it a locally significant one. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep if rewritten to remove the copyvio; certainly seems notable and verifiable.-Colin Kimbrell 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mist mod

Lacks importance Hirudo 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

At most it would warrant a mention in the main half-life 2 page. Hirudo 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I get 9200+ Google hits on "mist mod," from a broad array of HL2 and related sites. This seems notable to me. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete, as it appears that the mod is no longer an active project. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - article is copyvio, tagged as such. Ifnord 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's only one paragraph. While I agree a rewrite would be good, I think this falls under the copyright radar. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One paragraph from a book may be fair use but this paragraph is the entire work in question. Ifnord 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright protection on very short works is limited. Regardless, it's re-written now. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - The website is no longer there. Did it shut down? Thunderbrand 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's been down since at least October 8th [19]. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as defunct, and probably not notable even when it wasn't. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn and defunct. --Pboyd04 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: speedily deleted by User:Adam Bishop, blanked by creator. --Stormie 05:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The First Church of the Apostleship

This appears to be idiosyncratic nonsense, zero Google hits for this phrase. It might be a good idea to scrutinize other articles created/edited by the original contributor. -- The Anome 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: appears now to have been blanked by its creator. Speedy delete? -- The Anome 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as above. Ifnord 04:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pieces of Heaven

This page is a direct copy of a forum posting [20], by article's original author, about a (presumably Seventh Heaven) fanfic. It is not notable, unencyclopedic, and probably vanity. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanner_Hoechlin --Quarl 06:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. This is a vanity article. Ajwebb 03:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Quarl 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was history merge. Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic metal/Temp

This temp page no longer has a purpose. It was originally created to serve as a home to a draft version of a revised copy of Gothic Metal during dispute over the article. Since then, the dispute has been resolved and the article has been revised, with all consequtive edits made to the main article. As such, this old, draft copy, doesnt have a purpose, and to save newer uses making edits to this without reason, it would be better to simply delete it Leyasu 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete if it helps to get it removed, but surely there must be a quicker way to remove temporary forks after they've gone live? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since it's now redundant and keeping it won't help anyone. Speedy if someone can get past the criteria. - Bobet 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the above reasons. Some articles still link to it, though. -- Parasti 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Leyasu. Temporary subpage not in use anymore. I had started it in order to deal with a somewhat major NPOV/content dispute between two other users that went on for a few weeks, but the tension there appears to have mellowed out. It's served its purpose and can be deleted. --Idont Havaname 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: since it appears there has been a ton of edits to the temp article, someone will probably need to merge the page history from the temp article to the main article to prevent the contribution history from getting lost. If there are no objections, you could just tag the main article with {{db-g6}} and get it done. - Bobet 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Changing vote to db-g6 for Gothic metal, per Bobet. --Idont Havaname 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Erm, vote changed to history merge, as per Bobet. -- Parasti 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Wienecke

Seems to be vanity or atleast nn. Google search just showed an Amazon profile and comments on IMDB. Pboyd04 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete As stated, a Google search only returns a few Amazon and IMDB comments. This article does not contain notability. Ajwebb 03:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- NeoJustin 05:06, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio; marked as such. Obvious crystal-ball vanity ("always looking for excitement, adventure, and of course, sex", "If you'd like to submit an idea, and I am always looking for ideas, send it to x@x") --Quarl 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire T&W American Royal Mead

This Wiki article appears to be an advertisement for 'Empire T&W American Royal Mead, complete with a link to the seller, a link to a review and no redeeming qualities. I strongly recommend deletion. Ianmilligan1 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete the ad. B.Wind 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Quarl 06:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Gamaliel 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam and because it broke the Vote-O-Tron javascript - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete This article has a little bit of useful information such as the alcohol content, and it can be salvaged by eliminating the ridiculous phrases such as "Made With Pride" etc. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.206.200 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbs Up!

Delete - Seems a minor band. 4 eps released, but they're all on (different) DIY indie labels [21] [22] [23] [24]. No indication of tours, chart success or media attention. Their webpage is gone, but still exists on Archive.org [25] Richfife 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Close call, but four self-distributed EPs in their four-year existence - with no evidence of any tours - means the now-defunct band just misses WP:MUSIC. Barring any additional evidence of notability, a reluctant delete. The article needs referencing and Wikification, too. B.Wind 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep Per B.Wind Compu ter Joe 13:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 13:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. After deletion, I suggest a redirect to Thums Up Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per B.Wind. Imaginaryoctopus 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compound entertainment

Non-notable company +/- ad. Ifnord 03:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the one sentence is already covered in the Ne-Yo article, delete. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company, content subsumed by Ne-Yo per B.Wind. --Quarl 06:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Pboyd04 01:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois)

Again, no notable information. I'd like to renominate this article for deletion per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Nothing encyclopedic about this entry. Strong Delete. Wikipedical 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Bad faith nom from new user. -- JJay 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Too soon to renom this- it was kept last month on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois) -- JJay 05:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Oak Park Elementary School District. The standard is usually to keep high schools, and to merge primary schools without anything particularly special about them into their district page. To preserve the importance of the school's namesake, Horace Mann, please note that it has already been linked on the district page already. -Rebelguys2 04:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This nomination was mixed up with the first one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois), initally sharing the same subpage. I split it out on to its own subpage here. In future please use {{afdx}} if you're doing a 2nd nom. This was (and maybe is) quite a mess. Notice that closed AFDs have a warning not to modify the page. --Rob 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per previous *consensus* keep of first AFD, which had 23 keep votes and 9 delete votes (according to closing admins tally). That's about 72%, which seems sufficient. --Rob 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Incidentally, I've now been reminded that there was another early AFD, that resulted in a delete in a Jan 2005 AFD. Later the article was recreated and got a an AFD with 72% keep in October. So, this, despite the name I gave it, is the 3rd AFD (that I know of). --Rob 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Oak Park Elementary School District. --NeoJustin 05:44, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Oak Park Elementary School District. Neutrality^talk 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep, nominating the same article a month later after a consensus keep is just distruptive. This is a perfectly good article which provides useful information to those interested in eduction in Oak Park, Illinois. Kappa 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep, already AFDed, passes WP:SCH --Quarl 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: The nominator's only contributions are to Horace Mann School (New York City) --Quarl 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep The previous result should be accepted. CalJW 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
merge and redirect based on the content, not the previous arguments. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The cabal has spoken, nothing with "school" in the name can ever be deleted. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's not very fair. It's true that verifiable and established schools don't get deleted, but unverifiable and informal "schools" have been. Kappa 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I think it's emminently fair. I doubt Cyde Weys, or anyone else, would expect unverifiable/hoax schools to be included, but there certainly is no shame among inclusionists in accepting the most threadbare excuse for an article for any school which comes along. Denni ☯ 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    - We are prepared to accept any good-faith article which adequately defines a verifiable and established school, the way wikipedia accepts the same thing for towns, villages, universities etc. Why would we be ashamed of that? Kappa 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Actually, we don't use the same standard at all. Villages are judged by a much lower standard. An article on a village of about 80 people with limited verifiability, and little known about it was speedy kept recently, despite nobody knowing if it was actually a legal entity (it appeared that it once was, but wasn't anymore). Schools lacking verifiable information (or lack of confirmed official status) have been deleted (with me and other inclusionists voting delete). Notice here comments like "All real places are notable". Of course, I don't see many people challenging such statements, even though, keeping all real places would involve an awful lot of unsourced articles. If this article lacked the verifiability that this did, I would probably vote to delete (or at least wait to find more verifiable information before voting to keep). --Rob 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Good faith does not equal good sense. I could write a good-faith article about my local Wal-Mart, which exists, is verifiable, and contributes to my community. Yet no one would be surprised to find this article appearing on AfD and falling to defeat. Good sense says that this Wal-Mart is cut out of the same bolt of cloth as thousands of others, which can also be said of schools. Inclusionists seem to miss the point (likely because they haven't seen the inside of a school since the millenia ago they graduated) that all schools are essentially the same and that noatbility is not the norm but the rare commodity. D e nni ☯ 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - What Wal-Mart did you graduate from? -- JJay 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      - I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an insult? Sheesh, gone are the days when ready wit was a prized attribute. --Agamemnon2 08:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        Wow, man, I am =sooo= squelched! Not. D e nni ☯ 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - The truth never is. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    - "Nothing with school in the name can ever be deleted" is not the truth. Kappa 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Alright, let me slightly amend that per Denni's amendments. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Great article on great school. Let's expand it further. -- JJay 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    - A barely passable article. Please provide evidence that this is a great school (Betcha can't). D e nni ☯ 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Hey, barely passable from you= strong keep. Thanks. Those Horace Mann kids are inspirational. The Time Magazine story brought tears to my eyes. Oak Park is special. -- JJay 02:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Three statements, none of which constitute evidence. Running for a cause is not a big deal either. Lots of schools do it. In Canada it is a rare school that does not take part in the Terry Fox Run for Cancer each year. D e nni ☯ 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - That is super interesting. We need more articles on Canadian schools. Canada is special. -- JJay 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - JJay, when will you figure out that if everything is special, nothing is special? We need more articles on Canadian schools like we need a fungal infection. I'll tell you what Wikipedia needs - it needs some decent articles on the arts and the humanities. This has been the biggest criticism leveled against Wikipedia's balance of content by the press I've read. But no, we piss around with these subtrivial articles on schools and pretend we are being encyclopedic. I would love to have a page hit counter; my guess is that pretty much the only people who read these pages are their authors. Sureashell gonna be no one outside of Oak Park reading this article, except maybe you. Denni ☯ 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Sounds like someone needs a hug. —RaD Man (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      - If it's any consolation, more people are probably reading the article because of this AFD discussion. -Colin Kimbrell 03:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Oak Park Elementary School District -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
speedy keep and please do not merge too much valuable information here Yuckfoo 08:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per previous discussion, Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, and to discourage this type of bad-faith double jeapordy. Silensor 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. A month is too soon to re-nominate for AFD, and this is a perfectly good school article besides. -Colin Kimbrell 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems AFD has become nominate X article Y number of times til there is a delete consensus lately. ALKIVAR™ 01:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Per previous consensus. 23 to 9 a month ago to keep. And no new argument. Try again in 6 months if you still feel this needs to be deleted. A 05:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep meets the proposal at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 23:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Whitley

Apparent vanity. Michael Whitley + CZI yields 5 google hits, one of which is from Michaelwhitley.com. History shows cleanup tag was added on Dec 6 but deleted by the original author. Saint Midge 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
deleteper nomObina 10:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision made to merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanny (Guilty Gear) and Leopaldon and now Kliff Undersn

Leopaldon: Presumably this means something to someone. 500 google hits, mostly about a nn Japanese rock group. Grutness...wha? 04:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fanny (Guilty Gear): not a clue what this is all about. And the google search led me to some very unseemly sites that I won't mention here. Either hard porn or (more likely) something to do with an unnamed video game. Grutness...wha? 04:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Character from video game series "Guilty Gear". The reference to Dr. Baldhead led to less obscene links. Saint Midge 04:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Guilty Gear points 30 other articles about Guilty Gear characters, including "non-playable" ones. I don't like Fanny or the other articles, but we should be consistent and delete/merge all of them or keep them all. --Quarl 05:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Bundled AFDs: I've gone ahead and bundled the AFDs for Fanny (Guilty Gear) and Leopaldon -- both are apparently characters from that video game. --Quarl 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
These articles should be kept if somebody updates them or edits them conform to a higher standard, otherwise they should be deleted in their current state as they are too confusing for someone not aware with the subject matter.Lupinewulf 06:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Found a new article, Kliff Undersn similar to the other two. Lupinewulf 07:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: they're all cut and pasted from Characters in Guilty Gear. However, most other characters from the game seem to have decent sized articles and these were just created, so they might get better eventually. On the other hand, even the longer articles are fancrufty so deleting them wouldn't pain me. - Bobet 13:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete (preferred) or merge all into a single article on characters form the game, but the game itself barely stirs the notability-o-meter. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno. Four games in the series, plus national tournaments in both the US and Japan? That's gotta count for something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge these into Characters in Guilty Gear, if there's anything to merge. Definitely redirect, in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Characters in Guilty Gear, as above. I do think, though, that some of the GG characters should have their own articles: Bridget (Guilty Gear), for instance, is notable outside the game, and Ky Kiske is the iconic symbol of the series. But Kliff is a secret character in the later games: there is no way he should get his own article. I can see the argument for minor characters in Pokémon, a game that has become a household word, but not for those in Guilty Gear, which isn't even known among most video gamers. Nightwatch／respond 06:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Of course he isn't very secret, I've never seen a game where he _wasn't_ unlocked. It's like deleting Seung Mina because she hasn't been an "official" character since Soul Edge. However, merging Kliff with Testament (his son, who is a more major character), Fanny with Baldhead, and Leopaldon with That Man (his boss) isn't a bad idea. These pages already exist and are pretty well-developed. -- Narfness 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep or merge into their respective siblings (as noted in the above comment). There are more obscure (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22li+long%22+soul&btnG=Search vs. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=leopaldon+%22guilty+gear%22&btnG=Google+Search) fighting game characters with their own pages on Wikipedia. These pages just need time to grow. If not as stubs then as offshoots of their sibling articles. --Narfness 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. - Sikon 09:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tu'ala

Very minor Star Wars character. Only claim to fame is that he was one of the many jedi characters who died during Attack of the Clones. Not enough information available to justify a merge into one of the Lists of Star Wars characters. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

- I personally don't think there's enough informtion to warrant a merge (the two sentances of the article can be condensed to "He is a Corellian Jedi, who was killed", but don't let me get in the way if this is the consensus. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge I don't see a problem with this being in List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters --Pboyd04 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge. At least it's bona fide fiction, not fan fiction --Quarl 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, since that what he seems to be. --Stormie 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 07:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The MSW

Originally had this has just nn-band, but since the article author or authors seem to think they're establishing notability, I decided to put it up for a vote instead (nothing for them on Google ... not that that was a surprise) Daniel Case 04:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, and I tagged it that way. Word holmes, like a mo-fo. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 04:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Speedy - zero google hits on first listed member or title of upcoming release. No claim of previous releases. ×Meegs 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band. --Quarl 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails to meet criteria established by WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Femocracy

Not encyclopedic. Appears to be merely a soapbox. A.J.A. 04:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Femocracy seems to be a neologism without a large foothold or a consistent meaning. Further, most uses do not refer to the gender-exclsuive system this article does. It was the topic of three graduate theses in Australia. I'm interested, but leaning towards delete. ×Meegs 05:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but major cleanup and NPOV review. Could be an interesting/encyclopedic article. --Pboyd04 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax and original research (tagged as such). "In a Femocracy only women are allowed to vote and hold political office" isn't just NPOV; it's not possibly a real proposed political system even for a feminist. --Quarl 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for several reasons, most notably a neologism, an editorial, no references, possible hoax... It would be better to scrape this page clean, and, if it is a legitimate, referenced, term, a new article should be started from scratch. B.Wind 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This is the stupidest idea I ever heard, replacing a system where men and women vote with one where only women get to vote. I guess that means no more taxpayer-funded football stadiums would get built. Endomion 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism, original research, POV, no evidence of widespread currency, and the biggest collection of tags of the day. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to what else has been said, this article uses Wikipedia as a crystal ball. The article doesn't even purport to describe what might conceivably happen; instead, it declares what will happen (supposedly, but the smart bet is on another horse). Doctor Whom 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as (deep breath) original research, neologism, crystal ball, POV, soapboxery, and just plain total bollocks. Besides, the word for a government where women have an monopoly on political office and suffrage is "gynocracy," not "femocracy". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, speculation, and we have a perfectly good article on matriarchy that covers (and references) similar speculation. Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, even if I personally play Utopia. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utopia General Talk

Non-notable, the article is about a forum. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebalt: This Article isnt Just about a forum, its about the activities of the forum, the users here feel our activitiies which have effected many other parts of the web should be recored and its undergoing editing. Its Not Blatent advertising, its a record of The Forum. The way the forum works, its more likes its own site rather than a spin off of the game especialy seeing as no one in the forum plays it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Firebalt (talk • contribs) 05:08, December 28 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Delete this is an article about a "General Talk" forum for the game Utopia? ~~And doesn't list any reason for notability?~~ Unfortunately its not on its own server so we can't get Alexa ratings for it. --Pboyd04 05:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- They make a claim to notability now. But I haven't heard of any of theses phrases or trends and I don't think this website meets the criteria on WP:WEB --Pboyd04 05:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- You have never heard the term "that suggestion isnt even worth pissing on", Have you been living under a rock? Firebalt
  - Nope but neither has google so I don't feel so bad. --Pboyd04 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable web forum. --Quarl 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge the basics to Utopia (online game) and clean up. Failing that, delete as non-notable. --Muchness 05:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- We Are in the process of discussing how we can further make Notability, so just give us some time Firebalt 06:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article will discuss the unique internet culture derived from said forum. It is a small localised community from which has spawned countless political elections inside the community, community radio shows, a significantly long soap opera story and countless other notable activities —the preceding unsigned comment is by Firebalt (talk • contribs) 05:44, December 28 2005 (UTC)

Does the List of Spin Off sites that other people have created about our 'Community' add notability? Firebalt 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion [26] of non-notable forum. --Stormie 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Its Not Self Promotion, Its us discussing what to put in the Article Firebalt 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Firebalt it's bad form to strikeout someone elses text and to not sign your entries. --Pboyd04 06:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete forumcruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. UGT is a large enough community, as argued earlier, with enough spin offs and other related websites to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia - Furinax —the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.218.213.75 (talk • contribs) 20:05, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. -Colin Kimbrell

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (WP:NOR). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: Why did the Galactic Empire have to lose?

Take your pick:fancruft, unencyclopedic, original research Daniel Case 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - only the thesis is there so far, but it's pretty clear this is going to be original research. I'll check back to be sure. ×Meegs 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete can't see any reason for this to be here. --Pboyd04 05:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Save This article is new and it hasn't been finished yet.

You're only saying that just because you created it. As the above comments indicate, it was doomed to deletion from the start and even if it wasn't, it was not likely to survive. Reread the comments up above as to why it's up for deletion and you'll understand. Wikipedia is simply not the place for this sort of thing. Daniel Case 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Update. Must have worked ... author has removed his sig from that comment, from likely embarassment. Daniel Case 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that even judging from the way the article begins, it seems like it will be a violation of Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No original research). Your own theories on the Galactic Empire do not qualify for Wikipedia, but they would be great elsewhere on the web. Do not take offense. ×Meegs 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete The very title implies it is going to be O.R. Endomion 05:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research; obvious. --Quarl 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research. --NeoJustin 05:40, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Because it was scripted that way! Delete. --Fire Star 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom; also, Wikipedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is not a topic which is going to be encyclopedic, regardless of how much more work goes into it. --Stormie 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: unencyclopedic from the title onwards -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research/speculation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft, original "research", speculation, unencyclopaedic, non-notable, non-standard title - and probably some other things as well. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 13:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per all other votes (even the Save vote). --King of All the Franks 13:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else. Unfinished it may be, it already reads like original research -- we know how unwelcome that is. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, oh dear. Someone seems to have missed the point. Let's call it... per nom. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm closing this as a violation of WP:NOR, since "fancruft" is not policy :) and unencyclopedicness is too broad a topic to explain. I trust the author will not feel rejected by the Wikipedia community and will try to understand what happened by reading the appropriate policies. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incompetent design

Keep The page makes valid points about a flaw in the theory of intelligent design, e.g. that our teeth are crowded because the mammalian tooth set evolved for longer muzzles (same goes for our sinuses); this only make sense in light of evolution, or of a capricious god with a penchant for dentistry. Let the article stay and expand. Alternatively, merge with Argument from poor design.
Don't Delete*This is quite funny. Perhaps it should be merged with an article of arguments against Intelligent Design, as it is satire, but it should by no means be deleted. Steve Sims 12/30/05 10:44 PM PST

I really don't see how this is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into an article like Arguments against Intelligent design or something. I think its noteworthy just maybe not enough to be its own article. --Pboyd04 05:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per above. It's been reported on; it's notable, but not enough yet to justify its own article. Daniel Case 05:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- UPDATE:Merge into argument from poor design based on comments below. Daniel Case 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - term only two months old, based on news release from author's institution of higher learning. No independent references. With the debate on intelligent design, this seems to be a parody. B.Wind 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep if this can be expanded enough to justify its own article. If not, merge as indicated above. -- MisterHand 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and maybe there can be an Incompetent designer article too, since Intelligent designer evaded AfD. Endomion 06:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Argument from poor design (it's already listed in the see also section, and it fits) and then leave a redirect. ++Lar 06:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Argument from poor design --Quarl 06:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN satire, funny, not encyclopaedic. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Lar --- Charles Stewart 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and incorporate relevant material from TalkOrigins. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Lar. Doctor Whom 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Lar. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Argument from poor design D e nni ☯ 01:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicheminds

One Google hit besides the company's own website, which doesn't come up. The very definition of non-notable company. Seems promotional anyway Daniel Case 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete reads like an advertisement. --Pboyd04 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company --Quarl 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete orphaned advertisement. Wikipedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind 06:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Writing in the second person can always be fixed, but still worth a delete per Daniel Case. --Idont Havaname 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under A7. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 08:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troseph

Orphaned (did step 3 only) deletion by User:24.139.30.75. I would argue original research; it's a neologism from "mid august of 2005". Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as nn-bio; tagged as such. Original research, vanity, not notable. --Quarl 07:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Pak Union

This seems to fall in WP:NOT in the publisher of original thought, as either a critical review or some sort of personal essay. Any useful information could be merged into Foreign_relations_of_India#Pakistan. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - most of this is information as opposed to opinion, but it would all be relevant at the aforementioned page. There is no need to have a separate page. Lupinewulf 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to call. I'd like to see a rewrite to see the purpose of the article: is it an editorial, a summary for an adopted governmental plan, or a proposal? B.Wind 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete apparent original research. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the article and believe it is important both as a stand alone piece and agree that it should be linked into the other more general article. This is a concept which is unofficially under development between high ranking participants in each country. Why would you ever delete it? It is an important and separate concept than the general political dialogue between the countries, which should refer to it. Yes, it can be improved and I will make efforts to do so later. I cannot understand why anyone would want to stop the blossoming of such an important initiative for 1.3 BN people. Also, please note that the movement is unofficial and should not be given higher accord, lest its own chances of success be reduced. Thanks.

Then I strongly suggest a rewrite ASAP to bolster your contention before the article gets merged or deleted. It needs Wikification as well. If it's an official policy of one or both countries, references to that effect are necessary here. As it is, it still reads as someone's pipe dream or critical essay (both of which are not permissible in Wikipedia). Also, you overestimate the importance of Wikipedia when you write I cannot understand why anyone would want to stop the blossoming of such an important initiative for 1.3 BN people as it is more likely that the number of people who read the article will be in the thousands (if that much), not the millions. B.Wind 22:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the 1.3 Billion people reference is to the combined populations of India and Pakistan. --Gurubrahma 09:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete would reconsider if it was improved. - FrancisTyers 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the piece to incorporate the above suggestions, including linking it into the piece on India Foreign Policy. Any help on formatting would be appreciated as I am new to Wiki.

Delete - Original research. I see no changes. - Ganeshk 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The document has now been reduced to a short set of factual statements. The term "Indo-Pak Union" exists independently, as can be ascertained by a Google search.

Delete -- Does it exist in reality? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with USA. just joking, Delete. utcursch | talk 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as G1. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarian convoy under attack

Nothing comes up under Google. Band name seems unlikely for that time anyway, and members ... well, there's nothing in Arch Hall Jr. and just look at the rest. sounds like a hoax. Daniel Case 06:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Arch Hall Jr. sucks. Archjr

Not very nice of you to delete the AFD box. That isn't good faith. Daniel Case 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete this lame attempt at a joke and attack page. B.Wind 06:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless I see some proof. --Pboyd04 06:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, obvious hoax ("with new guitar player Richard Kiel (1939 actor), they top the polka-jazz chart fusion world"), and attack page; marked as db-attack. --Quarl 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tanner Hoechlin

Non-notable relative of an actor. No content besides "is younger brother". See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pieces_of_Heaven (I guess his claim to fame is he's "starring" in Pieces of Heaven). Delete --Quarl 06:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 06:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A1 and possibly A7; This article has no context. End of Story. --CastAStone 06:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and speedy A1 per above if possible. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Important note: I speedied the original article and moved Tanner hoechlin (note capitalisation) into its place. I also marked that one for speedy deletion. r3m0t ^talk 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was a consensus to delete from article space. But it appears that Taryn85 is Nigel Clarke. Thus, I will userfy this entry by moving it to User:Taryn85 and delete the resulting cross-namespace redirect. I would advise Mr. Clarke to avoid making unfounded accusations of racial bias. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:39, Jan. 5, 2006

[edit] Nigel Clarke

Was flagged for speedy deletion, but does not meet criteria. Moved to AfD. EdwinHJ | Talk 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Is listed as having written a book. EdwinHJ | Talk 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable bio, possible hoax, vanity, original research, unverifiable. Amazon lists the book (whose title is misspelled in the article) as authored by Vincent C. Jones [27]. Nigel Clarke wrote feedback on Amazon. Either the article is a hoax or the author is not smart for writing "feedback" in his own name. --Quarl 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as vanity. Just check the edit history and the contributions of the two primary writers of the article. B.Wind 06:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, as B. Wind says. Username coincides with subjects company name, user has no edits outside this subject, tone is nauseating and content is substantially unverifiable. Nor is this the top Google hit for Nigel Clarke. "Nigel Clarke" design gets about 600 Google hits, "Guy Chapman" cyclist gets 1700 - this person is apparently less prominent in his chosen field than I am in mine. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have helped write a book. The book is entitled "High Availibility Networking with Cisco". If you Google on my name "Nigel Clarke" and the words "security", "IETF", "craftedpackets" or Cisco you will see many return results. Why do I have to be the top Google hit to get listed on Wikipedia? I am also a freelace writer and photographer. Google on my name and "boxing" and you will see many articles and interviews that I have performed. One thing that I find odd is that EdwinHJ's entry which clearly a vanity page is not marked for deletion. Why is that? Maybe the administrators don't think my profile and skin color match. In addition, to answer Quarl's comment about the book, I am one of the contributors of the book and my name is listed inside as a contributor. Vincent Jones is the author, but I assited in writing the book and I believe I mentioned that in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taryn85 (talk • contribs)
EdwinHJ's entry is a user page. Users are allowed to write whatever they want about themselves, even things completely non-notable. The main namespace (where your article is) is for encylopedic articles, and unencyclopedic articles are put up for deletion. Since you wrote the article about yourself, please see WP:AUTO; it is better not to write about autobiographies -- they are prone to vanity and original research; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You mentioned that you are an author in the book, but I couldn't verify it through casual research -- can you provide a reference? If the article has a clear assertion of notability (unverifiable contribution to one book may not be notable enough), and has vanity removed, I will be happy to vote Keep. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-01 09:31Z
Speedy Delete He just admitted that it was a vanity page. -- MicahMN | μ 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 05:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew P Sheeran

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "cannot find independent sources of information," but being unverifiable is not a speedy criterion. Bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable bio, unverifiable. Claim to notability is writing the unpublishable "Barry Rotter", a parody of Harry Potter; and selling 100 DVDs. --Quarl 06:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn possible hoax. --Pboyd04 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per pboyd04.Obina 10:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as the subject of the article remains a minor in the UK more specific information cannot be published, however the work exists and proof can be obtained, for instance by googling the stamps formula. It is also noteworthy for budding composers interested in applying for a music college --Le Vay 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Le Vay (talk · contribs) is the author of Matthew P Sheeran and has only contributed to that article. --Quarl 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can supply us with those links? howch e ng {chat} 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, maybe because it's a hoax. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --MolloyWatt 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Almost patent nonsense. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFL: We Just Chillin'

Clearly a joke (no Google hits). Wish there was a clear way to speedy this sort of thing. Daniel Case 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, obvious. --Quarl 06:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - could an admin stretch the definition of an "attack page" so this could be speedied? B.Wind 06:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who cares if its speedied? Its obviously getting deleted either way. --CastAStone 06:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yes it's getting deleted, but don't you die a little inside having to actually discuss stuff like this? --Pboyd04 06:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete junk --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for all the baove reasons. And speedy per WP:IAR if anyone feels brave. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Too bad it's too early to invoke the Snowball Clause, but, alas, it's only proposed policy. B.Wind 07:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This article needs to be removed. The faster the better. Ajwebb 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons given above and because there is no "NFL" namespace. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable, and abandoned by the original author in mid-sentence. --Metropolitan90 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flame Tree Barbeque

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "no encyclopedic content," but being about a "restraunt" (sic), it doesn't qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead. Delete. howch e ng {chat} 06:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So the question is "Does being a restraunt in Disney World make you notable?" I'm gonna have to go with no and say Delete --Pboyd04 06:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn restaurant. If it must be saved, it should be merged into Disney's Animal Kingdom... but it isn't notable even in that context. B.Wind 06:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable --Quarl 07:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete yet another anonymous restaurant. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Ajwebb 17:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The present article just isn't notable. Maybe if it had some pictures or something ... but it doesn't. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP via no consensus. Mo0[talk] 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyYearbook

A feature of a website. So what? Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep reluctantly after cleanup. Another friendster/facebook/myspace/etc... sigh. Alexa rank of 9,034 [28] entitles it an article in Wikipedia per WP:WEB. --Quarl 07:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up. --Quarl 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep with extreme reluctance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unexceptional copy-cat web service.--nixie 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Reluctant Keep - Can't say I've ever heard of it, but per guidelines, it should be kept. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard of it either, but if you look at the Alexa traffic details, you'll see that it sprung out of nowhere in November to rank 9000 (pretty good marketing I guess). Based on the history of other such social networking services springing out of nowhere, it's here to stay. --Quarl 22:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice TheRingess 01:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 601st

Fan-fictional Clone Troopers legion, not from the canonical Star Wars universe. Cheap ripoff of the 501st Legion. Delete as fancruft. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Davis, the Legion's leader, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galak Stari, the Legion's resident Jedi. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly as non-notable fan-fiction. We need a new speedy-deletion criterion for non-notable fan fiction. --Quarl 07:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft, the faster the better. Someone tell these people where to find Wikicities! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, with a plea for speedy deletion of self-identified fan fiction. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:24, Dec. 28, 2005
Delete, Wikipedia does not need fan fiction that is not notable. Ajwebb 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Starwarscruft --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galak Stari

Fan-fictional character, not from the canonical Star Wars Universe. Raised on a totally (to human life anyway) inhospitable world, one of the greatest lightsaber duelists of all time, and the only Jedi (bar Yoda) who survived Order 66 to die of old age. Delete as non-canonical fancruft Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/601st, the Clone Legion this Jedi was assigned to, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Davis, that Legion's commander. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly as non-notable fan-fiction. We need a new speedy-deletion criterion for non-notable fan fiction. --Quarl 07:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per the others Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Starwarscruft --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fan-fiction does not meet the criteria for redirection in WP:FICT. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ask me if I'm an orange

-- Not a notable meme, article has more meta-commentary than info. Babajobu 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - nonsense, joke page. --Bachrach44 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. Ifnord 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Obliterate Who came up with that template?!? --D-Day 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summa Theologica/Notable points

The text is a duplication of Summa Theologiae#Notable points made by the Summa and the page is badly named anyway. It's quite possible that it was created by mistake. - N (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination --Quarl 07:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as redundant text. Endomion 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holomine

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Eugman with the reason "A quick google search didn't show much. Don't think it's worth keeping." That's not a speedy criterion, so bringing it to AfD. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 07:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable. Google hits are all Wikipedia mirrors. May have been created in good faith from reading some medicine's label. --Quarl 07:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is not mentioned anywhere on treatment of peptic ulcer nor GURD pages. May be a totally obsure brand name for a common drug. More likely a weak joke since the term is used in some computer games as a holographic landmine. Either untrue or non notable.Obina 10:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable and unencyclopaedic (contains self-confessed speculation) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete medicinecruft. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PLX

Advertisement. A very, very obvious advertisement. Greentryst ^T_C 07:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Speedy.--SarekOfVulcan 07:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company, website; advertisement. No alexa data for www.pyrasol.com. --Quarl 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete NOW! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete "out of the box, rapidly deployable framework" marketroidbuzzwordcruft. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete rapidly deployable, rapidly destroyable - FrancisTyers 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this übervanispamcruftisement. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:51, Dec. 28, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animate! OSU, Anime Punch!, Armageddicon

Delete vanity article on non-notable student club for anime fans at Ohio State University. 9 unique, non-Wikipedia derived google hits for "Animate! OSU."[29] Can't say they've made much impact, but what do you expect for a club that meets (as their website puts it) "in the building next to the Math Tower." Postdlf 07:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add to this nomination Armageddicon, the club's "convention" (about a dozen unique non-Wikipedia hits), and Anime Punch!, which was apparently that highly publicized "convention's" precursor...um...picnic.

Speedy delete as non-notable club; tagged as nn-club. --Quarl 07:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The three articles have been speedily deleted, the last two by association. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Weitzman

The article reads like blatant advertising. It consists of one very pov paragraph and a list of stores. Delete TheRingess 07:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep', but tidy up. Appears to google well. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - never heard of him but 1,100,000 Google results ain't exactly non-notable. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This company is very well-known. Just needs more information. Crypticfirefly 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I fixed this up just a bit.Crypticfirefly 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. With time the article will gain more information. -- Radicalsubversiv2 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. See joint nomination above. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Animate! OSU' sub-articles

This is a combined nomination for Armageddicon and Anime Punch!, two low-key, poorly attended conventions organised by the Animate! OSU anime club (speedily deleted a very short while ago for failing CSD A-7: Unremarkable people or groups). If the group is deemed unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, where do the events the organise stand? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If the convention is not notable, neither are these. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Anime Punch! both of them. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both per nom, not notable. - Bobet 20:45, 28 December 2005

(UTC)

Comment As a representative of Anime Punch/ Armageddicon I would like to give my two cents on the issue.
I think considering that club pages are not acceptable, the events of those pages are clearly not valid either. For that reason, deleting the Anime Punch page is perfectly acceptable.

At the same time, I feel that the Armageddicon page should remain intact as it is a separate event that is staffed only in part by the Animate! OSU club; and although it is still young, has notable aspects to it within the realm of conventions. Considering the number of on wikipedia other conventions that have articles, I do not think it would be inappropriate for Armageddicon to continue to exist. --69.133.7.146 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the representative from Anime Punch and feel that this con should recieve coverage on Wikipedia, because other small conventions such as ikasucon (for example) are listed. On the other hand, it is unecessary for there to be two articles for what appears to be one anime convention. Instead of deleting these two articles I suggest that it should be merged into one article (like: Anime Punch: The Armigeddicon ), just like the how text box on the Armigeddicon page reads.--Neilworms 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment for the representative of Anime Punch: I have speedily deleted the three articles by association; if the convention becomes notable enough in itself, you can of course recreate it, though I'd probably wait until it's not so young and can be shown to be notable and popular by some independent means (for example, coverage in a local newspaper, citing attendance figures). Otherwise it will be most surely be nominated for deletion again. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elements of religion

Essay/original research, useful content already covered in the religion article. Also appears to violate WP:NOT by using Wikipedia as a free webhost, delete--nixie 08:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete exactly per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for essays. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibio

Reason Not notable Kravitz33 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Nom has no edits and page was vandalized by the same anon user who afd tagged article [30]. -- JJay 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One of wikipedia's strength's is that it has articles about almost every band you could ever hear of. I like it. Jdcooper 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Band has at least one release on physical media. Endomion 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied - no assertion of importance. R adiant _>|< 10:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Demons

The band does not seem to have any releases, notable appearances, etc. --Hansnesse 08:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patch clamp

None of the articles linked on this disambiguation page exist. If there are no Wikipedia articles on the different types of patch clamps, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. Simpatico 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep & Clean Up. I discoverd that Planar patch clamp existed and fixed the link on the page. If classical and planar are similar items (I have no idea) it might be better to redirect this page to Planar patch clamp for now. But if these two things are very different, perhaps this is a helpful disamb. Any know what these things are?Obina 10:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- no problem. Just needs expansion. - Longhair 10:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep apparently verifiable, but watch for linkspam since there seem to be a number of proprietary terms creeping in. Maybe my spam radar is just a bit twitchy today ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Patch clamp this thing right back into Wikipedia. ... oh, how I loathe myself --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital sound revolution

"Revolution" is a bit silly, when practically all computers from the start used digital audio, and most synthesizers used for music remained analogue. Also, this article is inaccurate - the Commodore SID was largely digital (all waveforms were digital), and really only the filter was analogue (and remained practically external to the chip, IIRC). The Amiga sound chip was the first digital chip used in a computer? Absolute nonsense. I could name ten others predating that by half a decade just from the top of my head. I know that inaccurate information should be rewritten rather than deleted, but when there was no real digital sound revolution it seems silly to have this article at all. WMarsh 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know about these predating computers with digital sound chips you refer to. Pixel8 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if you define it narrowly, certainly the Mac in '84 qualifies (it had a DMA-driven 8-bit DAC). Mirror Vax 19:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Machines with the AY chip for starters - this includes popular home computers from the very early 80s and onwards. Okay, it's not designed for playing samples from memory, but the article doesn't say this is a requirement - in fact, it's hard to tell what the article is saying at times, or what the supposed revolution was (another good reason to just get rid of it). There were many chips like this, and they certainly didn't use analogue oscillators, and could be made to act as low-quality DACs. WMarsh 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone remembers the Fleischmann & Pons "room temperature fusion" affair of the late 80s, that experiment was controlled using the onboard ADC and DAC on a BBC Model B :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If quality isn't an issue, the Apple II (1977) was perfectly capable of playing sampled sound. In fact, that's all it could do, because it didn't have a sound synthesizer, just a bit-banging 1-bit DAC. Mirror Vax 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this article is incorrect . When it concerns computers there was more of an evolution than a revolution. For instance most early home computers had some kind of DA convertor. So did most early game consoles. The 'revolution' spoken of in the article most likely refers to sampling 'revolution'. As DA convertors beccame cheaper/better and memory became less of a problem sampling became viable. The Commodore Amiga is a perfect example of this evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.224.111 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete ambiguous (could equally refer to the CD or DAB radio) and in any case subjective ("revolution?" Where were the riots?). Not a likely search term, adds nothing obvious to digital audio and the neologism itself scores very few non-Wiki hits. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep The SID chip is a three VCO synthesizer, basically a glorified sound effects chip. This article is talking about the first commercial (as opposed to hobbyist) stereo digital-to-analog converter installed in a personal computer. With another paragraph about the Sound Blaster this would be an even more compelling Keeper. Endomion 16:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In which case it needs to be moved to a title which does not imply POV and OR; it also needs to be sure it is not duplicating content in the linked and other articles. As far as I can tell this article is arguing that those (elsehwere described) innovations constitute the digital sound revolution but as far as I'm concerned they don't, for the reasons stated. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I agree the title of this article should be changed. This "revolution" only applies to the computer industry naturally. I'm not sure the reference of the SID should be here since it is not a true digital audio chip. The addition of the Sound Blaster would improve the article greatly. Pixel8 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Synthesizer. I'm pretty sure digital sound didn't spring forth fully formed with the Amiga. Not all computers are personal. Gazpacho 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Obviously, I'm ignoring all the forgeries by the anon, after which things are pretty clear. -Splash^talk 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Crabtree

The article said he gained fame regarding his writings about Iraq, but the Google test seems to say otherwise. [31] (Note - there are quite a few hts for just "James Crabtree," but I think that refers to a number of people with that name.) I can't seen to discern anything at all noteworthy about this guy - he's a Marine captian who's posted on a few political blogs... I discovered this article when I was checking the user contributions of Algore2008, who had been making some blatantly orginal-research and potentially slanderous edits to the Alex Jones (journalist) article. But at any rate, since this person doesn't seem in any way notable, I say Delete. Blackcats 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep - it's a tough bordeline case. I am voting keep because the article is quite clean. Renata3 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's borderline. 618 Google hits is pitifully low for a blogger! I get more than that for my own name and I don't even have a blog. Blackcats 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Note - relisting for more feedback. Blackcats 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC) and Blackcats 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge the more significant content into Politics1.com, the web site where his writings were posted. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable blogger, Guardian contributor [32]. -- JJay 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Change to weak delete. Blackcats makes some good points about the Guardian article + the guy's blog is lame. However, I do think his dispatches from Iraq got some attention at the time, although the radio coverage is impossible to assess. -- JJay 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

- How do you know that the Guardian author is even the same guy??? The Guardian article was about bloggers, but nowhere do I see the author identify himself as a blogger. Crabtree is a very common last name, and James is one of the most common first names. His supposed claim to fame is that he's written about Iraq, so the relevant Google hits should mention "Iraq" along with his name - but only around 600 do. Hmmm...well maybe some list his writing about "anbar" provence but not "Iraq," (Only 2 do [33]) or perhaps the city of "Fallujah" (Only 7 do [34]) or even his home town of "Austin" Texas (Only a little over 300 do [35], and I'm not even sure all of these are about the same guy). (Note - I excluded "Iraq" for all of those searches to avoid duplicates of hits from the original search.) But at any rate, even a non-noteworthy blogger would be likely to have a whole lot more relevant Google hits than this Crabtree guy does - given the nature of blogs and their ability to create a lot of redundant Google hits. So I have yet to see anyone give any evidence that this blogger's inclusion here is anything but vanity! Blackcats 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Update - A few more links here - This is his blog. This is his blog profile (it matches with his Wikipedia article), and it doesn't say anything about writing for the Guardian. Here are the sites which link to his supposedly noteworthy blog [36]. I hope this will clear up any ambiguity and confusion. Blackcats 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete "James Crabtree" iraq gets fewer Google hits than "Guy Chapman" cyclist. The guy is apparently less notable in his chosen sphere than I am in mine. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
deleteNon notable.Obina 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--nixie 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Seems like lots of good info. Heard him on the radio a lot here in TX.~~--Creelcreal 11:10, 28 December 2005~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)

I've been on the radio, too. Not just local radio, BBC Radio 4. And I score more Google hits than he does. And if anyone created an article about me I will laugh heartily before AfDing it :-D - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
And I might be the Pope. Since we can't verify your statement above, can you create an article on yourself and then nominate it please? We need to debate this...although if your statement is true, I might very well vote Keep. -- JJay 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep I work on Capitol Hill and his updates via politics1 were well read. Lots of folks, and not just the damn GOPers. I work for a very liberal CA Dem, and we read it a lot. ~~--TeresaC 13:49, 28 December 2005~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Keep I have taken the libo to merge this piece into the politics1 piece. Still, I rather think it should remain. It seems clean enough. Not sure if that blog was one he used or not. The poli1 link is good though. Lots of writing and photos. ~~Fitzmaurice 13:52, 28 December 2005~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep Not bad. Some good info. Maybe a re-write? This is no place for grudge matches or whatever is going on here. Not sure. I'm open to debate. ~~--figgy4fight 15:54, 28 December 2005~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Strong delete, non-notable blogger. Was inclined to vote weak delete or weak keep, but this obvious, blatant sock puppetry by an anonymous user reaks of vanity bio and is extremely bad faith. (Is it even called sock puppetry if the comments are all made by the same account, or just lying?) --Quarl 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- In addition, of 204.65.209.254 (talk · contribs)'s contributions that I looked at (there are many), I classify all of them as simple vandalism, sneaky vandalism, or blatant POV (example: [37] - repeated 3 times). I suggest something be done about this user and all articles he edited be checked for vandalism and POV. --Quarl 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Good job catching that. The IP's vandalism to the Karan English page is much the same as this edit by User:Algore2008 (contributions), the same editor who started the James Crabtree article, so it looks like they're probably the same person. Blackcats 05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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!) 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayden Scheim

Very non-notable, with less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits. LGBT activist in Toronto who's done a few workshops at some conferenes and had a bio-piece done on some tv show. Judging from the edit history, the article seems to be some hybrid of an attack-page and a vanity-page made by his friends and aquantences there. Don't think this would be of interest to anyone other than perhaps a few dozen people in the LGBT Toronto scene, so hard to see how this could merit a Wikipedia article. Delete. Blackcats 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Story was documented on television news. Endomion 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- He was simply one of several people that was interviewed for a one-time show. That doesn't exactly qualify as extensive media coverage. His name gets even less Google hits than mine. I don't see how he meets notablility requirements. Blackcats 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, one story qualifies as extensive media coverage when the media is generally reticent to cover this sort of thing. Endomion 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean "reticent to cover" someone who's not very notable?... Blackcats 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean "reticent to cover" sexual minorities. Endomion 12:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting - I hadn't noticed such a reticence. I find the media loves sensational stuff about gays and lesbians (i.e. all the hooplah about the marriages last year in the states and in the uk now with elton john and all). And transexuality can be even more sensational for the media - particuarly female->male, which is less common. If media coverage of such things was really so unusual, then wouldn't LGBT websites around the world be talking about Ayden Scheim and how extraordinary it was that he got such media coverage? And wouldn't this result in hudreds if not thousands of google hits?... Blackcats 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Endomion. Note. This is my view. There is no more to it that this. Requests to expand on it will be ignored, as there is nothing to expand upon. Jcuk 10:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Unique local activist. Seems to get lots of media attention- there could be more to his story -- JJay 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- If he gets "lots of media attention," then why so few Google hits? Blackcats 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't explain why google is such a poor tool. However, if you are interested, I could update the article to show the many newspaper articles that have featured Scheim along with his TV and radio appearances. -- JJay 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a "unique local activist" too, and I've been interviewed by local print and broadcast media on a number of occasions over the past ten years or so - even had a personality profile done in a local paper. And I know a number of local activists here and in other towns who can say the same. But I don't think all that adds up to notability on the Wikipedia level. In a wiki about my town I probably would be deserving of at least brief mention (as would some of my friends), as would Ayden in a Toronto wiki. But neither of us are notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio. Blackcats 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Programs which air across the whole of Canada on a public broadcasting network are not "local media". And both programs have been aired outside of Canada as well. Bearcat 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you been featured in two documentaries shown on national TV? If so, please submit an article on yourself- we need the info. -- JJay 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The one TV show that I see she was featured on is Rough Cuts - a reletively minor CBC weekly program which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, and which gets a little over 10,000 Google hits. [38] Now the show is certainly certainly notable enough that it would deserve a Wikipedia article, but it's certainly a much less well known show than say Dateline NBC, which gets almost two million Google hits. [39] My point is that the show is not notable to the point where someone appearing on that show one week (in Scheim's case with two others) automatically becomes notable. I'm not even sure that someone who was featured one week on Dateline NBC as an example of some phenomenon they were discussion would automatically become notable, but they'd have a stronger case. Also, I don't see any good reason why the Google-test shouldn't apply here, as this person is not historic and is not from outside the Western World. It's really hard to see how a young Canadian activist would have less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits if he were notable. Another test I would apply is would anyone who had not met Ayden Scheim in person and did not live in his area be likely to be motivated to start a Wikipedia article on him? And I have yet to see any evidence that they would. And judging from the edit summaries at the article, it's pretty clear to me that it was written by people who know Ayden. Blackcats 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know Ayden, and I've been involved in editing it. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to endlessly debate this. The guy was featured in two documentaries. Check the article- I added the references. "Class Queers" was shown in the States as well as on Canadian TV. I also don't care who wrote the article. -- JJay 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn bio. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more input. Blackcats 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete media are anythign but reticent to cover sexual minorities. Bloody Graham Norton is never off the box! This is a simple case of a minor local activist who was interviewed once on TV; my several dozen radio appearances (on BBC Radio 4) don't make me notable, and I get way more Google hits than this guy. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you had a documentary made about you as well? I really wish you would stop bragging about your unproven accomplishments and judge the articles based on their merits or do some research. -- JJay 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that I am not important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, so one of my benchmarks for inclusion is someoen who's had more media exposure than I have, it's as simple as that. You can't verify my media appearances for the same reason I can't easily verify the media appearances of the subject: they are transient. Andy Warhol said that everyone is famous for 15 minutes - does that mean everybody should be in WP? The problem here is continuing verifiability, notability is just shorthand for describing someone who is likely to remain in the media spotlight for long enough to ensure that something other than a single current event is verifiable (like candidates for political office, most of whom lose, and many of those are never heard of again). Once the media lose interest (assuming they haven't already) then everything subsequent becomes completely unverifiable instead of only unverifiable by anyone not in the area. As far as I'm concerned we should wait at least a year before adding an article related to any single current event, to see what the perspective of history might be. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I reiterate: Have you been featured in two nationally televised documentaries? If not, I expect you will stop distorting Mr. Scheim's record and withdraw your comments above. I would also appreciate it if you stopped talking about your supposed media appearances. Your claims about google hits are not relevant unless you provide a link. If the hits relate to some blog you maintain then they will be discounted. Mr. Scheim is not a current event, he is an activist. There are newspaper references on him dating back four years. Futhermore, I do not judge any bio by the media's interest or lack thereof. If I did, we could immediately trash most of our bios on historical subjects as well as numerous academics etc. -- JJay 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Graham Norton hosting a celebrity gabfest is not the same thing as a news or documentary program actually reporting on the real day-to-day lives and issues of LGBT youth. His presence on the tube doesn't even remotely constitute "the media covering sexual minorities". Bearcat 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete no actual evidence of notability.--nixie 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 02:51, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" doesn't cut it as a claim of notability, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"Appeared in a CBC newsmagazine" might perhaps not cut it as a claim of notability, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact that it was one of the most controversial pieces to air on the show in at least the past few years does cut it. As does the fact that Meryn Cadell (a legitimately notable figure even independently of his transgender activism) was moved to publicly speak out against the fifth estate (which is even more astonishing when you keep in mind how prominent a role the CBC has had in Cadell's career.) And the fact that Becoming Ayden and Class Queers have both been shown internationally. For what it's worth, the Canadian magazine The ACTivist seems to think so, as well; this link clearly considers Scheim notable enough to be one of just three activists specifically named as past speakers at an annual social justice conference, alongside Jaggi Singh and a former chair of the Canadian Federation of Students. I'm willing to concede that this is a borderline case, but it falls on the keep side of my borderline. Granted that I live in Toronto, but I've never met Ayden personally, so there's most certainly not a personal bias seeping in here. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable as the subject of several film and television stories, and also for winning a local award for community activism which I've just added to the article. David | Talk 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. CBC is a national station and it was an important biography. I'd say weak keep if it was only a simple appearance on the news, but it spurred on discussion. User:Ianmilligan1 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - French Tourist 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I'd say non-notable. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I don't understand why it is a problem keeping articles like these. I take "non-notable" to mean "not notable AT ALL". Certainly this person is notable. I think people should be saying "Not notable enough". Otherwise, it can sound like the things of note that a person does are not important. I will assume good faith here and assume that this is not the intent of the people saying "non-notable". Personally, I think Wikipedia should have many thousand small articles about the mildly notable people of the world. Some of these people will become more notable, in which case we can say it was in Wikipedia first. Others will drift off into obscurity. In future decades a small handful of people digging for information about obscure mildly notable people will find a paragraph or two about them here on Wikipedia. Won't they think highly of us. -- Samuel Wantman 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That was beautifully put. -- JJay 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Namis

Hoax. There is exactly one Google hit for "Lord Namis", which is a Wikipedia listing of candidates for speedy deletion. I have verified the claim of "Namis" appearing in the Bible as bogus (using tools on this site). Delete - possibly a candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beez von Beezen

Some anon nominated this for deletion and didn't specify why. I'm completing the process. Abstain. R adiant _>|< 10:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up - it needs cleaning more than deleting. If it's notable enough for Norway's Wiki then, as I have learned from a recent failed deletion nominaion, it is notable enough for the English version. doktorb | words 11:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. I cleaned up the article as best I could with the information available. Unfortunately I was not able to find any references in English and the only ones that were provided originally were in Swedish. There are a few German references, but nothing directly supporting the article that I could see (my german is not very good). Movementarian 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This article is the work of Innaa who is Norwegian and not very familiar with Wikipedia. He was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for attaching AfD templates to blatantly meritworthy articles. He has just emailed me to demand his contributions be deleted: 'We then ask you to DELETE all the pages in our own box of pages names "innaa".' I have tried to explain to him the GFDL. David | Talk 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep with rename - I just looked at the high-res version of the portrait, and it confirms most of the biography of Christof Beezen, though not the bit about being ennobled as Beez von Beezen. Though it'd have to be Delete if the poster takes his ball home and removes the verifying image. Tearlach 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Even several of the keepers admit these things are works-in-progress; they are of the nature that the work may never be completed. The invocation of crystal balls early on is significant, and hasn't been challenged. -Splash^talk 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Chaos, Milkyway Wishes, Around the World (Super Dodge Ball album), Children of Erdrick

A project to create a remix album of music from Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Sonic & Knuckles. We have established a precedent of including OverClocked ReMix's previous projects, however this one is still fairly new and does not lay claim to so much as a title as yet. The article itself is abysmal (and I don't feel anyone has any right to be offended by my saying such--it can't be described any other way). An infobox is not an article, and an article containing only "More information forthcoming" makes Wikipedia itself look bad. I'm fine with this article existing at some later date, but at the moment it is no cause for notice. Vague | Rant 10:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now added three (very) similar articles to this AfD. - Vague | Rant 11:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - crystal ball DJcruft doktorb | words 11:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This vote was originally here. - Vague | Rant 11:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy--nixie 14:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and please, please, please help these people find another Wiki for their cruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - While I did not start these articles, and would not have done so until the actual albums/projects were near completion, I have basically written all of the articles and provided all of the information for the existing and close-to-completion albums done by OverClocked ReMix (i.e. Relics of the Chozo, Kong in Concert, Hedgehog Heaven, Repercussions of Fowl Lamentation, Rise of the Star, The Dark Side of Phobos & Chrono Symphonic), as well as other popular fan and licensed game arrangement albums (e.g. Bound Together, The American Album, The Very Best of SEGA, The OneUps Volume 1 & Xenogears Light). These AfD nominations are all substantially in-progress arrangement albums of popular video games and video game series and, IMO, are not merely cruft. I can assure you that those articles will have full information on them, and obviously will have to work to build these AfD noms into suitable stubs now while the albums are still in progress, much like the Summoning of Spirits album which was in this group of articles but not nominated. - Liontamer 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- At present, each of these projects exists as a few work-in-progress remixes between people who meet in a single topic on the OCR boards and probably over IRC. At the moment, they are cruft, they are advertising. There's nothing to these articles but the same template text you've applied to the other articles (I don't mean that as an insult, I just think that substituting "Sonic the Hedgehog enthusiasts" into already formulated text used for other articles does not itself create new articles). At present, there is nothing at all unique about these articles. The released/close to release albums each have their own backgrounds--these projects have no backgrounds. They are not sufficiently developed to have them. They're just carbon copies of one another. - Vague | Rant 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I have used a template of which I have written other articles regarding these types of projects. The resulting information is no less genuine, because these projects are all created under the same circumstances. There's no reason to come up with synonyms for 10 different articles simply because using a template isn't unique. I don't think that's necessarily a requirement for articles that are clearly presented as stubs until they can be expanded with even more information and specifics.
  As for "not having their own backgrounds", each of these albums have different backgrounds/concepts of what they aim to accomplish that I'll be more than happy to add in the coming days. Again, these are stubs and are not gonna have all of the information presented immediately/at once. Basically I'm arguing that there's enough substance that is simply not yet presented that justifies leaving these to actually develop. Personally, I'd say that these stubs should remain and be allowed to expand. - Liontamer 08:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not debating whether the template makes the information genuine or not--I'm debating whether there's any information here at all. There are what, six unique words in the entire article? And even if there is information, who is it here for? No one who is not already following the project has an interest in these proto-albums. It is here solely to appease the fans who want it here. And that's no reason for an article. - Vague | Rant 10:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not sure if OCRemix albums really need their own entires anyway, but entries for albums that haven't even been released yet? Just stupid, probably the most these albums should get at the moment is a mention in the appropriate section of the main OCRemix article. FredOrAlive 10:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick extra note - there are even more of these stupid articles: Summoning of Spirits, Chrono Symphonic. They're all kinda hard to find as none of the "in progress" ones are actually linked from the main OverClocked ReMix page (although there is a template on the induvidual album pages). FredOrAlive 11:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since I wrote this comment Chrono Symphonic has been released. FredOrAlive 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: The articles have been expanded to basic album articles now. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Great. Now all that's missing is the albums themselves. - Vague | Rant 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - OCR projects that aren't completed yet don't need to have Wikipedia articles. The people in charge of those projects can make the articles after they've finished and released their albums. The only one that I'd like to keep around is the Chrono Symphonic one, because that's due for release in just a few days, but even if it does get deleted, the entire raw form of the article (with all the markup) can be copied into a text file to be posted at a later date, when the album is released. ;) I'm in agreement that articles about unreleased albums that have little substance to them are pointless advertisements; and this is coming from the guy in charge of projects at OCR. In any case, I've posted about this at OCR to try and curb any future abuse. Darkesword 18:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The wikipedia is not paper. There should be a category for works in-progress--Marvin147 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They can be created in the user space as sub-pages. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe if any of these articles were well written, or maybe if the creators of the albums were allowed to edit the pages without Liontamer imperiously reverting everything, or maybe if there was any content to display in the first place, or maybe if there were actual relevant links to download pages, or maybe if these albums didn't already have websites dedicated to them with far more information, feedback, and so forth, then it wouldn't be necessary to delete these. Alas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.14.42 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 January 2006

Nice! Yes, if you look through the histories, clearly I'm reverting important edits. Important everything, even. Don't mind Protricity and his anonymous, open IPs. He even had a friend of his vandalize the voting 209.59.170.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) He got banned from OC ReMix a year ago and simply stops by here to vandalize pages. "Alas." (70.162.10.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 70.162.10.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) - Liontamer 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. How much are these people planning to flood our wiki site exactly?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LitFinder

Clearly an advertisement, not notable. -- Simpatico 11:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't even try not to look like an ad. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete blatant spam; hits Rule No. 1 on the Spam-O-Tron, starts with the name, intercapped, as a weblink. Burn it. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:07, 28 December 2005
Keep Changes made to the original article, gone are the obvious drunken capitalist overtones.

Still need to Delete. Yeah, I made changes to it (I'm a newbie, sorry about that) before I realized it's not exactly encyclopedic. Still, this database is nonnotable and doesn't need a wikipedia page. -- Simpatico 04:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passive aerobic exercise

Passive aerobic exercise is an oxymoron. This article was created by a user whose other edits include three other articles promoting the Chi Machine, its manufacturers and designers. See aerobic exercise for a proper treatment of the subject. This is snake-oil promotion, whether or not the Chi Machine article is deleted. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete wikispam.--nixie 14:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quackery already has plenty of available forums. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pseudosciencecruft. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with you people? Do none of you understand health and fitness? Have any of you bothered to research passive aerobic exercise and write a better explanation? Obviously not. PASSIVE aerobic exercise is LOW impact aerobic exercise. Delete if you like but thank God librarys and dictionarys are still in existence because Wikipedia appears to be a joke based on this past weeks experience of my apparantly awful attempts to add a few subjects that were not listed. I thought personal beliefs had no place in Wikipedia. Sorry i am so terribly wrong. Go ahead and delete everything you guys don't personally believe in. Are you going to delete astology too? No suprise if you do. --User Angel26 05:57 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is it that your kind always plays the hurt-innocent-contributor card at this point of the process? The stench of overacted drama is so thick it's sickening. I'd suggest you leave and spare us all the indignity of having to witness such ludicrous outbursts. All you had to do was produce evidence for the article's claims, but since you decided to act in such insipidly melodramatic manner, I have no compunctions about voting Delete. Goodbye and good riddance.--Agamemnon2 09:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, and possibly transwiki, too. However, the coverage in the article is of such excessive detail, that it's not clear how to merge it. The target already mentions the Bob-omb blast, so I'll just redirect it; the content is still in the history if anyone wants it. -Splash^talk 00:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob-omb Blast

Unnecessary detail on a minor element of Mario Kart: Double Dash!!. Perhaps transwiki to corresponding Wikibook smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge to the article above, the transwiki works too. karmafist 11:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge vastly excessive coverage of trivial facet of something which is, in the end, only a game. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The article is almost devoid of encyclopedic content, but does have some useful strategic content, which is why I recommended the transwiki. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
mergeit Mostly Rainy 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Transwiki to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mario_Kart:_Double_Dash - Should not be anything more than a section within the corresponding game. Otherwise, Delete. - Liontamer 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Backyard Wrestling

I couldn't verify anything in this article, delete.--nixie 11:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This kind of article can be downright sickening. --D-Day 13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Bill 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - while backyard wrestling exists, the IBW article is a lame joke ("trampoline wrestling"?) at best. B.Wind 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As unverified, unsourced, and complete bollocks. Movementarian 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable club --Quarl 02:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of software companies

WP:NOT a directory. Further, this page (and others like it, see Lists of companies for a ton more that may be deletion-worthy) are a magnet for link spammers and astroturfers. —Locke Cole 11:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How does this page encourage astroturfing? Turnstep 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there is little to no verification of companies added to the list. See WP:CORP (and also see the contribs over the last few months; mostly anon IPs adding companies with external links in an attempt to pump up their PageRank most likely). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:CORP is in regards to giving a company an article, not its use anywhere in Wikipedia. Further, if inappropriate entries are being added by anonymous IPs, they should be removed, same as any other article. I'm just not seeing a genuine reason for deletion here, unless one is categorically (pun intended) against all lists on Wikipedia, in which case a policy discussion is more appropriate. Turnstep 14:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So what would be the reason for including a company which is not sufficiently important tro qualify for an article of its own, given that WP:ISNOT a directory service, a collection of links or an indiscriminate collection of information? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete—Locke Cole 11:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete uninformative, inexaustable listcruft -Doc ^ask? 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete exactly as nominator. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 17:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I can definitely see this getting full of crap from random software companies.
Keep. I cannot see how this is any worse than List of vegetarians, and unlike that list, this is completely verifiable and arguably much more useful. This article goes back to September of 2003 and has undergone hundreds of edits, yet is still a small, manageable size: so what harm is it doing anyone? Turnstep 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep minus some redlinks. Gazpacho 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or did I miss the whole point of the category system? --Pboyd04 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. And the category system ensures that only companies with an article (and worthy of an article) are included. I'd be willing to bet that 75% of the companies listed right now don't reach the notability requirements of WP:CORP. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete per nom--Looper5920 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. I think that this is useful information that should be kept for the sake of having accurate listings. Just because you may not 'personally' find this information useful, someone else will. One man's garbage is another man's gold. --1901 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- User's first contrib. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Xel Lungold

Bizzare bio of non-notable subject, most of the content lifted from his site, delete.--nixie 11:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We must move this article to the breakthrough genre of online encyclopedias that is, Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --D-Day 13:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sidesplitting speedy delete. Move to BJAODN with wikilinks and all. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
WTF??? I don't think this is a joke. Which is scary! Delete obviously, given the content. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable bio --Quarl 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete 186 discreet Google hits for 'Lungold Mayan', of the flaky New-Age sort. While there might be article material for this guy, this basket 'o weirdness isn't it. D e nni ☯ 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, Already trans-wikied. Tznkai 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreasonable people

About the clearest transwiki i've ever seen. More or less a technicality. Too lazy to suffer the wrath of some policy wonk out there.karmafist 11:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikiquote. This shouldn't be on AfD, this should just be assigned a {{move to Wikiquote}}-tag. -- SoothingR^(pour) 13:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikiquote and close this vote. --King of All the Franks 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki as above. Nothing to see here, move on, move on.... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Transwiki~~ as above. This doesn't need AfD, you can just be bold and add {{move to Wikiquote}}, as SoothingR brought up. --~~24.61.119.222~~ WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, this wasn't what I expected... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- It requires AFD if you want it to be deleted afterwards. The transwiki system is not a back door for deletion. Uncle G 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - That may be the case, but don't take it to AfD just to transwiki it, it should head there after the transwiki. That sounds better. ~~No change in vote, of course.~~ --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Duh, well it was me who tried to stick this in what I now know was the wrong place. And then, when I got the word to Transwiki to Wikiquote, well I spent about 20 minutes laboring valiantly with the various instructions, but ended up finally with the feeling that I was in the hands of one of those elaborate answering machines that keeps passing you on to the next set of choices. Is that me? Or is it the instruction set? As Karmafist (I tremble to think what it might mean. Or might actually do!) tells us it's a clear call. Yeah, but not for this soldier. Help! ericbritton 16:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since you are the original author, you can just re-submit your own content directly to Wikiquote in the appropriate place. However, the appropriate place is q:George Bernard Shaw, which already has this quotation. Uncle G 04:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks Unc. But I as a new and innocent soul would very much like to be able to pop references in the Wikipedia to this phrase -which it turns out is central to the 'change-making' role or attempts of varioius programs under The Commons. Thus I write something like xxxUnreasonable people and the good reader is taken to this citationunder the WQ portal. That somehow possible? ericbritton 08:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a search engine for Wikiquote. Wikiquote already has its own search facility. If you want to start a themed Wikiquote article on the subject of reason, then you are welcome to. But searching Wikiquote for "unreasonable man" already yields the GBS article as the fifth result. Uncle G 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's already on Wikiquote? I can't find it there, but if there is no need to transwiki, maybe delete? (If there is a need, my old transwiki vote stands, but otherwise...)--accidentally unsigned comment by WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:45, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
- It's on q:George Bernard Shaw, as I said. Uncle G 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I am sort of a transport/communications guy I am always concerned about seamlessness in social technical systems (turns out that people don’t like to catch a bus to catch a bus, etc.). So when there I am in Wikipedia, it is my I am sure quite silly desire to be able to one click to, say, a word that the author has pointed up as a possible key to a message. Or a quote such as this. Which only goes to show you how naive one can be. Thanks so much for putting me into the picture. (But I bet that this seamlessness will come about sooner or later, and probably sooner.)

Perhaps I might add that as I blunder around here, there is a bit more to it than may meet the eye. I have a long time interest in creating and supporting knowledge building mechanisms for public policy decisions and actions, and that at least in part via [Self-Organizing Collaborative Network]s. So, perhaps not surprisingly, we are looking at ways of integrating the Wikipedia into a number of our groups work projects under [The Commons]. My hope is that our use of it will turn out to be useful to others in turn. (Hope I have not put you to sleep.) ericbritton 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Roper

This article was deleted as a WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability) but the speedy was disputed and a clear consensus to undelete this appeared at WP:DRV. Listing this article now for regular AFD process. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Impressive credentials, but doesn't meet WP:BIO, in my view. [40]. PJM 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain: it certainly asserts notability in a way. I'm just not sure what actually constitutes notability for an American lawyer and wonder if there may simply be something wrong with Wikipedia's guidelines. There must be internal criteria for importance in lawyerdom which could be applied. I have no idea how significant it is to be "Chair of the Intellectual Property Committee of the American Bar Association's Litigation Section", for instance. u p p l a n d 13:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete "Harry Roper" lawyer gets fewer Google hits than "Guy Chapman" cyclist. Happy to change vote if any impartial lawyer types want to come along and state that these claims to faim consititue real fame. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete In my legal opinion, this is a "pumped-up" CV. Xoloz 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
comment It would help if a few of the high-profile patent infringement cases were mentioned in the article. Does "high profile" mean that they were covered by mainstream media? --Oberwolfach 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I originally speedied this after tagged by another user. I did so because I didn't consider a claim basically saying "this guy's really famous! Honest!" as a legit claim of notability, and ,as Xoloz says, it's basically a pumped up CV. No real evidence is given that he's anything more than a pretty successful lawyer. I would also argue that even if he is involved in some high-profile cases, it doesn't mean everyone involved in such cases is notable. -R. fiend 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless his status as a premier lawyer is established. I agree with R. fiend, it reads more like an embellished CV than an encyclopaedia article. Movementarian 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. At least as notable as Kadee Strickland. Bio here [41]; I'd say being lead counsel winning a case with a $150 million verdict meets the notability standard. Monicasdude 02:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insider attack

Basically, it's an essay. It violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox, among other things. Attempts have been made to clean it up, but they have been unsuccessful. Put it out of it's misery. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 12:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - it's a hybrid of speculation and quotes. It's on a subject that's very hard to source (I couldn't find anything) and it also doesn't represent a worldwide view. I think it's messed up beyond redemption and if this subject does deserve an article, it belongs on Wiktionary, not here. Izehar 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV dressed up to look like something else. And failing. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Failing miserably. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete at best add "Insider Attack" a quick one line definition in the wiktionary. --Pboyd04 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - An insider attack is a big problem in computer security. I'm surprised none of you have heard of it before. That said, this article needs to be entirely rewritten, or just plain started over from scratch. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per Cyde and above, scrape it clean and begin again - the article needs to be deleted, but the topic does merit its own article... and first things must come first. B.Wind 22:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenSebJ

Very minor freeware, virtually no Google presence, created by User:OpenSebJ. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually Open Source; that's why it's been added here, also you cite this software as currently being of little significance, however it currently is in the top 3% of projects listed on Source Forge - these statistics are visible on the project page OpenSebJ SourceForge home--OpenSebJ 12:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A remarkable feat, given that is scores only 40 Google hits. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

An 'activity percentile' of 98% on sourceforge does not indicate that the project is significant. That number for your project is influenced by exactly three things:

Number of CVS commits in the last 7 days
Age of the latest file release in days
Number of days since the last project admin login

To get an 'activity rank' of 98% for a project, all one needs to do is log into SourceForge once every few days, have recently released a file, and commit to the CVS repository a couple of times. It says nothing about the popularity of the project or the meaningfulness of it.

That said, delete. The project has been downloaded a staggering 306 times since its first release in August 2005. This is not material for an encyclopedia. --Stephen Deken 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your feedback on how insignificant this page apparently is when compared to the magnitude of other items within the encyclopaedia, I do wonder to myself what does qualify? Having a look at the category's of Free audio software & SourceForge projects I am still a little confused as how this is any less significant than the least significant already there? --OpenSebJ 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments (and my 'delete' recommendation) are not meant to be insulting. It's just that there has to be a line somewhere between Apache and Joe's File Renaming Script such that projects on one side are included, and projects on the other side are not. Google (while not the end-all of search engines) records 'about 41' hits for the term 'OpenSebJ', of which 16 are 'sufficiently unique'. Of those, 4 are sourceforge mirrors, 7 are posts by you under the username 'opensebj' on some forums, 2 are your website, and one is the sourceforge project page. That leaves just two pages, one of which seems to be a mirror and one of which appears to be a gateway page. No one but you appears to be discussing this project at all. No one but you appears to be using it. While I wish you the best of luck with the development and promotion of this project, I just can't say that it has garnered enough interest at this point for an article here. --Stephen Deken 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Another good point is that a lot of the stuff in Wikipedia at any given moment should not be there. If AfD'd, I'm sure a lot of those SourceForge projects there would be deleted with clear consensus. --Agamemnon2 09:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the explantion all clear now ;-)--144.131.111.109 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've just created a ridiculously incomplete page for software notability guidelines over at Wikipedia:Notability_(software). It's hard to believe that we don't already have guidelines for this sort of thing, but they're not anywhere that they can be found if we have them. --Stephen Deken 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Llangollen Railway. Why did a merge need to come here? We keep the redirect as the easiest way of retaining the history attribution. -Splash^talk 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GWR 7800 Class 7822 Foxcote Manor

I have travelled behind this loco. I am a railway modeller and steam fan. I still don't think this deserves an article of its own. Merge with Llangollen Railway, remove this as the redirect is an extremely unlikely search term. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge per nom. I trust you to merge since apparently you know what the hell is going on, cause I don't. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with GWR 4900 Class Jcuk 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Llangollen Railway as per nom. Good to know that zis guy and I have something in common ( though I'd prefer an LNER A4 Pacific, myself :) Grutness...wha? 01:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GWR 4900 Class 4920 Dumbleton Hall

Individual preserved loco, not in and of itself famous. I would merge and redirect to South Devon Railway but the redirect is superfluous as this is an unlikely search term. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge per nom. I trust you to merge since apparently you know what the hell is going on, cause I don't. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This page is part of a series and could be expanded considerably, along the lines of some of the other articles (e.g. GWR 4900 Class 4936 Kinlet Hall). Our Phellap 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Brighterorange 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine cooperative

Wikipedia is not a manual. Nyh 12:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was speedied as a blatant copyvio. Brighterorange 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (already merged). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GWR 2251 Class no.3205

content merged to GWR 2251 Class (or rather, the half a sentence which was not already there has been merged); redirect is superfluous. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a Speedy delete to me. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multilevel Constitutionalism

Original research; creator is USer:Ingolf Pernice, and Ingolf Pernice is identified as author or co-author on pretty much the entire canon of cited work on this subject. Which is a pretty small canon, apparently. First cite I can find is in 2004, and there is no evidence of widespread currency outside the author and his immediate circle. Sorry, prof, if I do you an injustice, but that's how I see it. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with the EU article, maybe, after condensing it a bit. Endomion 16:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete Does writing about your own research count as WP:VANITY? --BadSeed 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unoriginal research. Excuse me, but this concept was not invented by the EU. Gazpacho 00:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The article doesn't claim that (and in any case the EU does not invent concepts), it was invented by Ingold Pernice. And it seems to be related to Federalism or quasi-federalism in the European context, not to the US constitution. --BadSeed 01:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPod Key Combinations

Is there any need for this? According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not meant for instruction manuals. -- SoothingR^(pour) 13:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with iPod. --King of All the Franks 13:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete since WP:ISNOT a howto (explicitly). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per comments above. Ajwebb 18:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pointless r3m0t ^talk 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karunakara Guru, Santhigiri ashram

Promotional article for leader of what appears to be a very minor religion. Tagged for cleanup, neutrality and accuracy, and nothing done. Santhigiri ashram is a Geogre's Law failure, scores only about 800 Google hits, mostly to its own self-promotion. I see no evidence that this is a major or even significant religion, although of course it is quite possible that the problems verifying might be down to systemic bias. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a new relegion. He is a Hindu relegious_leader/guru/saint. Tintin Talk 14:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 13:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I like when you do Newpage patrol the same time I do, JzG. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Needs cleanup The article should be cleaned -- Kjrajesh.
Comment. The article K. R. Narayanan mentions them. I am not sure about the notability, so no vote yet. utcursch | talk 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Benefit of doubt. Needs to cleaned up, the hagiographic tone changed and the size cut down drastically. Tintin Talk 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mladost (bar)

Just another snack bar, with no special claim of notability. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. - Bobet 13:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 13:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless they are prepared to fly me there to check it out personally. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I doubt they'd send me an airplane ticket. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless a celebrity got ecoli from eating a corn dog from this snack bar. Endomion 16:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete preferably a really annoying celebrity. --Pboyd04 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this a chain or an individual bar? - it isn't made clear.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bankable star

This article was deleted after a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star). The article was edited during the original AFD discussion and a DRV debate started on December 12 had three votes to "undelete". Relisting now. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Use of the term has been verified. --King of All the Franks 13:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as before. The article is still a Non-idiomatic phrase; the meaning is exactly what one would expect from the meanings of "bankable" and "star (per Cryptic's previous comment) plus a load of subjective cruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was primarily an argument against a transwiki to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged. You did, however, describe extremely accurately, I thought, why the dicdef part of this article is of no practical value. The rest is cruft :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism.--nixie 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a neologism; the term is in fact used as an example of the use of the word "bankable" by several dictionaries [42]. Keep now that it's actually an encyclopedia article about bankable stars, as opposed to a one-line dictdef (as it was when it was first nominated) or a one-line dictdef with poll results tacked on (as it was when it was deleted). —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Common term in entertainment industry. Useful article. Xoloz 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article has citations and is sufficiently encyclopedic to avoid deletion. Endomion 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Notable enough to me, I'm not in the Hollywood business but I've heard of this. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'd say this term is notable enough to warrant an article. Pogoman 08:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
keep, encyclopedic, not just an arbitrary combination of words. and learn how to use google groups advanced search to spot first use on usenet (rec.arts.tv.soaps - Jun 24 1992)!. How old does a neologism have to be before it goes off your radar? --Marvin147 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Dlan

RPG translation clan. About 7,000 Google hits (not too bad) but almost all blogs and forums; no evidence of real significance, and much of the evidence which exists is not in English so is unverifiable in the English WP. I reckon it's forumcruft, but others may disagree. This article is the editor's first and only contribution to date. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, borderline Speedy as it's a nn group of nn people. Man, you reading over my shoulder again? I was just about to tag this. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 13:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I know because I am the admin of that site. :) I came to wikipedia after i noticed hits from here to my site in my webstats, and when i saw there was no "Clan Dlan" edition (though the link is there for people to edit it and plz refer to the "planescape torment" page you have here in wiki) i tought i could very well add it. I am sorry if this edition of the link is against your policies, i must admit i didnt read them before i edited this. You can verify all the info just like you verified the "planescape torment" translation exists, or the newly released vampire bloodlines or lots of others at clandlan.net/academia. And again, my apologies for not reading your policies before.--Immort 13:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned, and no problem with a mention in the articles for those you've translated. It's quite possible that the group may indeed become famous, it just doesn't seem that way yet. Please see my comment on your Talk page. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heeh! Well, as said, i came around and was very very surprised to see a mention of us in the Planescape Torment page in here! And when i saw the link was empty and could be edited, i added us. :) I take no offense in you wanting to delete it, as said, im so very new i dont even know how to reply your message in my talk or something *cough*, so if you guys think its necessary, its okay :) Famous... hmmm... rather known maybe, but not "taking over the world" famous so far! :) Thanks :) ps: i see your coment, i just dont know how to reply! :s ill keep investigating this... :) EDIT: okay, finally replied. --Immort 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy--nixie 14:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy (this is my 6th userfication in the last two days). howch e ng {chat} 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduardo Quezada

A television journalist advertizing himself. Anthony Appleyard 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, subject may actually be notable, but the article reads like a resumé.Bjones 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and invite user to read WP:AUTO. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy, then let someone else extract info for article bio if notable. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikify then Userfy then Deletefy --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Hooperbloob 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of monarchs of Scotland. howch e ng {chat} 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs of Scotland in Gaelic

We've got a List of monarchs of Scotland, why do we need the same thing in Gaelic? This is the English Wikipedia, and the purpose of lists like this is to help the reader navigate to articles about Scottish monarchs. This list doesn't do that. If somebody wants to know the Gaelic names, they can look them up in the articles, or they can go to the Gaelic Wikipedia. Or, the Gaelic names can be put in brackets into the main list. In any case, this list is useless. - ulayiti (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge. This is the English Wikipedia, after all, but the Gaelic is unquestionably important to many and listing the Gaelic spellings alongside the English is entirely appropriate,. to my mind. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is the English wikipedia, but in practice the English wikipedia is used as a source for articles in other languages, and sadly this has resulted in "English forms" proliferating in other languages, where they are not appropriate. Of course it isn't useless. It is a useful resource, esp. when so many wikipedians are unable to give early and high medieval Scottish kings their proper ethnic names. For these reasons and others, I vote to keep the article. - Calgacus 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, but I think the original Gaelic names should be listed in List of monarchs of Scotland and the articles themselves. Having a separate page for them serves no purpose at all. - ulayiti (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, there are three different forms to be included; the medieval native Scottish forms, the modern Gaelic forms and the modern Anglicizations: might be a little messy, unless someone makes a decent table. On the other hand, the Gaelic article can perhaps be updated in future with more in depth discussion of medieval Gaelic, English and Continental names, Gaelicization, Latinization, Francization, and Anglicization. My own view is that all pre-12th century Scottish monarchs should have names in their medieval Scottish form by default. This is increasingly the trend amongst Scottish medievalists in any case. The age of the King Duffs and Malcolm MacKenneths is coming to an end. Although sadly few Anglophone wikipedians are reflecting this yet, you cannot say that Anglicized forms are the only forms used in the English language. Moreover, the medieval Scottish language has no wikipedia of its own. I guess my views are compatible with a merger though, as my concern is not so much with modern Gaelic forms. - Calgacus 14:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So include them all. It will be much easier for the user than trying to cross-reference them between three different articles! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong merge with List of monarchs of Scotland. Deleting this interesting information would be near vandalism - however, leaving it as a distinct article sets a dangereous precident. Look, here comes List of Spanish Kings in Spanish, List of French Cheeses (in French) and List of Jews in Hebrew. --Doc ^ask? 14:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment, is there a Gaelic wikipedia? If so, then delete this article in the English wiki and have one create it over on the Gaelic wikipedia and perhaps link from the english to Gaelic article. If there is no Galeic wikipedia, then keep this article. Evil Eye 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- There is indeed one - here, although it contains only modern forms. - Calgacus 14:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- This option is called transwikiing --- Charles Stewart 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
strong merge per doc. the Gaelic names could be listed next to those in English. Youngamerican 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with List of monarchs of Scotland, in the form of a table in this article containing English and Gaelic names in different columns. Laur 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- comment I wholeheartedly agree with the table idea above. Youngamerican 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per what Laur said. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge - good content, no good reason for keeping lists separate. The table idea might be nice, but I'd be happy with a list. Note that some of the early kings had Pictish names (certainly Kenneth MacAlpin, though the name isn't in the article). --- Charles Stewart 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
conditional merge -- true, the information obviously belongs in the Gaelic wikipedia, but it also belongs here: not all of us read Gaelic and so we'll be lost there. As far as en is concerned, including the information in the articles is all well and good but it doesn't replicate the usefulness of a list; neither do parentheticals after the names at List of monarchs of Scotland. The only viable options in my mind are: 1) keep; 2) a straightforward merge at List of monarchs of Scotland where the page first has a list of English names and then has a list of Gaelic names; or 3) a two-column table at List of monarchs of Scotland which is visually clear and easy to read. The last-named is probably the best option since it allows for quick comparison of English and Gaelic names. Doops | talk 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per above. Jcuk 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Marged: You all were taking so long to discuss that I merged the two listing the English name, the Modern Gælic name, and the old Gælic name (if applicable). Edit as you wish, but the old page is null and void now. If you want to chart the current one, go ahead but making complex tables to list kings personally bothers me because it makes it more complex. I think listing the names side-by-side is preferable and fine.–Whaleyland 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, you just added a mergefrom notice to it. That's not the same thing. Doops | talk 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. 1) The mergefrom notice was added by somebody else, not you; 2) I evidently got to the article before you did. The merge has now taken place. Doops | talk 07:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong merge per above Compu ter Joe 17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future

In all seriousness, it looks as if "merge" has a consensus. My question is: what will become of the old article and its edit history? Are we thinking in terms of a redirect page or an outright deletion? Doops | talk 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Per the GFDL, a merge requires a redirect to be left behind. This preserves the page history. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia has tools, available to admins, that allow two page histories to be merged. I gather that it is a little delicate to do well, but merge outcomes on AfD are not so very common. --- Charles Stewart 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen them used; and they don't work well. They just make for a confusing muddle. Much much better to leave the old history at the redirecting page. Doops | talk 17:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The International Network for Inclusive Democracy

Non-notable, gets 9 unique Google hits (two of which are from WP). A related article was AfD'ed recently in a sockpuppet-ridden nomination, and the creator(s) of this article insist that Wikipedia has a political agenda against him/them. They also kept putting up a copyright violation at Inclusive Democracy, which has now been protected against recreation. - ulayiti (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Assertion of notability is not the same as notability; the group itself could be easily speedied since it has had ample time to provide references and it hasn't. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, per nomination and without political bias of any sort, thank you. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:41, Dec. 28, 2005
- Furthermore, if the group is unknown to anybody outside its own membership, it is categorically impossible for a neutral and informative article on this topic to exist, on Wikipedia or anywhere. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:44, Dec. 28, 2005
Comment: Actually, this could be speedied under the new wording of A7: 'An article about a [...] group of people [...] that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.' I'm not going to do that now though, mainly because I can't be bothered and it's going to be deleted anyway. - ulayiti (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it would be a terrible shame to spoil the author's conspiracy theory by failing to delete such obvious twaddle. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Yesterday you put a notice asking us to do some cleaning up in the Network page —no warning at all up to then!-and we immediately responded with some cleaning up, to find today an AfD supported by the well known duo of the Liberal Democrat and the anarcho-CAPITALIST who seem determined to delete any trace of the Inclusive Democracy project from their “Encyclopedia”, because they are afraid of new concepts. And of course they were immediately supported by other administradroids who are much more interested in such important topics as the World of Darkness, creationism and retaining the status-quo than in a new Network promoting a new social project. Wikipedia is all yours folks! We do not care about you because you confirmed all the accusations being published at the moment in the world press about the bias and unreliability of this joke Encyclopedia, and we will help as much as we can to help all those who do not know what is going on here about how entries are selected and de-selected and the ‘expertise’ of so-called administradroids who in the last instance decide what should appear here and what not! The field is in your favor and you call your rubberstamp gang, when the game gets too tough, to power play with the illusion of neutrality and objectivity. Wikipedia is a failure in progress. I guess you have no priority to trace the IP of the pornographer, which really shows where your heads are.User:john sargis 23:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- OMG like I'm so afraid as an 'administradroid' of any new concepts that might accidentally enter my field of vision, and that's why I advocate deleting most of the content of Wikipedia, including articles such as Quantum mechanics which I don't understand anyway. Or would it perhaps have something to do with the fact that nobody cares about your little 'network'. It gets nine Google hits, for Pete's sake! My user name, for example, gets 38,600. That's what, over four thousand times more than that, and I still don't have an article about myself here. So can you please get a clue of what Wikipedia is about, and stop making personal attacks on my userpage. That's called vandalism. - ulayiti (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

REGRESSION IN WIKIPEDIA

Alas! Nowadays, the validity of an entry or a network depends on "google hits" and popularity. I'm sure that the enlightment's encyclopaedists were determining their entries on the basis of popularity (for example the entry "ratio" would do zillion hits back then)! Do you know all you "sarcastic Mr know it all", how many google hits you will find about McDonald's or Madonna; Ofcourse, this thing proves that they are more important... Adorno would commit suicide after a small "tour" in here...--TheVel 10:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- More importantly, it proves that a wikipedia editor adding information about McDonald's or Madonna can cite non-propogandist sources. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:54, Dec. 29, 2005 SHIT
  - More regression: network's entry is depended on people who identify the promotion of democratic values with propaganda. What to say... And enough with naivety: citing Madonna and McDonald's means propagandizing capitalist values... THERE IS NO NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW!

--TheVel 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. If notability for Wikipedia is measured by Google hits then this could well explain the low quality information it provides for which it is justifiably criticised by the world press. You should better however concentrate on such items like the bios of Hollywood stars and football players (or the other important items mentioned by another user above) and forget everything else! This would surely expand enormously the number of Google hits you get. As regards vandalism, I wonder why comments by an administrator above that “the group is unknown to anybody outside its own membership” do not cosntitute vandalism of the worst kind, apart from revealing the political bias of an anarcho-capitalist (i.e. someone who wishes to restrict the powers of the state in order to leave the market--namely the law of the jungle-- completely free to destroy all the weak in this world. How he is so sure of this—unless of course he asked the likes of the people he frequently meets in Hilton, Sheraton and the like! 10.55: Dec. 29, 2005 (UTC)
- No. Vandalism of the worst kind might include saying "Mr. Fotopolis was involved in the Kennedy assassination" when there is no evidence to support the claim. If you see no difference between those two statements, you might be unable to objectively contribute to this discussion. Also, you might consider not making attacks based on the content of my user page (which has existed, without complaint, for a greater period of time than the article being discussed). Will your next one be "Freakofnurture has lost 2 of 3 chess games"? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:54, Dec. 29, 2005

- Google hits are a good way of determining notability in some cases. If something only gets nine Google hits, has no relevant literature and has not been mentioned in any media, then I think it's quite safe to assume that it's not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Saying something isn't notable is not vandalism, it's just stating a claim (which may be right or wrong). - ulayiti (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your double standards are obvious and seems you are proud of them! Socialist Workers' Party (Greece) has four Google hits, has no relevant literature and has not been mentioned in any media. It's therefore quite safe, according to your dubious logic, to assume that it's not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia.Yet, it has a separate Wiki entry! 16:50,30 December 2005 (UTC)
- If this is true, I'd vote to either delete it or have it merged into a more significant article. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:08, Dec. 30, 2005
  - OK, you can easily check. But this was just one example. Do you think this is the only one???21:25, Dec. 30, 2005
    - "socialist workers' party" greece gets 39,200 Google hits [43]. I'm pretty sure there's some literature about it (though it's probably gonna be mostly in Greek, so I can't check that), and it publishes a newspaper and a magazine. Those might mention the party every once in a while, don't you think? Oh, and vandalising this page is not going to help you at all. - ulayiti (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Unless you are joking (which I doubt) YOU ARE LYING. You simply counted the Google hints to the Socialist Worker Party in general which has branches all over Europe and beyond while we were talking specifically about the Greek branch of it, which has a separate Wiki entry! And as regards the silly argument on publications that the Greek branch "publishes a newspaper and a magazine'. Those might mention the party every once in a while, don't you think?", the International Netwpork for Inclusive Democracy publishes, apart from the on line International journal on Inclusive Democracy, a printed three monthly journal in Greece, an occasional paper in New Jersey and many other publications in the form of books stc. Those might mention the network every once in a while, don't you think? Finally stop the slanders against us because they simply make your so called neutrality even more ridiculous. Nobody from the network has vandalised this page or any other page for that matter AND YOU KNOW THAT. Such tactics are simply against our principles and they are the tactics that others use, particularly your friend Paul Cardan and his various sockpuppets. A Member of the Network.09:00, 31 Dec.2005 (UTC)
    - An additional comment to avoid further 'misunderstandings'. The comment above about four Google hits on the SWP (Greece) referred to hits on specific activities by this branch. If one counts all Google hits that mention its mere existence, in promotion lists by the SWP listing all its branches all over the world, one will find, of course, many more hits--if that matters!

Delete. Should I wear my new WikiCabal pin in public? (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete because the cabal asked me to. David | Talk 11:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Ulayiti, I guess the truth hurts. That's why you deleted the comment at your page. By the way Quantum mechanics is not a new concept, except maybe in your mind, of course. Your page was not vandalized, but briefly psychoanalyzed. However, we haven't heard from any administrator about tracing the pornographic vandalism at our page. I am starting to believe it came from, yes, administradroid(s)of wiki. As a cabal you prove our point all the time.User:john sargis 6:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Or maybe I deleted it because I did not want to keep a personal attack on my user page. I didn't say that quantum mechanics is a new concept. And, er, what do you mean by 'your page'? Wikipedia articles don't belong to anyone, and I couldn't find any 'pornography' in the page history anyway. - ulayiti (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ulayiti, either this is a sick joke or somebody is playing with wikipedia and you too. Myself and John Sargis saw the pornography content in Inclusive Democracy page and I personally put immediatly a comment in the talk page. Maybe we disagree with you but we would not lie! I don't know what kind of computer knowledge distorted the history page. --TheVel 02:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
CommentNo surprise that a well known notable and international figure like David Boothroyd, who deserves his own extended entry in Wikipedia, could not accept non-notable entries like that of the network! 11:50, 29 Dec.2005

Vanity FreakofNuture is resorting to vanity ("my page has existed longer..."), as well as ulayiti ("my user name gets 38,600 hits"). FreakofNurture, is the vandalism of which you speak the fact that you spelled Fotopoulos incorrectly? The assassination which you refer to was actually a vandalization which occurred and stayed on the pages of wiki for several months, when Seigenthaler was accused of being involved in the assassination. It doesn't say much for the reliability and expertise of information of the administrators at wiki. Anon (in itself unreliable)has stated that Boothroyd is so great, but does not provide anything notable he has invented. You always try to manipulate the field of play. User:john sargis 7:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and only your organization has found it offensive so far. I thought this would hinge on my chess match record, but you've dug deeper by discrediting me on the basis of spelling errors. Really cool, I'll remember that some time, but who is this Boothroyd of whom you speak? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:07, Dec. 29, 2005
  - Self. David | Talk 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Vanity was brought up by the your side. I am pointing out the vanity in your claim. Again, typos were brought up by ulayiti , when a member of our EB misspelled 'hypocrisy' on the Deletion Review/IJID page. So I'm returning the favor. Wrong David: I do not know who Boothroyd is. User:john sargis 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. PREVENT WIKIPEDIA FROM SECUMBING TO THE CAPTIALST AGENDA. HAIL WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marx marvelous (talk • contribs) (all other comments by this user were personal attacks and have been removed)

Vandalism. One anonymous user had written many brutal and personal attacks against all those who voted "delete". I took the liberty of erasing them, in accordance with WP policy. I know it's pointless, but I'd like to repeat for one more time that I, Paulcardan, only contribute to Wikipedia using my only username, therefore I would kindly appreciate it if you did not start once again (now that I deleted some of your filth) saying that in reality I am behind all this, I am the devil, and what not. Paulcardan 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Attention: I've indefinitely blocked User:Marx marvelous. If I ever consider unblocking Mr. marvelous, it will not be until this discussion and all related ones are finished. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:53, Dec. 31, 2005
- The comments that "Marx" sockpuppet made have nothing to do with us or the ID network. He did them in purpose in order to slander us. He is probably the same guy: Paul Cardan, DisposableAccount, Llbb etc etc.--TheVel 02:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The crude and insulting personal attacks that were aimed at those who voted to delete were not, I repeat, were not perpetrated by anyone associated with the Inclusive Democracy group. It's not necessary for us to resort to such lowly acts. Marx Marvelous is an agent provocateur, to make look as if we are behind it. I agree with TheVel Paul Cardan has assumed another new name: "Marx Marvelous." User:john sargis 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Everything related to inclusive democracy has been deleted or is being deleted. The supporters all seem to be affiliated with this small group. -- Jbamb 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Sure and the supporters of delete are ALL self-declared right wingers, religious conservatives, liberals and Blairites. Long-live WP “neutrality”! By deleting this entry you will simply PROVE the political agenda of Wikipedia. Could you please end this so-called “discussion” on a predetermined resolution and delete the entry immediately? You will spare both your time and ours. Remember though, out of sight is not out of mind! User:john sargis 15:40, 31 December 2005(UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep - Izehar 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Polonsky

Improper speedy-tagging: this was tagged as {{nn-bio}}. However, being the head of a higher institution of education, in this case University of Ontario Institute of Technology, is clearly an assertion of notability. Apparently he is the first president[44]] of an entirely new Canadian university.[45]. I am abstaining, hoping for expansion. u p p l a n d 14:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

keep and expand; university presidents are notable enough. (fixed listing) Brighterorange 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep head of a notable institution but no content. Article needs expansion. Dlyons493 Talk 16:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. -- JJay 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand.abakharev 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rozzlyn J Heltir

Blogger, style of the text suggest it was written by the subject, vanity, delete.--nixie 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

delete as vanity. Some bloggers can be notable, but based on the number of comments on the livejournal, Rozzlyn doesn't cut it. Brighterorange 15:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scifi-Meshes

Non-notable website, Alexa rank > 170,000; promoting future features, advertisement. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Pablo's research. Phaedriel 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ask me if I'm an orange

-- Not a notable meme, article has more meta-commentary than info. Babajobu 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - nonsense, joke page. --Bachrach44 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. Ifnord 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Obliterate Who came up with that template?!? --D-Day 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Brighterorange 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welgevonden

Meaningless entry Jomtois 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete and tagged as {{db-nocontent}}. Ifnord 14:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
speedied as above. Brighterorange 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel P. Carry

Claims notability, but looks like WP:Complete bollocks. 3 google results with the name doesn't seem to be in line with his supposed achievements. - Bobet 15:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. [46] PJM 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom MNewnham 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BangPypers

Non-notable computer user group. MeltBanana 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delana Mosalaine

no content, seemingly abandoned page. Does this character really deserve her own article? Pboyd04 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

delete. The article was created in October, no work since then, still no information there. If Delana Mosalaine were mentioned in The Wheel of Time, I would suggest to redirect, but she isn't. --Aleph4 15:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and could possibly be speedied as nugatory content of no obvious import. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD:A1 or CSD:G1 D e nni ☯ 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Brighterorange 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accessdenied

The article does not explain what this group does, and why it is notable. Aleph4 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. PJM 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. howch e ng {chat} 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Michael Lampard"

apparent autobiography; see username of author David Brooks 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to move the contents to Michael Lampard, since I thought its notability could be discussed (1030 hits at Google), but noticed there are 6 deleted edits for Michael Lampard. If the article was deleted because of a similar article to this one, this can be speedied (CSD:G4). Could an admin shed some light? -- ReyBrujo 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy or speedy if this genuinely is recreation of deleted content. Subject scores fewer Google hits than I do. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy per above comment. I don't think an article qualifies for speedy g4 unless it went through an afd discussion, this one never did (you can use Special:Log/delete to find out things like that). - Bobet 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Was speedied in October:

04:31, 27 October 2005 Lucky 6.9 deleted "Michael Lampard" (Reposting of vanity) 04:25, 27 October 2005 Lucky 6.9 deleted "Michael Lampard" (Vanity) Hedley 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Userfy and delete. Ashibaka tock 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sarah Ewart 00:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not a famous musician, maybe one day. Adriantame 06:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adigitalman

Non-notable entry. About somebody who edited their own versions of the Star Wars movies. Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete vacuous fancruft, vanity, nonsense, and only marginally comprehensible. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As the person this article is about, I ask it be deleted. --ADigitalMan
Speedy Delete I'd be willing to add a speedy tag to this, under either A7 or G7. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The user request cannot be proven to be accurate, but I have no problems with delete. --Agamemnon2 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Axel Blomberg

This page should be deleted. It's rambling and incoherent, and factually inaccurate in places. Clearly the author of this page neglected to do proper research or spellchecking (a "slough" of bands?) before writing this article. It reads like it was written by a sixteen-year-old black metal fan who fancies himself tr00 and kvlt but knows very little about the genre.

A minor correction: the supposed pieces of Per Yngve 'Dead' Ohlin's skull were taken by Øystein 'Euronymous' Aarseth, not Blomberg. Other than that, it should either be deleted or rewritten into an accurate, structured article. --GreatCthulhu 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Use cleanup template. -- JJay 22:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable musician per WP:MUSIC. AfD is not Wikipedia:Cleanup. Use the talk page, at Talk:Jan Axel Blomberg, to discuss factual accuracy concerns. Also, please do not make personal attacks against the editor(s) who wrote the article. --Idont Havaname 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If it requires reworking then it can be easily done, but the musician is notable enough to stay in.
Keep. A small amount of factual errors is not cause enough to delete an entire article on a musician who surely deserves his own article. If you feel the page is sub-par, then fix it rather than opt to delete it entirely.karpsmom 1:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Holly

Delete Google search on this guy comes up with nothing. Believe the entire article is a farce.--Looper5920 05:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a hoax:[47] & [48]. However, this I can't find mention of his Grammy nomination outside of his site. Hmmmm.... PJM 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I have removed the Grammy nomination claims because lists of Grammy nominees are available from various online sources, and he doesn't appear on any of them. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I don't know who started this false cycle of information about the wikipedia page on Pete Holly but either they are purposly trying to sabatoge the page or they are just incredibly stupid or perhaps they are just very misinformed or just plain uninformed.As the person above found,Google lists many sites with information on Pete Holly as does every other search engine.As you can read on the page now the first round nominee's of the Grammy's are only revealed to voting Grammy members.However,it's actually the hardest stage to qualify for because the committee judges that choose the nominee's are all experts in in thier respective artistic fields and they can't be swayed by label,artist or business affiliations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.101.169 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Tall (politician)

Strong delete Not notable. We cant list every local councillor in the country. Concillors are here today, gone tomorrow. Where will it all end. Can I list all my friends and local shopkeepers too?--Light current 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why have my earlier comments disappeared from this discussion? Anyway, as I said, Keep, because he has been elected to a public office, that already makes him noteworthy. Besides, he has an interesting blog on his site, which is more what can be said of several other councillors, who were decided to be kept in this thread. Even the article about Stephen Tall now contains more information than most of thos articles. I really can't see the logic, if this one article will be decided to be deleted, and that bunch was decided to be kept.--Libs 11:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no other contribs from you on this page. look at the history!--Light current 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
very weak keep. As notable as some of the nn high schools that survive AfD, IMO. Youngamerican 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete local councillors are very minor politicians in England; they barely count as politicians at all since they are generally in other full-time jobs. This falls well short of the level of office described in WP:BIO. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
keep elected to public office Jcuk 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NoeJustin 21:28, December 28 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- JJay 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, he has been considered an intellectuelly interesting politician and his blog is known. Emmisa 16:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Juravich

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Just because he is a college professor does not mean that he rates his own page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are concerned that this subject doesn't deserve its own article, then the answer is to merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect, not deletion, as per the deletion policy. RudolfRadna 28 December 2005

I've taken the liberty of reformatting your edit to be consistent with the list style used on Afd nominations. It makes it easier to track the conversation. Crypticbot is a bot that lists orphaned Afd nominations. He's not the one who actually placed the Afd in the first place so your comment is misplaced. Also, it is good etiquette to mention that you were the creater of the article when participating here. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind in the future; I'm not sure if I've participated in a page delete discussion before. I realized after typing in the recommendation for a merge if there was an issue with the page that it was actually a bot, but I was really just concerned with avoiding a delete of what could be a useful page for people studying this aspect of the workplace, so I left the comment as it was. I have no problem with putting a footnote about this topic on some sociology page if that's what people want. But I do think it is wrong to misuse the deletion policy because, whether intended or not, it can amount to censorship of the diversity of information available via wikipedia. I'm not 100% sure I understand all of the criteria behind deletion, and I know some people on wikipedia are deletionists and kind of want to run around deleting things (maybe not quite what deletionism is all about. . . ), but my personal impression is if the content serves a valid informational purpose, it shouldn't be deleted; particularly where, if there was a compliant that the subject doesn't deserve a seperate page, the protocol recommends just putting it into a subsection of another page.

RudolfRadna 05:06 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Amazon shows 4 books (3 of them in print & available new), 2 CDs, and 1 digital download available for Juravich. Since the criteria for authors is only 5000 readers, I have to give him the benifit of the doubt that he's hit that with 4 books (especially given that 3 are still available new). That said, the article needs to be tagged for clean-up and the links on the book titles should be deleted as they aren't notable enough for there own articles. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep he's published books so he's safe under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Education. --Pboyd04 02:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --King of All the Franks 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geocentric Coordinates

I don't understand this in the least, and it's got to be covered somewhere else. King of All the Franks 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --King of All the Franks 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete~~, Keep, since expanded. PJM 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)~~
Keep - this is a useful article...now. Endomion 16:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep It's a notable concept in Astronomy. Certainly would be possible to merge it somewhere, but it merits its own article. PS I can see why the earlier version found its way onto Afd! Dlyons493 Talk 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - a notable concept. Could be improved, but quality and understandability are not basis for deletion. Laur 16:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a notable article. Ajwebb 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Speedy Keep - Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it should be deleted!! This is a very notable concept in astronomy. Hell, it's one of the two main coordinate systems! How anyone could possibly want to delete this is beyond me. Bad faith nomination? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- No bad faith, our coverage of the subject was really substandard, but it's much better now. I'll just need to move the page for Manual of Style purposes. --King of All the Franks 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

~~The result of the debate was delete, especially considering editors have already come to a consensus on Talk:Grunge music. howch e ng {chat} 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] List of Grunge Bands

This page is innaccurate, and the only accurate information in it already appears in the grunge music article. -- LGagnon 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete inaccuracy can be fixed, redundancy per other articles is harder to overcome and (the clincher for me) since this article has nothing independent to say, a category would do the job vastly better without dozeins of redlinks to maybe-never-notable bands. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'm guessing the inaccurate information is borderline cases: I didn't see any clearly inappropriate bands in the list, and several that are clearly good calls. Having lists like these helps avoid bloat in main articles, and the quality cure is finding clear crieria and insisting on sourcing for claims. --- Charles Stewart 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- A few alternative bands that are not grunge, such as The Smashing Pumpkins, are on there, and several post-grunge bands are on there as well (which are not technically grunge). The only good calls I see there are those already on the list in the grunge article. The list there is only of those that were prominent; all others are left to the grunge category. -- LGagnon 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I'll call some borderline cases: Smashing Pumpkins is often classified as grunge, The Jesus Lizard as well, Killdozer (not on either list), Toadies. What's the criteria for inclusion or exclusion: maybe Chicago bands don't count because they were part of a different movement? Having a list side by side with a category makes things easier to police, and liosts are better for characterising the fringe of a movement. --- Charles Stewart 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Those bands that are often misclassified as grunge have been disputed before at the grunge article. We came to a consensus that they were not grunge, and that they did not belong on the list there. With that in mind, they should not be in another list claiming that they are grunge. And as far as I can tell, the list doesn't help; it only contradicts the article and category, confusing readers as to which one is telling the truth. And, once again, post-grunge bands do not count as grunge. -- LGagnon 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep- add short descriptions. -- JJay 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and tidy if need be 80.177.152.156 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per ~~Just zis Guy~~ Charles Stewart. --Idont Havaname 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(I accidentally voted keep per a delete vote - d'oh!) --Idont Havaname 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Totally redundant, seeing as how this information is already featured on the Grunge music page. This is simply a more slipshod version of what is already clearly stated elsewhere. WesleyDodds 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WesleyDodds. Leyasu 03:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WesleyDodds. - Liontamer 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO RESULT. The AfD was actually a request for reversion and protection, a mandate not held by AfD. Try WP:RFPP. -Splash^talk 00:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zapatero and the 2004 General Election

Also

No need for a separate article, and these were redirects for months. Nothing has changed. All the material needs to be merged with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero SqueakBox 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, no need for AfD. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid there is a need as User:Zapatancas just reverts me every time I make them into redirects. He believes these articles should exist so i have no other recourse but to do this, see the talk pages of the articles, SqueakBox 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, undoubtedly delete and protect the lot after merging, per WP:FORK. And beat the POV pusher vigorously with a stick until he is very sorry indeed. Also, I suggest you redirect the other AfDs into this one and merge them, since they are a package deal. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to see them redirected into one, not quite sure of the procedure, but if anyone wants to they have my permission as the person who set these Afd's up, SqueakBox 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The article about José Luiz Rodríguez Zapatero is very long, but, in spite of that, it does not contain all the information about the subject. That is only natural as there exist printed biographies on Zapatero with more than 400 pages. As it is evident, an article equivalent to 400 pages would be too long, specially as there are a lot of users who do not want to know "all" about Zapatero. That's why I created the "extended" articles, like this, long ago: to place information that is not so important but can be very interesting for journalists, ambassadors, university students specialized in foreign relations and so on. As far as I know, the Wikipedia is for everybody, not only for the "average" user.

When I create the articles nobody complaint, in fact, as can be found in the archived talk, other users accepted the change. In fact, when I divided the article I commented on the talk page my decision and nobody showed any opposition. One day, SqueakBox came to the article and substituted them with redirects to the main article. He did not ask the opinion of the users who have worked in writing and improving those articles. He did not care about making very interesting information inaccessible to others. Well, he never justifies his deletions, although the rules of the Wikipedia recommend to take everything that is deleted to the talk page and explain the decision. That is especially serious as he has spent a lot of time already and he knows what he does is a pure attack against other users. He enjoys those attacks. When other users ask him why he has deleted his contributions even though he has never contributed anything useful he simply insults them: you are a POV warrior, you are a spammer, you are a disgrace for the Wikipedia, "your" article is very bad, "your" article is a pile of cr**p, "your" article is a "disgrace" (it is worth noting that he uses "your" in an individual sense even if dozens of users has worked hard in an article he has attacked). For months nobody has been able to edit the article on Zapatero as he removes everything that is added. Once, he removed a sentence by another user 15 minutes after it was introduced. That user had never before edited nothing but SqueakBox claim he was a POV warrior, so breaking the Wikipedia Policy about assuming good faith.

The redirection was never accepted. It is stupid to substitue with a redirect an article called "Zapatero's foreign policy". Who can search something like that if he/she does not know previously that it exists? It is absurd. However, SqueakBox could impose his abusrd decision because he spends all day long connected to the Wikipedia, what allows him to behave like a bully. He never uses logical reasons and, if you try to protect an article recovering the damage he has done he reverts it again insulting you by the way. I dare to recover the real articles he has destroyed because he has been scared away by the administrator Katefan0. This user blocked the main article on Zapatero. SqueakBox had caused an edit war because he introduced mistakes on purpose. For example, he changed European Union for European union, and paid no attention to anybody when he was told that was an evident mistake. When Katefan0 asked all the users to expose his point of view on the "conflict", SqueakBox dissapeared as he is afraid of administrators as they can punish his bad faith. Against an administrator is useless to spend ten hours every day in the Wikipedia. To play bully is useless.

I simple asked the Wikipedia community to look to the "extended" articles. They have defects, but those defects can be improved and they contain information that can be very useful for a lot of people. The Wikipedia is a place for sharing knowledge no for bullies and monsters. Zapatancas 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the personal attack from User:Zapatancas against me. it is unwarranted. me doing my job here doers not mean I have to suffer abuse. He is inventing lies about me, andf I don't like it, SqueakBox 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As I want you to know I still value your opinion you can tell me when I have lied about you. I am willing to provide a mountain of links that prove your real activities. Zapatancas 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

See SquealingPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and SquealingPigAttacksAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are your accounts and you lied on a number of occasions about me while using those accounts. I can provide the diffs but here is not the place to do itm (perhaps an Rfc?), SqueakBox 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What is certain is that if our case came up before the arbcom both our behaviours would be under scrutiny, so it would providse you with an opportunity to state your case with diffs and it would mean SQ and SQAA would be the subject of a sockpuppet test to determine exactly where these 2 accounts were being edited from (your IP range is known as you have made edits which are obviously you while not signing into an account). All my SB edits have been made using the same static IP number so your claims that I have edited from the UK or that I was SQ or SQAA can also be disproved. If this is what you want I am sure it will be easy enough to do, SqueakBox 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Zapatancas you have also made a number of lies about me and my mental health (which as you have never met me and are not a psychiatrist are patently false) on your user page, SqueakBox 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also the fact that you have undone my redirect repair linls on the zapatero articles on more than one occasion, which is petty vandalsim, SqueakBox 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestlingfigs

nn forum site. Alexa rating is all of 729,535. Pboyd04 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

delete forums can be notable, but not with alexa rank that low. Brighterorange 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
delete nn Essexmutant 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete per nomination Pogoman 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Fire Star 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --spman 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Not noteworthy enough
Delete per all above. - Liontamer 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia at the 1912 Summer Olympics

Estonia wasn't even an independent country in 1912 (although there were several Estonians in the Russian team). Article is full of factual errors and inaccuracies. There are no other articles about teams in the 1912 olympics yet, so having one on a country that didn't even exist at that time isn't a good idea. Laur 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Estonia wan't independent until 1918 I'm gonna have to go along with Delete --Pboyd04 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ as per above. But, amazingly Estonia did compete at the 1912 games.[49] where they won the one medal indicated at Estonia at the 1912 Summer Olympics, so I'm going to list this athletes name (Hugo Kuusik)at List of Estonians.No Guru 18:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to change my vote to keep, since we have many other similar articles Denmark at the 1992 Summer Olympics, Jamaica at the 1972 Summer Olympics,Hungary at the 1952 Summer Olympics etc. I'm going to change my vote since Estonia did compete at the 1912 games. No Guru 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

However, the International Olympic Committee site doesn't list Estonia among its medal winners (see [50], in the bottom right is a link that will provide a table as a popup). Furthermore, their results database [51] shows no medals for a Kusick (per the site referenced by No Guru) or Kuusik (as listed above). Furthermore, looking more into the site referenced above, if you click on Estonia on that page & then click on the event name, you get this page [52]. It shows an Everard Butler & a Hugo Kusick both getting bronze medals in the same event and it lists both of them under Canada and Estonia. Delete as unverified unless another colloaborating source can be found. -- JLaTondre 02:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The official report of the 1912 Olympic Games can be found here (note: 1426-page PDF file). As indicated on pages 943-44 of the file (numbered as pages 675-76 of the text), the losers of the semi-final matches in men's single scull rowing were E.B. Butler of Canada and M. Kusik of Russia. There is no indication of a third-place match between the two, which would explain why both are listed as bronze medalists. Whatever Mr. Kusik, Kuusik, or Kusick's preferred spelling of his name was, or what his first name was, or what his ethnic background was, he was competing for Russia in 1912, and I have found no indication in the report that Estonia competed independently at that Olympics. If there are Wikipedia editors who want to create articles about the Olympic performance of various nationalities such as Estonians, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc. on the Russian or Soviet teams, I would advise against creating them in this format. --Metropolitan90 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: In 1912 Estonia was part of Russian Empire and Estonian athletes definitely competed in the Russian team. An article about Estonians in those olympics would be welcome, but this article doesn't even contain a complete list of them (and Hugo Kuusik's name was misspelt as a result of transforming from Latin to Cyrillic and back), so practically nothing could be retained from this article. Also, Kuusik didn't get any prize and his 3rd place is disputed, so it might be inaccurate to list him as "bronze medal" winner. Laur 10:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per above Jcuk 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Bhoeble 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. -- JJay 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or reconcile with 1912 Summer Olympics medal count. If it is accurate, a more accurate title would be Estonians at the 1912 Summer Olympics as Estonia didn't declare its independence from Russia until 1918. B.Wind 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 02:57, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wexis Curve

No google hits, no references given. Unverifiable, possible word made up in school one day. Kappa 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Alhutch 17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Laur 17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NoeJustin 21:26, December 28 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATCsimulator

Page reads like an ad and looks like copyvio though I can't find the source Pboyd04 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete r3m0t ^talk 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dnomla

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Bachrach44 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom. Brighterorange 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Also, not very funny. No Guru 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Google search revealed just a few nn blogs mentioning this. --Pboyd04 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NoeJustin 21:25, December 28 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luboš Motl

If we are to judge Motl based solely upon his work, that is, his publications, it is obvious that he is only an average string theorist who is pretty much unnotable. He hasn't made any notable or groundbreaking contributions to physics and his papers, which are often coauthored with other more famous physicists are run-of-the-mill papers. The Czech textbook on linear algebra which he has coauthored isn't notable either. His only claim to fame/notability is his very active and aggressive presence on the internet (the usenet, various blogs and Wikipedia) where he frequently peppers his speech with invectives. In fact, his mere active presence isn't enough to contribute to his noteriety. There are many other physicists who also have an active presence on the internet but they don't stand out anywhere near as much because they don't litter their writings with hateful speech. They tend to blend in with the background, so to speak.

Not only that, this page is a vanity page of Lumidek, which is the user name of Motl here at Wikipedia.

Delete: This is a vanity page. Note that this article was started by Lumidek himself. Tweet Tweet
Userfy if he wants it, otherwise delete vanity. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not qualified to judge Mott's contribution to string theory. But through his blog, translations and work on Wikipendia he has certainly made significant contributions to the popular understanding of String Theory.

Keep. Junior Fellow at Harvard, Assistant Professor at Harvard; either Harvard is slipping up, or the derogatory comments above are misplaced. As the nominator has crossed swords here with User:Lumidek (Motl), I favour the idea that this is mostly spite. Charles Matthews 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- JJay 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete String theorists of Motl's caliber are a dime a dozen. He hasn't even published in a year and a half.

- See the recent paper [53]. --66.31.40.103 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- My goodness! Some people publish every three months. But we don't make that a reason for including them. Counting papers is almost as silly as weighing them. Charles Matthews
- Harvard Assistant Professors, while not a dime-a-dozen, are not exactly noteworthy in themselves. Consider, by way of normalization, this recently deleted entry (CSD A7). The subject is a former Princeton Assistant Professor (now Full Professor at UT Austin), has a prominent physics blog, etc, etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.126.243.35 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Your link does not work. However, if it did, it would probably be a good example of the widespread abuse of CSD. The comparison, in any event, is not relevant.-- JJay 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am not qualified to judge his scientific work and I have no illusions about it. I dislike Lumo for personal reasons and the article is mostly written by himself as a vanity page. Nevertheless, he is one of the notable persons on Czech Internet and elsewhere. His contributions on popularization of physics are significant. We shall keep the article. --Egg ✉ 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - he's a significant popularizer in Czechia. His translations are on a top level. Miraceti 17:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep because of his "notoriety" on Czech internet and popularisation work. The page should be trimmed down on trivia. I have no idea how important in long term is the work as physicist, use of Category:Czech physicists may be reconsidered (will he pass 10 years test?) Pavel Vozenilek 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One to add: there are more known Category:Czech bloggers than Motl. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Lubos is a brilliant if unorthodox young theoretical physicist; his papers on Matrix Theory were ground-breaking. What his long term impact will be is as yet unclear. He plays a central role in the article by JAMES GLANZ (NYT) May 1, 2001 about the role of the internet in research.--[MR]
Delete nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I think he's notable enough. -lethe ^talk 11:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I strongly oppose deletion. I was going to translate to portuguese when I saw the deletion tag. Sad. User:Mdob | [[User talk:Mdob|Talk]] 00:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Notable enough -- that he is known to be somehat grumpy as Wikipedian, on his blog and in USENET is no reason to delete --Pjacobi 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. r3m0t ^talk 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorn mathews

Delete: The article seems to be original research, a google search turned up a few hits, but nothing really more then forum posts and similar type pages. Also, name is spelt wrong, should be Mathews. Except for the last graphic novel listed (which may have been turned into a web comic, seems to be a bit NN as well. Falls End (T, C) 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack page. B.Wind 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brown (Dublin)

Article appears to be complete fabricated gibberish. There was no "Tool Time" show and Christopher Lloyd was cast in "Taxi" in 1978, before Brown was born. Further, Brown was born in 1985, so how could he have been part of Toto in the 1980s? UncleFester 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has apparently already stepped in and deleted the article in question. UncleFester 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. While there are four legitimate delete votes, none of them really present any compelling arguments. There is only one legitimate keep vote, but User:Musikfabrik shows the article is properly referenced and NPOV. She may fail WP:MUSIC but apparently has enough notoriety from other activities that her article can be included. I'm following WP:DGFA: "When in doubt, don't delete." Take it up with WP:DRV if you disagree. howch e ng {chat} 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marissa Marchant

(left empty; original nominator did not use template properly)

Delete This is a vanity article about someone that likes to post on messageboards. --Looper5920 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I disagree with your definition of "vanity article" because the article could not have been written by Ms. Marchant, given her distinctive style. While there are varying perspectives about Ms Marchant's talent, she certainly has a following and has made a name for herself and is news-worthy, in her own way. Her offer of selling her CDs for thousands of dollars was reported in any number of sources. I think that she does indeed have a certain importance in the area of web music, as she has become an extremely wellknown figure in these circles--for example, in this article in the Magazine San Francisco Weekly : http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-12-21/music/music.html . It is true that she does not completely fulfill the criteria for inclusion under the WP:MUSIC directives, but I have seen the "internet" and "Indie" aspects of this directive be brought into question in other discussions, so it would seem that this policy is evolving. There are other, much more frivilous articles about people who are lesser known. I think that this article should stay.Musikfabrik 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Marissa Marchant is a prominent regional singer-songwriter with outspoken attitudes on the state of the music business. She was the anecdotal lead in a San Francisco Weekly cover story on the variable pricing of records. Her posts on message boards allow her fans to keep up with her progress in recording, as well as her artistic influences. She is also a prolific writer with myriad thoughts on sexism, culture and society. To claim that the entry was a "vanity" post is to underestimate the number of Ms. Marchant's fans, as well as their interest in her artistic progress. I believe this article should be maintained, and hopefully expanded to include more about Ms. Marchant's musical accomplishments. -- robuptight 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's only edits are to this AfD. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Marissa has powers.

Delete pure vanity. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm-easily-amused Keep I've spent a lot of time reverting vandalism from this article, it's in my permanent watchlist. It might not be the most high-minded of reasons, but I vote to keep this article just because I get such a laugh from the nature and content of the vandalism I remove. Whether it's from Marchant or not (much of the vandalism is rambling diatribes about how Marchant is an unappreciated musical genius - much of that is first-person, implying to be from Marchant herself), it can be damned entertaining while I'm RC Patrolling. --Krich (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep She is a verifiable Web Phenomenon. I mean, just do a search. Don't such as that deserve some sort of explanation? At any rate, she does have the talent (I'll leave it to the article to explain what sort) to deserve some recognition. --LyinDan 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User's only edit is to this AfD. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I know LyinDan. I'll vouch for him. He's a well-known indie musician in a band called "Pig Nose Pickers", whose seminal hit was "Girl, you better boil it (I dropped your toothbrush in the toilet)". One of their band pages is here: http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Pig_Nose_Pickers/ He's not a sock puppet. As a matter of fact, he probably deserves an article himself, in the World of Net Musicians.Musikfabrik 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Marissa has powers.^2

Delete. When sock puppets want to keep an article, it's usually a sign that an article should go. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep She is a renowned composer; somewhat eccentric perhaps but since when has that stopped genius - bigots

I've already voted, but I wanted to make the further comment that this discussion is not about whether or not the votes to keep this article are valid, but rather whether the content in the article entitled "Marissa Marchant" is worthy of having a place on this service. The first phrase of the article states that Miss Marchant is "more notorious as an Internet phenomenon than as a musician", so is it surprising that there are people coming off of the web (who have never posted here before) to support her? I am not an administrator, so I can't verify this, but it seems to be that it would probably be quite easy to verify where they were coming from using the IP address. I'm convinced that they are NOT sock puppets, but rather people who are coming here to underline the importance of Miss Marchant's work.

- What we have here is another discussion concerning "notability" and whether this fits into various people's ideas of whether or not people are "famous" enough to be on this sort of service. As a classical musician and musicologist, I know that the standards set in WP:Music simply do not apply to many people who are obviously important figures in the classical music World. And given the way that market is changing (for example, the major labels do not produce classical recordings any more, which has lead to many famous musicians-such as Jordi Savall and David Finckel, Cellist of the Emerson Quartet, to name only two--to produce their own recordings...much in the same way as independent net musicians...), the idea of using "label releases" as a means of judging worth is completely passé. Even with a "label release", the majority of classical recordings (even those by name artists and composers) rarely sell more than 200 units. This scale also does not apply to Net Musicians, who work "outside of the box". This does not mean that their actions do not have importance nor does it not mean that their work is without merit. It simply means that they have figured out another way to go about their business, which is currently becoming the norm. It seems quite apparent to me that WP:Music needs to have a major overhaul to take these new aspects of the music business into account.

- The importance of Miss Marchant's work is centered around her action of asking for $1000 per CD on her website. While it does not constitute artistic greatness (a quality which obviously is subjective and outside of this discussion), it certainly caused a lot of discussion, on the net and off, which continues to this day about the market value of music and what the artist's reaction to it should or should not be. For this reason, Miss Marchant has significant importance as a cultural icon which is not a recent issue, but which has lasted for the several years that I have followed her career. In deleting this article, the Wikipedia community is closing itself to part of the music business which needs to be documented which it is still evolving. To delete this article would be doing a disservice to knowledge.Musikfabrik 09:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Esteban Buttez, mah holmes? He is an internets legend on ilXor.com, greater than Marissa!

Keep Marissa is a well known internet personality and musician. --Pablo A

User's only edits are to this AfD. --Nlu

(talk) 00:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

- I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE AND OPEN, NIGGA! NOW I AINT GIVING MAH BLING TO JIMMY WALES!!

Hello, I am the person you are speaking about.

You don't know me on a personal level, so it is not nice to laugh at people you can't figure out through the machine. You can keep this article if it is not negative. You don't have to talk about me like I am some kind of God of music. But to say that I am not known as a musician is rubbish. To say that I am more known for my 1000 dollar crazy cd scheme is rubbish, since I play, write and record right now, morning, noon and night.

Delete While there are indeed Google hits, most of them seem to be related to her self-promotion rather than to her music. Ohnoitsjamie 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is interesting is that it is New Year's Eve and I am recording even tonight. The first few people were definately not myself and you people should know they are coming from California and the South of the U.S. I live in New York State. I am at home recording. I have devoted my whole life to music and art. That should sum up who I am. My devotion is what should be emphasized, not numbers etc.. People who are sour grapes love to flame people because they themselves are often discontent. I like to be positive about life, love and the new year. I am trying to improve myself, my behavior and my language. I want to be more loving this year and more productive. The world needs more of what is positive, and less of what is negative. I didn't write the article in the San Fransico Weekly, and someone else came up with that idea. I didn't prompt them.

- I don't think you should keep this article. First off I don't like the name Marissa Marchant, and came up with a better name.

Secondly, I don't need Wikipedia's stamp of approval. Who are these people hiding behind a computer? Who cares? I don't care about Wikipedia. I think that my singing and quality of writing spoke for itself, that I am known more for music then anything else. The amount of money someone charges for a Cd is really not important, and either is the price of Paintings. The most important part of art is the quality. The amount of records someone sells is not important. The quality is. Numbers are not important to real artists. If the people at Wikipedia understood the value of true artists or artwork, they would not emphasize numbers or price.

This is me again. I was Marissa Marchant, now I am Mariesa Sabriel, soon to be another name.

Anyway, the only Web Phenomenon out there in the real sense are the incredibly gifted Spiders. Spiders are also taken for granted. There is no Web developer who can exceed this mass of brilliance. The creation of Spider was a brilliant one. I was observering a spider as it was weaving its web and coming down on my nose while I was in bed one evening. When it realized it was landing on my nose, it soon made its way up on its string. Amazing creatures.

We also have "Webbed" phenomenons, people with webbed feet can be called Webbed Phenomenons.

Does Marchant have Webbed feet? Is she a duck? Is she a webbed phenomenon?

I am not as big an ego as you think. You could have a serious article written about me and you could definately start the article with these kind words; Marchant is a verifiable "webbed" phenomenon.

$$$$$$This is pure Vanity.$$$$$$$$ http://www.mariesasabriel.com/poetry.html Please read her new lyric for her Neo Celtic/Classical song on guitar for voice. (Flute added) It is called Meanderings. It took me a few hours to write it this morning. I am auctioning it off for a couple million. Just kidding.

~**** I am not rich at all. I spent over 150 thousand dollars in my little lifetime so far on musical items, lessons, and paintings. I am far from rich. Art is a main priority in my life and a love of my life and my families life. I wouldn't laugh at fine artists in a world that devalues artists. Our world once honored fine artists and fine art composers, singers, singer/writers. Now people are living in the past, following the media trends and not caring about artwork, or caring about the fine detail of a artistic building. We are now living in a ugly, bland world, a world that is living the past and humankinds past accomplishments. http://groups.google.com/group/fa.music.ecto/browse_thread/thread/5a1cc1e80c426bb5/847505b78eca9187?lnk=st&q=marissa%20marchant&rnum=1&hl=en&

- A bit of context for y'all:

http://ilx.p3r.net/thread.php?msgid=6563752&showall=true

- - A BIT OF VERY IMPORTANT info FOR YOU ALL.

http://www.mariesasabriel.com My name is not Marissa Marchant. I am also changing the name from Mariesa Sabriel to something else. If you are interested in hearing my music. Please continue to focus on the Mariesa Sabriel site until the finished site if completed with sellable Cd and covers. I am getting covers too.

Delete

To a few people Marissa or whatever her name is not known as a musician but known more for a 1000 dollar Cd. But to other people Marissa is known more for her music. I think the article is biased to people who want to control the thoughts and opinions of others on the net. It seems they are trying to sway the opinions of others to make Marissa into another hooker of music. They want to say Marissa is another person not known for music but known for a gimmick. This is false information. Marissa isn't a hooker, and isn't someone who isn't worth the money. I am or was Marissa Marchant. But my new name isn't going to be Mariesa Sabriel after I finish this Cd. ..or CDS. This is a waste of your space. It is also mean and nasty to confuse people who want to hear music with so many different names. I came up with a nicer name... I better change it now..before I establish myself a little more. It is intersting that the Britney Spears Wiki articles don't say that she is known more for her body then her music. It is intersting that all these other people who are much more into gimmicks are people with articles that talk about them as though they are really artists and musicians. You sound totally anti-talent, I mean whoever wants to keep an article that says that real artists are not and people posing as artists with gimmicks are really artists. That is what this Wikipedia article is implying. It is implying that the music industry is signing artists. Are the rosters filled up for people who are known for their art? Or other gimmicks? Wikipedia is implying that the music industry filled with Rappers and people swinging around a poll are known more as musicans and artists and that people who are unsigned couldn't possibly be real musicians? How stupid are the people at Wikipedia?

User's only edits are on this AfD and on the Marissa Marchant Page itself. Musikfabrik 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't this prove that the people who run Wikipedia are culturally illiterate?

Why would they have to think and question whether a dishonest article about someone deserves a place on their board. Aren't they aware that the music industry isn't signing artists on purpose but people who put out thoughtless music and people who are not complex because the people who run the music industry are as simple-minded as their pricings. The people at Wikipedia should be questioning whether people swinging around polls and people who are known more for writing offensive lyrics then music should be on Wikipedia then giving attention to someone like myself. I think the people in the music industry right now are known as one hit wonders, swinging around polls, grabbing themselves, offensive lyrics, and for their million dollar manison then they are known for music. It is interesting that you are giving a multi-instrumentalist, and multi-faceted artist so much thought, but you don't give thought to advertising non-musicians and non-artists. I think the people in the music industry are not really that well known for their music at the moment. I mean at the present time in history.

The last two "delete" votes came from the same IP address and therefore the same person. Only one should countMusikfabrik 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

??The main controversy about people like Britney Spears and Christina Agulera is not about their sexual nature and image. It is about their lack of talent, lack of orginality and lack of writing skills and lack of unique vocals. The controversy is not about being sexual, it is about using sexuality to disguise their lack of talent. On Britney Spears article it plainly is very dishonest. Should Wikipedia have dishonest articles written about non-artists? Is she a singer? It said that she is. I don't think of Britney as a singer, and I think of Christina Agulera as an amateur singer or semi-professional. They sound that way to me. All the others, such Jewel, and all the new rock bands, they sound amateurish as well. They sound like semi-professionals to my ears and to some intelligent people. Also, alot of boybands, and people like John Mayor sound like a semi-professional to my ears. What kind of gimmick did they use to promote John Mayor? They took a very large amount of extremely high quality photographs and focused on his image, not that much about his music. They hype these people and they aren't really known as musicians to people like myself. Dave Matthews' first guitarist told me that I was more of a guitarist then Dave is. His first guitarist is not playing for him anymore and told me that he didn't think that Dave Matthews was that talented. Most likely his guitarist has more talent then Dave. I don't think of Dave Matthews as a really polished, professional musician, or his band.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 22:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JOAN AS POLICEWOMAN

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. (unsigned by FrancisTyers) B.Wind 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Joan Wasser should also be deleted as NN unless references of notability required by WP:MUSIC are added to the article. Is nominator willing to combine nominations? B.Wind 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment no problem - FrancisTyers 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment this article has already been deleted--64.12.117.10 22:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erikonail

Incorrectly listed as a speedy for being a pure advertisement. Nonetheless, I think this is a non-notable ad that needs to be deleted, but that takes an AfD, not a CSD. --D e ath phoenix 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn nail salon. --Pboyd04 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete advertisement, NN Pete.Hurd 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valerium

Dicdef, this is wikipedia not urbandictionary - FrancisTyers 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article does not contain original research, and Wikipedia is not a place for new terms. Ajwebb 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete r3m0t ^talk 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NoeJustin 21:24, December 28 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenth Crusade

See previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tenth_Crusade/Archive1

Delete. Content is not notable enough to have its own article; very few actually refer to a "tenth" crusade. The metaphor of crusades has been used by bin Laden and other extreme Islamists to describe US presence in the Middle East for a long time; it is not a rhetorical device invented by Bush as the article claims. csloat 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I said it before, and I say it again, not notagle and is a neologism. The War of Terror isn't even the Tenth conflict, ten was used because of the rhetorical impact. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Critics of Bush can't have their crusade cake and eat their Jewish plot too. Endomion 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What do accusations of Jewish plots have to do with the continuing existance or otherwise of this page? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Might be justifiable as a larger study of right wing politics and religious conservatism in the United States, if well sourced and well written. Durova 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Tag for cleanup and Keep - 1,250 google hits suggests notability. Plus, as C. Sloat says above, many Muslims do think that Bush is engaged in a crusade. To delete the page because 'we know that he isn't' is reverse political correctness. And with respect, the article does not say that Bush invented the device, only that he used it. If bin Laden was using the term first, the fact should be added to the article but it doesn't present an argument for deleting the page, quite the contrary. I agree that 10^th is arbitrary, but the reason for the name is less important than the fact that the name is widely used. Perhaps the concept is misnamed, but it doesn't mean that the page is not correctly named or shouldn't exist. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction - many of those references are to Wikipedia; many others are to other uses of the phrase (e.g. the 1983 novel -- some 400+ hits on your results alone -- or the 2001 article about English in Tunisia). A lexis/nexis search of major papers finds three uses of the phrase, listed below, none of which are in the usage here:

1.Dench, Diesel make surprising sci-fi duo, Chicago Sun-Times, July 2, 2004 Friday, North City, WEEKEND PLUS; NEWS; Pg. 25, 721 words, HARRY HAUN

2.Books by Christopher Hyde, The Ottawa Citizen, June 20, 1999, FINAL, 389 words, Shelley Page

3.THE WORLD; A Roundup of Mideast Hostility, The New York Times, May 4, 1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 2, Column 2; Week in Review Desk, 357 words, By Milt Freudenheim, James F. Clarity and Richard Levine

A search of magazines and journals nets nothing on lexis/nexis. You're looking at a few hundred google hits at best, most of them referring to or just copying the Cockburn and O'Brien articles; those are the only two real voices using this particular phrase in this manner; I would not call it notable, especially given its nonexistence in lexis/nexis, a better gauge of material that is actually published. If the article is kept, it should be radically revamped and its name changed to talk about the "crusades" metaphor as used in general rather than the specious "tenth" crusade, which, as others noted, this is not really the tenth anyway.--csloat 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For the hell of it, I searched the New York Times back to 1857 for this term and found three uses of it; twice in 1904 and once in 1917 referring to the actual Crusades, specifically the battle in Jerusalem. The 1904 references refer to a novel of the era by Frederic Harrison called Theophano.-csloat 03:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"tenth crusade" bush is 404 hits. -cockburn is still 231 hits, not that I see why cockburn should be excluded. As above, I'm not attached to the title so much as the concept. "bush crusade" gets 37,400 hits. "bush crusade" iraq gets 31,300 hits. There's a real concept here, perhaps the current page is misnamed and a mess, but I think there's something worth keeping? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the concept is notable but the title is a misleading neologism. There already was a tenth crusade, and it wasn't this one. There are no references to this in lexis-nexis, a far better gauge than what is on google.--csloat 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which one is commonly known as "Tenth Crusade"? Standard numbering stops at 9. Yes, there were more, but then even the "Third Crusade" really is not. --Stephan Schulz 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we're heading towards agreement that the page should be kept and renamed? But to what? The only think I can think of is Bush Crusade or some variation thereof. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about The Crusades (War on terrorism)?-csloat 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like it better than Bush Crusade, though that's not saying much. I'd prefer to somehow have "The crusade" rather than "The Crusades" because I think the whole War on Whatever is a single thing, even if the connections between the parts are pretty tenuous sometimes. We did for a while have a page called Crusade (modern) which is now a redirect to Tenth Crusade. If we wanted to go that way, I'd prefer Modern crusade. Other options which I also don't like but am going to suggest in case it gives anybody a better idea are Crusade against terror, Crusade against terrorism or War on terrorism as crusade? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as before. It's not particularly important, but it is reasonably notable and (now) well-written and NPOV. Disk space is cheap. I'm kind of appaled by user User:Endomion's statement. The article is not an opinion piece, but a fair description of an event (if you doubt this, improve it). Do you want to purge history of inconvenient facts?--Stephan Schulz 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep glad i found this. This is a notable phrase. Lots of google hits. Just because the phrase is POV doesn't mean that the article will inevitably be POV. Some consider the War on Terrorism a POV phrase, but thats a great article. 69.22.42.35 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as before. It is important that the US president considers this a religious crusade. This is the most important aspect of our Iraq War. That is why we can't leave Iraq. This conflict has grown in importance because of it's "clash of cultures" oventone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.48.167 (talk • contribs)
Keep: It is used, and it is reflective of the positions of people in the world, thus it needs to be. Dark Nexus 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: It is a viable description of the current events. Perhaps the name should be changed to "Bush Crusade" or "Iraq Crusade" to prevent confusion with the "10th" crusade. --Kdcarver 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I had seen "the 10th crusade" mentioned but I didn't know what was meant. Then I found the meaning here at Wikipedia. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.197.253 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Lawnmower

I can only find 1 reference to this technique outside of wikipedia MNewnham 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism describing an uncommon, possibly fictional practice. -Colin Kimbrell 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete (already got BJAODN covered). --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism, possible hoax. --Quarl 02:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete has more to do with the product of a Bull's backend than anything else. Pete.Hurd 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Ifnord 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Johnston

Delete vanity article about a logo designer created by User:300Bucks.ca. Guess what service is provided at the website 300bucks.ca. Moreover, there are unsubstantiated claims about him helping to pull the Hamilton Tiger-Cats out of financial difficulties while a 20-year old working with the team's marketing department. Also, claims in the article include "premier graphic and logo designer" and "he has become the nation’s most sought-after designer". Mindmatrix 18:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

delete per nom MNewnham 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete no cited evidence of notability. Also, I removed a couple unverified claims, so please review the history of the article before voting (or speedying, which shouldn't be done, since a claim of notability was made). --Rob 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete wow very POV. --Pboyd04 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --NoeJustin 21:22, December 28 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons listed above. No evidence of notability. --GrantNeufeld 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete for reasons above. The claimed information is unsubstantiated . --Hurricane111 05:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- And unsubstantiatable. Does anybody really keep stats on this sort of thing? Is there a list somewhere that quantifies Canada's most sought-after graphic designers? Delete. Bearcat 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beast (biography)

I don't know what this is right now, but it's certainly not what it was intended to be when initially redlinked, which is an article about the autobiography of Paul Di'Anno (ISBN:1904034039). If not actually patent nonsense, this page is certainly within shouting distance of it, and it's been that way since its creation. Delete. Colin Kimbrell 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Antichrist Endomion 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against this. Nobody's going to look for information on the Antichrist by searching for "The Beast (biography)". In the unlikely event that someone went to that string, they'd probably do so seeking info on the real-world book I described in the nom (which is the reason I put this up for deletion in the first place, to keep from storing these incoherent ramblings in the page history). If it has to be a redirect, it should be back to Paul Di'Anno.-Colin Kimbrell 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, if there is a disambiguation page with lots of Beastses, the one that is a biography will send them scooting over to the Antichrist page. Endomion 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look more closely at the disambiguation page Beast, you'll see that there's already a link to Antichrist. It's the fourth bullet from the bottom. -Colin Kimbrell 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody's likely to search for the biography of the Son of Satan. --Agamemnon2 09:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per above.--Cuchullain 08:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shalini

nn actress; almost no content r3m0t ^talk 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

21,000 plus google hits, 90 films and an IMDB biog says Keep to me. Article could do with some cleaning up though Jcuk 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. -- JJay 21:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very notable. Tintin 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. I have marked it as an Indian actor stub. - Ganeshk 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --Vyzasatya 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Bernoulli's working enviroment

Original research with a partially misleading (and typoed) title, since this only relates to Daniel Bernoulli tangentially. The relevant parts of this appear to be included in the appropriate articles categorized in Category:Science timelines. - Bobet 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as original research, a rambling essay -- probably copyvio or a high school kid's essay. "This paper will follow the style..." --Quarl 02:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Quarl Paul 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 band vanity. Mo0[talk] 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody Else

Non-notable band vanity Dave.Dunford 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

delete as per nom. (NN bands not yet speedy-able?) Pete.Hurd 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-Fed

Appears to be a non-notable group, possibly a vanity page --Hansnesse 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This page appears to be vanity and is not notable. Ajwebb 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
delete some sort of NN vanity that makes more sense when read backwards than forwards. Pete.Hurd 02:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Patient Syndrome

Information cannot be verified. Does not seem to be a real phenomenon. (see talk page). Arvindn 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This article is not notable and cannot be verified. Ajwebb 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for being part of the WP:Complete Bollocks Syndrome. Eddie.willers 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[54] mentions it, but at the moment I'm neutral. Jcuk 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete per one reference found by Jcuk. --Quarl 02:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic Oddessy

This was incorrectly listed as a CSD. However, as an MMORPG, this isn't really notable, IMO. --D e ath phoenix 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - ~~it isn't even spelled correctly.~~ okay it's spelled like the way the website spells it, which is still wrong. Endomion 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as completely non-notable online game. Official website has no Alexa rank [55]. Game itself is misspelled. Poor article. --Quarl 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article has been updated. The game was created with that name and the it was porpously spelled that way. There are many non-notable things on Wikipedia. --XanderSholtz 04:06, 30 December 2005 (EST)
Delete. Non-notable. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 09:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- User's ninth edit. --D e ath phoenix 13:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Marvin, do you have the funds for all the additional server space and bandwidth needed to keep every article that meets no notability requirements whatever? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 22:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monothought

Non-notable, non-sense, perhaps. Rich Farmbrough 22:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge anything worth keeping to Jean Baudrillard and leave as a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Both this and polythought look like they've come from [56] - that either didn't exist or I missed it when looking at Monothought originally. That makes them both OR as well. Should put polythought on Afd as well. Dlyons493 Talk 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Dlyons493. --Squiddy 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Dlyons493. Stifle 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
comment it might make sense to merge/redirect with/to polythought, but the polythought article seems to be copied from an article that was published online. --JWSchmidt 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - copyvio from this site. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The current contents of the article are a copyright violation and the topic is of limited interest. The original author of the material that is currently in monothought and polythought is apparently Claude Rifat (also known as Claude de Contrecoeur), a biologist who has some recognition on the internet[57], [58]. Maybe some day an admirer will make Claude Rifat. --JWSchmidt 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete not only copyvio, but what hits there are outside Wiki mirrors are for user handles and such; this appears to be one person's idea which is not (yet) widely accepted. Or even noticed, frankly. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polythought as both are (a) copy & paste from similar sources and (b) apparentl monographs; there is little if any verifiable evidence that these are conepts widely discussed in the literature. Or discussed at all, as far as I can see... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, original research, copyvio --Quarl 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gunbound Freeboard

Suggesting to delete this and merge the information to Gunbound. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing to say is Gunboard is real but this freeboard? idont know abstain? --Jingofetts 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
this is real -_- go check out the site yourself
- i said it was real. but someone thinks it should get voted on. --Jingofetts 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC) wish i could help.
- It's not a matter of whether it's real or not. Wikipedia isn't a database for every facet of every website that's notable. If it was, we'd have to have pages on every function of Yahoo, H*R, Mugglenet, etc. If you want to add information about the website in question, you should add the information you have in a neutral point-of-view without personal attacks to the page Gunbound. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I did not see the personal attacks sorry all. --Jingofetts 19:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    - "RASTA is known as the most hated n00b in the history of GBFB (Gunbound Freeboard). He did nothing but to flame others with racist remarks, only to be pounded later. He has engaged in many "fights" with the Legend guyfromkorea, in which he (Rasta) has lost in all. He is responsible for imitating the gentle LadyPlayful in order to degrade her name, however his attempt has failed miserably. Ever since then, he has hidden himself forever from the FB community, and forever been marked as the moronic fool." --This existed on the page when you made your edit. I'm not saying you put the material on there, I'm simply pointing out to anyone reading that that information should not be copied to Gunbound. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - terrible bulletin board software, the game is notable, this forum isn't, and the name isn't even accurate. Searching for "Gunbound Freeboard" on Google gets exactly one result. It's not even called this, it's just called the Gunbound discussion board or something and it happens to be running on the Freeboard bulletin board software. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyde may i say something? If you got one result on google is there enough to make into a article it looks like this person really wants it here. --Jingofetts 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not how Wikipedia works. At all. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Too Everyone if you think its vandal work delete it. The Gunbound exists according to you. --Jingofetts 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not that I think it's vandalism, it's just not notable. Would you expect to see an article on this website in Encyclopedia Britannica? Please see WP:WWIN. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Many things exist, but not everything is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, mostly because Wikipedia is not infinite. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You sure would the Britianica is good. It's good to know not vandalism. --Jingofetts 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean or to whom you are writing, but I do think the Encyclopædia Britannica is good: it is highly reliable and well-written, although it doesn't have the cutting edge quality of Wikipedia, and sometimes Wikipedia is more in-depth and has more relevant internet-based references. So, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Cyde. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, comeon, one Google hit? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and merge into GunBound if deemed notable enough for that.--Petros471 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no need to merge. Completely non-notable web forum, inaccurate article. --Quarl 02:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Control Solutions Inc.

Nothing but an ad and some contact info. The company doesn't seem notable based on the 26 unique google hits. - Bobet 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete spam. Cue the vikings... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. And bring on the Skating Vicar! Eddie.willers 21:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. another dog, vicar? MNewnham 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Petros471 21:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Quarl 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netspert

Incorrectly nominated for a speedy. This is neologism, though googling gets approximately 7,310 hits. This term is too new to be included here. --D e ath phoenix 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete My bad. I originally nominated it for speedy. As written, the author uses the first person, to me that seems inappropriate for an Encyclopedia article. If someone wants to do some major rework, let them. Otherwise, remove it. BTW, I think we are going to need a neologism in the future similar to google bombing, for when a bunch of bloggers discover that they can create a "notable" word by simply writing it all the time. Wikipedipulation.TheRingess 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, no sources provided. Use of first person is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Zachary Murray (talk • contribs)
Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ~MDD 46 96 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism. --Quarl 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy: author's request. mikka (t) 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Normal (2003)

I created this page before I discovered that another entry had already been created for this film. I updated the already existing page, and now I would like to delete this page as it just duplicates the other page. --Athena2006 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy per creator nomination. Thanks for helping out. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy r3m0t ^talk 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Cheese Babies

The article is nonsense and is not notable. From the deletion policy, this article is described as "completely idiosyncratic non-topic." Zachary Murray 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete - it's not even funny nonsense. Endomion 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as rapidly as permissable. An excellent addition to the world of WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a painfully unfunny hoax. Doctor Whom 21:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Speedy tagged per Endomion, this genuinely is patent nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as patent nonsense. ~MDD 46 96 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete most definitely nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootstoots (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Matei and Loco Bandito

del nonnotable. vanity. mikka (t) 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging content of two inextricably linked AfDs

del nonnotable webcomic. mikka (t) 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete only author of article is user:Thelocobandito, whom is presumably the creator of the website. --Petros471 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. These are just vanity articles. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Matei and Loco Bandito

del nonnotable. vanity. mikka (t) 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging content of two inextricably linked AfDs

del nonnotable webcomic. mikka (t) 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete only author of article is user:Thelocobandito, whom is presumably the creator of the website. --Petros471 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. These are just vanity articles. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into WERS. Mo0[talk] 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Left End

An indie rock show on a college radio station....not notable. The_stuart 08:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

keep - plenty of other college radio articles.. so why not this one? -max rspct leave a message 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's not much unusual or notable about this particular show. If anything notable about it is found, the information can be covered perfectly well on the article WERS--also a stub and in need of expansion. No sense dividing them so. --Mr. Billion 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-listing to generate more feedback. Mindmatrix 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

merge into WERS. mikka (t) 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into WERS. --Petros471 21:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to college article (and merge the college radio station, too, plenty of precedent) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above. -- JJay 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to WERS, not to the college page -- the station is quite well known in the Boston metro area. bikeable (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaves Of Power

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

yet another gaming clan using wikipedia to chest-thump. Bachrach44 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above. --Petros471 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and amend the "create" template to divert these games weenies to Wikicities. Or somewhere. Anywhere. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable advert. ~MDD 46 96 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable online game clan, obvious vanity. "If you are fortunate enough to be asked to join their alliance, it is recommended that you do" --Quarl 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge under a major alliance section on the game. May be relevant to those that play the game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.24.188 (talk • contribs)
Keep this is an important aspect of a famous and popular game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.233.248 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Gaming clans (and alliances, and groups, etc etc) are only notable if they have won a major tournament. The closing admin should beware meatpuppets: [59] -- Megamix^? 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Note that Just zis Guy is actually a delete. -Splash^talk 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KoC farmers

more gaming nonsense Bachrach44 20:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)\

Weak delete -- If we have an entry for the game, this could be merged into it; otherwise delete. -- MatthewDBA 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, we do. If others want a merge, I would certainly see it as a workable compromise. --Bachrach44 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- especially considering there's at least one other article on the same topic that you've already listed for deletion. -- MatthewDBA 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd still delete as non-notable, however would be happy enough if merged. Same for other related articles. --Petros471 21:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and then delete the target as gamecruft ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as online game fancruft. --Quarl 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabbers

More gaming nonsense that's just an excuse for some gaming clan to put their website everywhere. Bachrach44 20:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed this post should be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.157.164 (talk • contribs)

delete per nom MNewnham 21:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Petros471 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Sabbers are, as any fule kno, hunt saboteurs. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I love the smell of aniseed in the morning MNewnham
Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism and as online game fancruft. --Quarl 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy. r3m0t ^talk 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Sims

Vanity article, creators username is extremely similar to the person in question. Also google for "Andrew Sims" MuggleCast retrieves only 126 hits. Personally I'm not convinced of this persons notability just yet.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agreed. Only 46 non "very-similar" results on google, and many of those are either wikipedia or sites directly related to the article. --Petros471 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page.Obina 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy-delete as non-notable biography. Tagged as nn-bio. --Quarl 01:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. JWSchmidt 13:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Pharmaceuticals

The description of this company is an exaggerated and selfpromoting advertisement. Mhc 11:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 611 Google hits, the vast majority on free listing sites repeating the same drivel. Spam. Ifnord 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Mindmatrix 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, sure looks like advertising. The IP's of major contributors have only been used to promote the website (which is linked to in the first line). --Petros471 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete has the #1 hallmark of spam: starts with the company name as a weblink. Says it's private (i.e.not quoted, per WP:CORP), no evidence this is anything other than plain old-fashioned spam. I guess that's "spam classic" in marketing speak? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company per previous comments. Website q-pharm.com has no Alexa data. --Quarl 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toonophilia

del. nonnotable neologism. Only 86 unique google hits. No solid sexology references. mikka (t) 21:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with all the other invented philias and phobias. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism. We need a speedy-deletion category for this kind of article. --Quarl 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Donnellan (reality television contestant)

nn contestant on reality show, no other claim to fame —the preceding unsigned comment is by Hirudo (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Simply being on reality shows does not give one notability. --Apostrophe 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all appropriate information with Big Brother 6, then delete this article. B.Wind 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Mindmatrix 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, entertainment figure of interest to large numbers of people. Kappa 21:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete it's all been said before: Wikipedia is not about current events, we have no need to scoop anybody. It will not be possible to tell until after the series is finished which, if any, of the contestants (none of whom appear to have been notable before the show) will continue to be notable after the show. This is no different to aspiring politicians, who garner passionate interest right up until the moment they lose the election, after which nobody gives a rat's ass about them. What is the problem with waiting for time's perspective? Take the "reality" shows to Wikicities, where you can discuss them until you are blue in the face, and bring them back a year after they have finished if anybody can actually remember the show by then. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- This person will always be of interest to wikipedia users who want to know what happened during and after Big Brother 6. Kappa 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep just as important as every other reality show contestant. -- JJay 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And just as unimportant :-) So, what is Caroline O'Shea doing now? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew. Possibly shacked up with Nick Bateman, but without wikipedia I can't be sure. One thing is clear, though, this encyclopedia will never be worth the paper it's printed on until we have bios of every reality show participant throughout history. Let's get a project or portal going on this pronto...-- JJay 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete; do we really keep every reality show contestant now? Sdedeo (tips) 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep there seems to be a precedent set already so why pick this guy out? Jcuk 10:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cruft does not justify more cruft. Thoise who want to know about the history of BB6 (God help them) can get it from the broadcasters, or from the article on BB6. We do not need articles for people whose verifiable information begins and ends with paticipation in a "reality" show. The number of BB participants who are still in the press a year after is tiny; those who are not become unverifiable. What's the rush? We have absolutely no need to cover breaking stories, current events, blow-by-blow coverage or whatever. This is not a newspaper, it's not Hello magazine, it's not a fansite, it's not a free webhost, it's an encyclopaedia. Or at least most of it is, the bit that's not full of vacuous nonentities pretending to be stars because they managed to get on TV for five minutes once. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non Notable.Obina 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some reality show contestants become somewhat famous because of their appearance on the show -- see Omarosa -- or go on to fame outside the context of the show -- see Elisabeth Hasselbeck. No evidence has been provided that Michael Donnellan is noteworthy outside the context of Big Brother 6 or that his appearance on that show was sufficient to make him a celebrity. This article just details his activity on Big Brother 6, which is already sufficiently described in the show's article. --Metropolitan90 02:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 02:53, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is waaaaay below WP:BIO. If someone wants to merge this into Big Brother 6 or a list of BB 6 contestants, I wouldn't mind that, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Anyone competing in a reality show is already out of touch with reality. We should not feed these people's sick yearning for recognition. --Agamemnon2 10:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I just cant see any difference between this guy and Derek Laud, Orlaith McAllister, Kemal Shahin, Kieron Harvey, Vanessa Layton-McIntosh, Maxwell Ward, Saskia Howard-Clarke, Roberto Conte, Sam Heuston, Lesley Sanderson, Mary O'Leary, Nadia Almada, Michelle Bass, Victor Ebuwa, Ahmed Aghil, Marco Sabba, Vanessa Nimmo, Kathryn "Kitten" Pinder, Cameron Stout, Ray Shah, Kate Lawler, Jade Goody, Alison Hammond, Brian Dowling, Craig Phillips, Anna Nolan, Melanie Hill, Tom McDermott, Nick Bateman and Andrew Davidson. If they stay he should, if he goes they should go. Jcuk 10:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Many of these are redirects. But, yes a few of these are strong candidates for AFD based on lack of notability (we may have the 15 minutes of fame problem here - and their 15 minutes is way up).Obina 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.
Keep for role on hit show followed by millions. --Rob 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a notable person. 12,000 Google hits for "Michael Donnellan big brother". As Thivierr points out, this show is watched by millions of people. This page does no harm, and is potentially useful for not only those millions, but anyone else looking for information on Michael Donnellan. However, I would also support a merge with link from Michael Donnellan (there should probably be a disambig sentence there already). Turnstep 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Big Brother is one of the top rated summer programs and all of its stars are notable people. Jtrost 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul W. Draper

not quite a speedy delete, so put to vote J\/\/estbrook 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep; Notable, if barely. Plus, I kind of liked the demo. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete little more than a bio and an advert, no real claim to notability. Stifle 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Mindmatrix 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Article about a magician, written by user "realmagic". I wonder if there could be any connection?... OK, userfy if there is any evidence the user is going to stick around, but really this is just garden-variety vanity spam. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep magic expert on TV. -- JJay 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bio+ad+totally unsourced. Sdedeo (tips) 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep seems to have made the press a few times Jcuk 10:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 04:38, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celine Mahieux

(pulled in from orphan articles) Competent engineer, article mostly vanity written by husband, book published this month (1 google hit) by specialist technical publisher MNewnham 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete per A7. --Angr (t·c) 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ~MDD 46 96 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom--Esprit15d 16:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naome Bradshaw

nn musician. She has a blank page at allmusic. She has a page at artistdirect which they list as "user contributed". Her records are sold at cdbaby.com, where they say they only sell records supplied by the musician. She gets only 88 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC as she's unsigned, and per WP:V as no independent source seems to have written about her, as far as I can tell. Note, there was a guest voice credit on the Simpsons claimed, which I removed, due to lack of independent sources. It's mentioned on her web site, and I think it's probably true, but even if it was true, its too minor to make a difference unfortunately. Hopefully she'll qualify for an article in the future. --Rob 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. --Angr (t·c) 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would disagree, as her web site indicates she's a recording artist, performer at various places (locally at least), and has a guest voice on a hit show. This all falls well below WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, but the person warrants an AFD. This isn't (quite) the run-of-the-mill singer-vanity, of somebody who's first attempt at publicity is Wikipedia. In between a keep and a speedy delete there is a deliberative delete, which this should be. --Rob 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete good work by Zoe. Speedy A7, I think. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rollbar

nn fictional characters r3m0t ^talk 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, widely known fictional characters and/or toys. Kappa 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, do the other Transformers characters have pages? --Liface 23:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's more than meets the eye! Seriously though I don't see what's so non-notable about Transformers characters, it's a pretty well-known show/toyline/whatever. Snurks ^{T C} 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, other Transformers have pages. Timrollpickering 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Kasic

Non-notable student (well, just graduated in 2005); good luck, but not worth an article even by wiki notability standards. Sdedeo (tips) 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nonnotable. --Angr (t·c) 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Google search just reveals some nn blogs and links to the student newspaper she contributed to. --Pboyd04 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete part of a POV crapflood by a fan of some far-right magazine. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. -- Op. Deo 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Willmcw 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. Artile is likely to be recreated as it is being linked from three others. -- ReyBrujo 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Kasic is engaged in the battle of campus minds that has been going on for years. This wiki elitism only helps prevent accurate documentation of the right wing conspiracy that has been assaulting academic freedom for 20 years. The $20 million that the extreme right is funnelling into campuses can't be accurately understood if not for documenting the key players, and Kasic has been in both roles as an undergraduate and now, after graduating, as part of Morton Blackwell's campus brownshirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.30.48 (talk • contribs)

Hi anon -- the problem is that Kasic is non-notable. There are a great many reasons why non-notability makes it hard to maintain an article; in particular, it makes it impossible to provide adaquate independent sources to document an article's claims about the subject. Sdedeo (tips) 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

delete NN Bio Pete.Hurd 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete r3m0t ^talk 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Playing god band

nn band, no albums, no real claim of notability unless you count "swept the underground scene like a tidal wave, destroying everything in its path" Pboyd04 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete nn, no relevant Google results; added db-band template VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. --Liface 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete fast. the collection of tags is testament to just how much this article presses the various WP:ISNOT buttons. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Counterweight

Non-notable college student-club newspaper. Sdedeo (tips) 22:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, just like all the other Bucknell-related stuff below. --Liface 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as usual for student club magazines. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom.-Willmcw 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was revert and keep. howch e ng {chat} 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Mitchell

Non-notable recent college graduate. Sdedeo (tips) 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (After the reversion and expansion by Rogue9 and OpDeo, I am happy to retract my AfD -- I was unaware that there was indeed a notable CM article that had been hijacked. Sdedeo (tips) 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Delete, nonnotable. --Angr (t·c) 22:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well he makes a claim to notability "Charles has appeared on NPR, MSNBC, and Fox News and written in the Washington Times, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Campus Magazine." But I don't see any proof and I don't think any of the google entries I saw were him, either needs to cite some evidence or Delete. --Pboyd04 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete another part of the crapflood. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. ~MDD 46 96 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Revert to edit of 15:40, 11 May 2005 by User:Steinsky - It seems this Scottish doctor who has a tower named after him has been converted to a non-notable US graduate! -- Op. Deo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Revert, per above. This article title was hijacked. -Willmcw 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Revert per above. --Metropolitan90 02:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's try reverted per above. Charles Mitchell is a great, upstanding guy, but he hasn't yet done anything to merit an encyclopedia article about him. Rogue 9 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-- After Rogue 9's revertion I have have expanded the article on the orignal person, cleaned up links in, and provided a Charles Mitchell (disambiguation) page to which some one can add a link to the pundit Charles Mitchell if he can been shown to be notable and a page is written. Op. Deo 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Bluey

Can't figure out who this guy is, but given page creator's other choices, very likely non-notable. Sdedeo (tips) 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nonnotable. --Angr (t·c) 22:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete only one claim to fame, not substantiated. Part of a veritable orgy of cruft by article's creator. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Maybe it was him that wrote the article? --Liface 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unsubstantiated claim and all in all nn. --Pboyd04 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
merge/redirect the small parts that are verifiable to Human Events. --Rob 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. It's a copyvio of http://www.humaneventsonline.com/about-editors.php, as are many of this editor's contributions. -Willmcw 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete/redirect to Human Events because of copyvio. Note: The same problem exists at Amanda Carpenter. --Rob 01:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucknell University Conservatives Club

Last in a long series of related articles, this student group's claim to fame is having been mentioned in the New York Times once. Otherwise a non-notable group with clearly vanity entry. Sdedeo (tips) 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Bucknell University if anyone can be bothered, otherwise frankly it's no loss. There is endless precedent for removing student clubs. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Bucknell University. --Liface 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete what is there is too POV for a merge anyway. --Pboyd04 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:AUTO (article is written in 1st person plural) and because student organizations which exist on a single campus are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as per Metro90 Pete.Hurd 02:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fudgebiscuit

Seems to be a neologism and an unnecessary one at that. Very few Google hits for "fudgebiscuit" written as one word, and not a whopping lot for "fudge biscuit" written as two. Angr (t·c) 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as nothing more than a neologism. ~MDD 46 96 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. neologism. Obina 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn neologism. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Westboro Baptist Church. I will just tag it, and encourage those who advocated merging so to do. -Splash^talk 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial and political views of the Westboro Baptist Church

Just based on the title this can never be NPOV, or its a soapbox, or its unecyclopedic, take your pick Pboyd04 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge back into Westboro Baptist Church, where the original article content was forked from. This has become a POV fork, I'm afraid; because it's edited by fewer people than the relatively NPOV main article, controversial content has remained in (for example, the "anti-black racism" section, which only mentions WBC members' significant anti-racism work as an aside to its main focus on allegations of racism). I think some of this is notable, but such content as is notable belongs back in the main article. TSP 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete and give the author Purgatory time. Endomion 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete since the POV extends well beyond the title and into the execution of the entire article. Remove this festering sore on the face of Wikipedia with all possible speed. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per TSP. --Idont Havaname 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Anti discrimination groups also have "racial views." The phrase "racial views" is neutral to me. pielover87 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
merge as per TSP Pete.Hurd 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
merge as per TSP --Xyzzyplugh 14:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per TSP A.J.A. 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article is well sourced, and seems too long for merging into the already very long Westboro Baptist Church article. It is not the article that is biased, but the organization, according to the sources given. To make the organization sound non-racist etc would require deliberately ignoring the sources and would thus make the article non-neutral. Wuzzy 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RightHook.org

nn website, Alexa has no traffic data, Google search seems to be mostly nn blogs and forums Pboyd04 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete POV article on POV website. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB, although I freely admit that the content of the article was sufficiently poor that I did not look too hard. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is notable enough, but needs some work. --Liface 23:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question Liface can you post proof of notability (and which part of WP:WEB it meets) if so I will withdraw the nomination? --Pboyd04 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh ye of little faith! There are almost 450 links to this site. Admittedly mostly Wiki mirrors.. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete; may one day be notable, but not yet. Sdedeo (tips) 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Just zis Guy. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TNL Forum

nn forum, Alexa rating of 35,812, and while trying to revert vandalism (someone changed the link to Opera forums) I found out that the site seems to be down. Pboyd04 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. Although the article has a lot of content, it seems like it would be more suitable for them to start their own wiki with MediaWiki and host it themselves. I can't see how this information would be useful to anyone but members of the forums. --Liface 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as pressing the No. 1 spam button, starts with the name as a weblink. Goes steadily downhill from there. This is just forumcruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete for excessive amounts of web-troglodyte garbage. These people need lobotomy, not exposure. --Agamemnon2 10:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Massive, unending Forum Drama (tm) of interest only to those who read the forum. FCYTravis 10:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per FCYTravis. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per FCYTravis. Inane and unencyclopaedic. - Liontamer 22:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Pope. - Sikon 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Father

Appears to be nothing more than a vehicle for pushing a POV. Also a Papal title, so someone keeps linking to this article from the phrase "Holy Father" in Pope, over repeated reversions, apparently to make some point. In fact, although "Holy Father" is occasionally used in prayer to address God the Father it's not usually thought of as one of his titles and occurs in the entire Bible exactly once. As an article on the Papal title is nothing more than a dicdef. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Pope, and protect if necessary. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and protect if necessary, as above. Durova 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Soapbox. The article is making a subtle point that Catholics are in error to call the Pope Holy Father when Jesus calls our Father in heaven the Holy Father. Endomion 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Pope, and protect if necessary. Note that contents is pure opinion, per Endomion, and no sources are cited to support that opinion. (I.e. no sources are cited to show that "Holy Father" has only one proper usage and meaning). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. I think it's maybe a bit much to call it a POV push, but it's certainly nowhere near WP standard. Stifle 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macbeth Athletics

Very little content, not worth keeping around Bootstoots 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete very little content. --Pboyd04 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, no context, no content, possible advertisement --Quarl 01:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete countertops

Reads like an ad. Plus isn't this just obvious that a Concrete countertop is a countertop made of concrete. Unencyclopedic Pboyd04 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I agree, that's a badly done advertisement. --Bootstoots 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement. Almost no useful content to salvage. --Quarl 01:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern word

Article about a brand new Wiki. Notability not demonstrated. Notability first, article after. Jmabel | Talk 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete from what I can tell 74 pages and 2 users. --Pboyd04 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. Obina 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website. --Quarl 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per non. -- ReyBrujo 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete utterly non-notable. Stifle 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expert modeling

Looks like an advertising page, with little context --Bootstoots 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup...it's a copyvio, too. That means Speedy McBye-Bye. - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (tɔk) 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool (African philosophy)

Fails the Google test, goes under many things that Wikipedia is not and attempts at improvement have failed thanks to constant reverts. Urthogie 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Looks like original research. Ashibaka tock 02:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

More than that, even the original research itself isn't encyclopedic. I've talked with the guy himself, hes an art interpreter, not a scientist.--Urthogie 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the article's talking about art and not physics, this actually strikes me as entirely appropriate. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is not called Cool(African art). It's presented as philosophically true.--Urthogie 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete clearly origianl research. Gotta go.Gator (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete original research --Xyzzyplugh 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Real enough to those who believe in it. Fred Bauder 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Noone has ever contributed to it, except DCV, and she made it impossible to remove the POV from her works, thanks to reverting. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so we shouldn't have an article that claims as true things that are unscientific.--Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, this doesn't appear to be true. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been failed attempts at objectivity in this article's history. Look at the talk pages for a chronicle of enraged wikipedians, each giving their stab at balancing the article throughout its history.--Urthogie 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep for a while Until the deeceevoice RfAr is complete. -Justforasecond 20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Gator. Stifle 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete if this is not highly contested after DCV's arbitration --Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, unverified and unverifiable.Humansdorpie 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Suggest that relevant information be moved to Cool (aesthetic) (I know that such a link currently leads to the article in discussion, however), which must cover the concept of "cool" both in African and non-African contexts. This present article, however, has no hope of becoming NPOV because it was created on the premise of a POV and attempts to prove or justify that POV. Yid613 00:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Article needs work but it has a lot of solid info and references.--Alabamaboy 20:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't understand what the specific grounds for deletion are here (constant reverts are not one; that's a case for mediation). What sections of WP:NOT is this violating? How is this original research when it provides five references supporting its claims? It could use more thorough citation, and I'd be happy to see uncited parts go, but it's clear that we're talking about a concept that has some meaning to the art world--otherwise they wouldn't keep publishing articles on it. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - nothing raised here seems to meet the criteria for deletion. Also, has the stink of a vendetta to me. Guettarda 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never edited a page with DCV before this article, and please view the talk pages if you think I came in with a bad attitude. You'll see that I've tried to handle this with complete objectivity and respect.--Urthogie 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Only causes circuitous arguments and tiresome edit wars. Either delete or rewrite the article entirely using verifiable sources. --Modulatum

Keep. I don't understand why an article that is as well-referenced as this one would be considered for deletion. If anything, I think the article should be expanded. I am a sociologist and have come across other articles on this and closely related subjects over the years. To delete an article like this one seems almost a racial act to me. Wikipedia needs more articles like this one on African art and culture, not fewer. There is also the possibility (from what I've gleaned elsewhere on this) that there are personal aspects to this VfD, based on an RfA. I don't know all the facts on this yet, but have it from a source I trust. Berenise 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see the old version, the article is currently the result of my deleting the subjective content. I assure you this isnt a personal issue. This is the only article I've done with DCV. Also, if you look at the talk page, you can see in my first post that I clearly support the pages existence, and wanted it improved. It was only when I recognized that POV was the reason for the article's creation-- the essence of the content, that I put this on AfD. Also, if anyone else falsely thinks that this is a personal problem of mine, rather than the crappiness of the article, please understand that Wikipedia has a rule about primary sources. And this article doesn't follow it.--Urthogie 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Following comments were made in reference to Dvyost

Ok, ill answer this one by one:

Constant reverts aren't the grounds, they are just what makes it worse.
It violates the following sections of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
To claim it has primary sources would be in complete contradiction with the words of Deeceevoice herself(who put all of the content up), who said the following in her attack on the established "eurocentric policy" of primary sources:

In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary ::sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has ::credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. [60]

The problem isn't lack of sources, its lack of encyclopedic primary sources. All of her sources are art interpretations. People can come to many conclusions when viewing art. If she were to approach this objectively, she would say that so and so believes this, unfortunately, she had to take a leave from wikipedia before this could be forced into the ridiculous article.
Coolness in african art has meaning, but the article has not a single encyclopedic paragraph. I defy you to find one paragraph written by her in this article which subscribes to wikipedia's guidelines.

--Urthogie 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused by your insistence on primary sources here, as WP:NOR seems to say that secondary sources are fine for constructing articles. What's even more confusing to me is your insistence on "scientific" or "empirical" evidence; how do you see this coming about in an article on aesthetics? Generally the precedent in art/aestethics articles seems to be to cite the relevant critics (or "interpreters," if you prefer); so far as "scientists" exist in the field, this is them. Anyway, I don't understand how summarizing scholarly secondary sources in this case is any different than what I've seen in dozens of history articles. It's certainly not required that we agree with this (I for one don't) but I don't see the harm in saying that "scholar X and scholar Y advocate a philosophy of Z". That's how Wikipedia articles are built, right? --Dvyost 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is OK to base articles on secondary sources, but she presented the secondary source as a primary one. She actually said "Cool is feminine energy, cool is etc." You can't do that! Even if you do suggest a keep of this article can you please address the fact that that isn't allowed by wikipedia policy? Furthermore, before my mass deletion of the article's content, there weren't statements like "scholar X advocates this". heres an example of how she would say stuff before my edits:

Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. The cool aesthetic permeates traditional West African cultures and African-American culture, as well— in black artistic and musical expression, in the hitch in the "pimp" strut of urban, African American men; in African American dress and adornment, demeanor and speech.

Not only is that a misinterpretation of Thompson(I've exchanged emails about the article with the man himself), but even if it were a proper citing of his view, it would be presenting his interpretations as the gospel truth! It's a soapbox, no? (PS I want to thank you for maintaing objectivity in this discussion, and im honestly very thankful for your approach to this article. Much respect for that.)--Urthogie 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For those who think I have an anti-african bias

Go read the history section on the article rapping. Hip-hop (my favorite music), is linked to griots, which were essential to west african culture. If I had an anti-african bias that warped my objectivity, why would I bring it in to my favorite thing? Please stop the personal implications.--Urthogie 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Human Events. Original article was userfied to User:Abcarpenter (original author). howch e ng {chat} 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Carpenter

Was tagged as a speedy as a nn-bio, but claims notablity by winning awards. No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I was regional chess champ in kindergarden does that get me my own bio page? but seriously nn awards as far as I can tell --Pboyd04 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete but make an article about the site itself that mentions her.--Urthogie 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, also note that series of articles written by her are close to vanity but subjects may be worthy independent checking. -- Op. Deo 00:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

merge/redirect to Human Events --Rob 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
delete/redirect: It appears the original is a copyvio from here. The changes I made are to trivial to fix the problem, so there'll need to be a legit rewrite, or a deletion. It's probably best to delete, and put a redirect to Human Events --Rob 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete then redirect per Thieverr|Rob. Non-notable biography, copyvio. --Quarl 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per Thieverr|Rob. Stifle 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You guys are douches don't hate the player, hate the game. User:bwetmore 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above comment was left by User:24.220.30.48, not by the claimed user. --Rob 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossflo and Crossflo systems

nn company, blatent ad first line is even the same as their website metatags Pboyd04 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete blatant copyvio r3m0t ^talk 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable compnay, advertisement. Alexa rank for crossflo.com is 4,118,377 [61]. --Quarl 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 13:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. It's past the deadline for a speedy delete (hint: when you vote for a speedy deletion, please tag the page with the relevant {{db}} template) but it's a copyvio and an advert. Stifle 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both articles read like a poor press release; searching WP for Crossflo turns up another spam link example for them National Information Exchange Model and one possibly pertinet external link GJXDM. ChemGardener 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avow (zine)

Doesn't seem very notable. While Google produces results, little to none of them are actually about this magazine. Delete --Spring Rubber 09:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This zine is referenced in the list of zines page under perzines. Within the Zine community Keith Rosson is a notable figure and was fetured in the documentary "A T-Shirt & $100" about the North West Zine community. Keep --Jacobtrosen 15:10, 17 December 2005

User has only contributed to Avow and AFD. --Quarl 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable per nomination. --Quarl 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 Billion

NN board game vanity by Dacoutts (talk · contribs) aka David Coutts (talk · contribs). — Dunc|☺ 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all the original research from Mr. Coutts; I was going to give him a few days to find a real source before nominating this series myself. Note that beyond the 5 articles nominated today, he wrote Differential replication and Exponentialist, both of which are now redirects to Darwinism and Exponentialism, respectively. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not add this page in the first place (ask yourselves, when was the game entry entered?), though I did improve the entry. However, the game is not a part of my recent edits. The game can stand on its own in Wikipedia, without any reference to Exponentialist theory.I think you are over-reacting.

Given that other boardgames are listed on Wikipedia, this feels more like being burned at the stake for heresy than a reasoned response. Dacoutts

Comment: In retrospect, you are correct, the article is not linked with the objectionable set. I have removed the inappropriate cross-namespace link to your user page. I still think that the article smells of vanity and self-promotion, but I can quite easily find the game on Google, so it's not wholly unnotable. The links at the bottom especially smell of vanity, but I remove my delete vote and leave a weak keep. In the future, you might want to avoid contributing to articles so linked to yourself - it really is vanity, and many Wikipedians will react badly to that and indeed try to burn you at the stake. My apologies for painting all your contributions with the same brush. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted, though I note that the 6 Billion entry is still marked for deletion. As far as I could tell there are no guidelines that preclude me correcting what was an inaccurate entry for my game. I reject the charge of vanity, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Dacoutts

The game 6 Billion was distributed by Rio Grande Games in the USA. I've probably sold half of the 2,500 copies I produced. The game was listed in the Games International GAMES 100 for 2001 at number 9. It made the front cover of Games Games Games Issue 137 (see 6 Billion Reviews. It's listed on Boardgamegeek at BGG entry for 6 Billion. The entry shows that 158 people have said that they own the game. I published the story of the games development and production twice - once in Counter magazine, and once here. I took the game to Spiel '99 at Essen - Spiel'99 at Essen.

Dacoutts

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mo0[talk] 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete thanks to DACoutts for quantifying how minor the game was. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Stillnotelf Jcuk 10:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As per the nomination, delete. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Guy. 1250 units sold is insignificant. -- JLaTondre 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not significant enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo plastering

POV term used in production logo fandom; not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. tregoweth 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete since I have at leasta passing suspicion that 100% of "closing logo enthusiasts" already know everything there is to know about this subject, and nobody else is likely to be interested. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless verified as a term in general usage. If verified, delete as dicdef. Movementarian 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable and not notable enough. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, even after minus socks. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PBS idents

Subtrivia of interest only to devoted logospotters. tregoweth 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete this belongs on Wikicities or a fan site. No way is this encyclopaedic. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see how this is any less encyclopaedic than some of the other articles on Wikipedia. Boring as hell, but I think merits inclusion. Movementarian 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Quarl 01:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - There is a nostalgia factor here. Endomion 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep definately interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. --Pboyd04 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep what the hell, we have BBC Television Idents Jcuk 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Pboyd04. Georgia guy 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - of nostalgic and aesthetic interest. But, as Movementarian says, it's not well written. Also, too similar to teamfx2000 page (referenced multiple times). ScottMainwaring 03:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Good Histoy on PBS 69.231.157.85
Keep This is historical information Mike 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. David | Talk 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Majority rules. I think there are some psychological effects to the older idents for some or for me at least. It may not be really encyclopaediac, but useful and easy to get to for the info. Steven312 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Exactly it's information that will be of use to many people and it's obviously overwheling that most people want it to say. Mike 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Lukobe 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing logos of Viacom

Subtrivia of interest only to devoted logospotters. tregoweth 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, precisely. I used ot be a projectionist, but even I found this boring! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Boring? Yes, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Movementarian 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Movementarian. --Quarl 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. --Pboyd04 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per everyone else, may not be the best subject in the world, but that's no deletion reason. Besides, if it was going to be unwelcome on Wikipedia, it would have never passed WP:AFC (which it did). Also, why did I expect the AfD tag on the page before entering it? I had a feeling because of similar pages brought here. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Jcuk 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep There's a similar article for Screen Gems, and just because there are a lot of people not interested in historical branding of this nature, plenty of people are. Are we short of hard drive space on the Wikimedia servers? Otherwise, I can't figure out why we'd be going out of our way to delete this article. Jkatzen 09:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Viacom. JonMoore 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberwap

I couldn't find the site when I looked, only 320 google hits most of which seem to be people with the profile cyberwap. nn site Pboyd04 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable website, per nomination --Quarl 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- ReyBrujo 13:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete fails the hurdles, sorry --Alf ^melmac 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cygnus Spaceworks

Incorrect star wars information. The page for Lambda-class shuttle lists Sienar Fleet Systems as the manufacturer not this company. Probably fan fiction cruft. Pboyd04 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete substub, never going to become a serious article. Stifle 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It was in the X-wing computer game series, specifically TIE Fighter. Although I will remove the incorrect Lambda shuttle information from the Cygnus page, I prefer keeping the page since it was responsible for the Assault Gunboat and Missile Gunboat.

Merge into List of minor Star Wars organizations. This is all true, as proven by Star Wars Wiki. The company is also in the Essential Guides. -LtNOWIS 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

delete game cruft. Pete.Hurd 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] December 28

[edit] Illegal (Shakira)

[edit] AdwareAlert

[edit] Detva District

[edit] Dtcon

[edit] Krešimir Čorak

[edit] The Mwalmart Directory

[edit] Yankees Suck

[edit] Christopher Galas

[edit] Sewcom

[edit] Samhwa Crown & Closure Co., Ltd.

[edit] Figure of Hate

[edit] List of Mirmo! external links

[edit] Organized Konfusion

[edit] Exhalted

[edit] Lessons learned

[edit] Tom Mouhteros

[edit] Dennis Bellone

[edit] ItEndsHere

[edit] William Graham (Exhalted)

[edit] Michael Hagges

[edit] Clubbity

[edit] Tony Saldana

[edit] John Wright (massuer)

[edit] Mopac Trail

[edit] Nejaa Halcyon

[edit] University in Novi Pazar

[edit] Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr

[edit] Schwarzer bass

[edit] MTV Generation

[edit] Wyckoff Farmhouse Museum

[edit] Mist mod

[edit] The First Church of the Apostleship

[edit] Pieces of Heaven

[edit] Gothic metal/Temp

[edit] Luke Wienecke

[edit] Empire T&W American Royal Mead

[edit] Thumbs Up!

[edit] Compound entertainment

[edit] Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois)

[edit] Michael Whitley

[edit] Fanny (Guilty Gear) and Leopaldon and now Kliff Undersn

[edit] Tu'ala

[edit] The MSW

[edit] Femocracy

[edit] Utopia General Talk

[edit] Star Wars: Why did the Galactic Empire have to lose?

[edit] Incompetent design

[edit] Nicheminds

[edit] Troseph

[edit] Indo-Pak Union

[edit] Humanitarian convoy under attack

[edit] Tanner Hoechlin

[edit] Nigel Clarke

[edit] Matthew P Sheeran

[edit] NFL: We Just Chillin'

[edit] Flame Tree Barbeque

[edit] MyYearbook

[edit] 601st

[edit] Galak Stari

[edit] Ask me if I'm an orange

[edit] Summa Theologica/Notable points

[edit] Holomine

[edit] PLX

[edit] Animate! OSU, Anime Punch!, Armageddicon

[edit] Stuart Weitzman

[edit] 'Animate! OSU' sub-articles

[edit] Elements of religion

[edit] Bibio

[edit] The Dark Demons

[edit] Patch clamp

[edit] Digital sound revolution

[edit] James Crabtree

[edit] Ayden Scheim

[edit] Lord Namis

[edit] Beez von Beezen

[edit] Project Chaos, Milkyway Wishes, Around the World (Super Dodge Ball album), Children of Erdrick