Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 7 December 9 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] December 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Schisms among the Jews. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dialectics in Judaism

This was originally marked for speedy deletion as redundant. I have taken the liberty of changing that to an AfD. I will not give an opinion on this. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Delete - I wrote the original article, was informed that it was redundant, and agree with the assessment. See also the article's Talk page.--Leifern 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's redundant, and probably should have been left as a speedy deletion. --Thephotoman 00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not a speedy. Why not just redirect? -- JJay 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Not another page about Jews disagreeing with each other. We've got plenty of those. JFW | T@lk 08:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This page should be blanked and redirected to Schisms among the Jews as was discussed on the articles talk page. Movementarian 08:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Schisms among the Jews (otherwise it would just become a confusing "double"). IZAK 10:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Nothing to see here, move along now... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Fascist Party

Unsubstantiated hate speech Thumper 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable organization. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete, vanity article.Gateman1997 00:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see above --Thephotoman 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity article. - Stlemur 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's no indication that they are any more than a small online discussion group -Meegs 02:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete More relevant than what we might think about the politics of hate is the fact of non-notability. Flapdragon 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity advertisement. --Hurricane111 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Olorin28 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a flawed nomination. (1) If you have actually read the article in question, you will see that there is no hate speech in the article. (2) The group is certainly substantiated if you would bother to make a Google search for it: approximately 150 solid hits. (3) The article does not appear to be vanity as some users are claiming here. It appears to be a reasonably factual report on the group. I see no espousing of dogma in this article. So the only issue left here is notability, and in fact it does seem to be a rather obscure group. However, we do not delete articles from the Wikipedia because we don’t like the politics of the subject of the article. If we were to do that, we would delete Nazism, White supremacy, Skinhead, Apartheid, and myriad other groups and subjects. I have no particular interest in the UFP, but don’t delete articles because you think the subjects of the article are despicable. ◎DanMS 06:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Flawed nomination? Possibly. Reason to vote keep? Not a chance. The article itself says it's hard to know how much support this mob has, which is not a convincing assertion of notability. Reyk 06:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, I disagreed with DanMS' assertion that the group is notable and the nomination is flawed. Although Google search appears to provide 150 solid hits, a closer look reveals that the original hit count is 32 [1]. This already includes 2 from Wikipedia, plus group's responses to various blogs/forums. Furthermore, I did a quick search in Google's news and it does not show any news article based on the group. From the above reasons, I have strong doubts about the group's notability. Another point that I want to raise is that Wikipedia has a policy on Verifiability. The allegation posted regarding Yahoo's decision to delete the group and/or Yahoo's position on internet censorship is only allegation and not supported by evidence (other than the group's claim on its webpage). Therefore, I had voted delete earlier and do not believe this nomination to be flawed. After all, assertion that article is unsubstantiated can be considered as a valid reason for afd. --Hurricane111 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Response:
  • I did not vote to keep. Please read my comment.
  • My issue was with the nomination claiming “unsubstantiated” and “hate speech.”
    • “Unsubstantiated” means “not verifiable.” The number of various Google hits, whatever the actual number is, verifies the group’s existence.
    • There is no hate speech in the article. Please read the article before you vote.
  • I did not assert that the group is notable. I said the group is “rather obscure,” which means non-notable.
  • My second issue was with all the voters claiming vanity. Please read the article. I don’t think this article can be construed as vanity.
  • Please put some thought into your votes.
◎DanMS 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 150 hits ain't enough for political organizations. Firebug 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article lists the group as being small and based in a small town (the town does not even have a Wikipedia article), which insinuates that they are not notable. My reason for voting to delete is I do not think this article meets the Verifiability requirement (as is stated by Hurricane111 above). Movementarian 08:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, non-notable, article pretty much begs for deletion by quantifying just how insignificant the group is. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And yet my understanding is that, if they had won a seat at an election, somewhere, at any time, they would be notable enough to be included, even if there were only 2 or 3 of them. No vote--SockpuppetSamuelson 13:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Membership is only an issue if there are no other things providing notability. They have nothing which suggests they have any notability whatsoever. --Fastfission 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete group vanity, poor Google showing proves this group has had no real impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if they do exist as a movement and not just one person (and the evidence for that looks shaky at best) they are nowhere near notable enough to warrant an entry. Keresaspa 18:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Apparently their only claim to fame is having a Yahoo group which Yahoo decided to cancel and that one of their members posts responses to online articles. --Fastfission 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it is non-notable and the material isn't very encyclopediacly-written. I just made a new word. Croat Canuck 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stlemur. Stifle 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although the nomination is flawed the group doesn't look notable enough. Wait if they grow. Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for copyvio. Enochlau 03:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincolnshire Life

"The article reads like a commercial. It has no formatting only 2 edits. No sources are cited except the magazines website. It seems highly likely that the anonymous editor merely copied and pasted the article.DeleteTheRingess 00:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)}

  • Delete, sloppy article, probably spam.--Thephotoman 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All the rural English counties have a similar magazine, Dorset Life, Hampshire Life, etc, etc, presumably by the same publisher. Total circulation must be high so one single article about the whole series would be OK but not this page. Jameswilson 02:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore it's an obvious copy and paste job from the magazine's website. Why do people waste time (even the seconds it takes to lift a page of someone else's work) doing something so pointless? Tagged speedy delete as copyvio. Flapdragon 03:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Gang

While the concept of guilds and clans is important within the world of online gaming, I don't believe an individual clan is particularly noteworthy. This is essentially a group vanity entry. Joyous | Talk 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per nom. --Thephotoman 00:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. I have already tried to cut out the POV stuff from this article, but I agree wtih the nominator in that this is a group vanity entry. Olorin28 00:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, group vanity, this really should be speedyable (if a NN-bio about one person can be speedied, why not a NN-bio about a group?) Firebug 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 08:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Maybe recreate as redirect to Gang to discourage re-creation? Saberwyn - 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gang as per Saberwyn. --DDG 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and per above.--MONGO 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per "the WP gang". Ronabop 03:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steeplejack parade

Delete - Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. Article claims that the band is "listed on many sites in Google", but this isn't borne out with a search. Zetawoof 00:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet any criteria set forth in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 09:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From article: A plea to the Gods of Wikipedia: Please don't be mean and delete our entry! We just want a little fame, and it's causing you no harm. Whether it's causing Wikipedia any harm is not a valid reason to keep something. It makes a blatantly false statement about their Google presence and doesn't meet inclusion criteria for bands. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more band vanity. --Bachrach44 15:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity, dozens of articles like this per day clogging up AFD, you know that I'm going to ask for a speedy category, right? ;) Stifle 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annzience

Unverifiable. No Google hits whatsoever for Annzience, Cuormaal, or Aileox of Ooknees. One hit for Riem the Skotr but it's a binary file or something. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't find anything on Google either.--Bkwillwm 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Valermos 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense, unencyclopedic.--MONGO 01:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably nonsense. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The deleted page was also a duplicate of another deleted page, and had been made a redirect to that deleted page. Mindmatrix 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panda manda imaginations

delete: advertising, vanity — Shadowhillway 00:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Serpent

The phrase 'the black serpent' appears in Tolkien's books as a description of the battle standard of the chieftain of the Haradrim (a black serpent on a red field). The rest of this article is derived from role-playing games. Suladan, Mardat, the history of the 'serpent lords', et cetera... none of it comes from J.R.R. Tolkien. Information on the standard can be added to the Haradrim article as a single sentence. --CBD ✉ 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with nom. Delete. Firebug 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the original Tolkien content to Haradrim and redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Tim Pierce 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Croat Canuck 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 06:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panda manda

delete: advertising, vanity — Shadowhillway 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Duplicate. There are three of these; see Panda Manda Imaginations and Panda manda imaginations. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suladän

The character of this name and the history assigned to him were made up by a role-playing game. They do not appear in the works of JRR Tolkien. --CBD ✉ 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cheesians

Non notable DeviantArt webcomic. There only seems to be about 16 unique results on Google for "The Cheesians". Rampart 01:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The comic is drawn by the webmaster of the site [2] it is published on. There are only 13 comics on the website and have only been published since 16 May 2005. This borders on being a vanity page. Movementarian 09:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Tim Pierce 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be advertising, but lacks notability anyway.--MONGO 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to non-notability. Mo0[talk] 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of any influence on anything else or any significant readership, not notable. ++Lar 19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yun-Jinn Pequesso

This is a long detailed article that seems to be an attack page, full of innuendo and speculation about a pretty non-notable individual. Because it is so long, lavishly illustrated, and with references, even, I brought it here rather than speedying it. Even if the subject of the article did whatever it is that he's accused of doing, I don't see that it's encyclopedic Joyous | Talk 01:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • delete: Does not assert notablity. Zeimusu | Talk page 01:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Olorin28 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ROFL - best attack page I've seen yet, v. thorough Sherurcij 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an attack page and/or non-notable biography. -- Kjkolb 16:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete attack page. Don't forget to delete the images too. — Haeleth Talk 16:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hásharii

This organization, its history, and all of the members listed were made up by a role-playing game. They do not appear in the works of JRR Tolkien. --CBD ✉ 01:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Guys, AfD is not the place to go if you want something merged (once something's already on AfD, of course, merging is a valid option — it doesn't have to be deleted/kept). Please don't use AfD unless you want something deleted outright. Also, "merge and delete" is invalid — because the history of the deleted article is hidden, the authors of the merged portion are no longer credited, which is a violation of the GFDL. Regardless, it looks like the article was created because User:Benmoshe felt that Jewish Defense League was inaccurate, or at least insufficiently NPOV; these issues can be solved by modifying the original article, not by setting up a new version. This, and to a lesser extent the sheer numbers on the side of deletion, lead me to believe that deletion is the appropriate option. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Defense League (The Real Story)

This is a fork of Jewish Defense League, and forking articles is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Merge and delete. -- Curps 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge & Del - I tried to reason with the creator according to WP:bite, but he seems too combative. ←

Humus sapiens←ну? 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I may seem combative because neither I nor my organization is being treated objectively or with respect. I may not be experienced in the use of Wikipedia, however, my only purpose is to correct information which seemes to me to be deliberately malicious in nature. I would appreciate your assistance and would be delighted to exchange emails on this subject. I have no idea what "forking articles" means. My real name is: Bill Maniaci, my email address is: maccabee@charter.net. I am 100% open to discussion. --Bill Maniaci 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a forking article. Durova 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the fork. Gateman1997 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Del - Even if the information in this article is more accurate, it will not serve much purpose because anyone who wants info on the JDL will go to the main article; not this one. Putting "the truth" over in a hidden corner of Wikipedia benefits neither the writer nor Wikipedia. Work it out on the main article in plain sight of all. (Also Bill, I moved your first comment on this page so it would be in proper chronological order; we read from the top down. I know that's kind of odd for a web page so I can understand why you put it on top originally.) capitalist 04:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that merge and delete are not compatible (Wikipedia:Guide to deletion). - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it means to merge the information here into the main article, and then delete this article. I guess it's redundant, but not incompatible.
  • Delete POV fork. Firebug 07:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Jewish Defense League, and then Delete. --Bachrach44 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV magnet --- Charles Stewart 16:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the fork - or userfy it, if Bill Maniaci wishes to preserve a copy to work from when editing the main article. Hopefully some users with experience in this area can be found to help resolve the dispute, so we can be sure that the main article itself will present "the real story". — Haeleth Talk 16:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate/forked articles. Tim Pierce 21:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV fork. No Account 23:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything that can be salvaged in a NPOV way into Jewish Defense League, and delete as a separate, unnecessary article. *Dan T.* 23:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising, spam. Appears to be a recruitment attempt.--MONGO 01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV in concept and execution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, any pertinent information on this page is already used on the parent article. Andrew Levine 18:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- POV fork and propaganda. If I was an admin I'd give some thought to protecting the original page as well -- a quick look shows that the article has degenerated into a trainwreck. Haikupoet 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of anti-abortion people

Going from Susan B. Anthony to Ben Stein, this seems like one of those articles that can never hope to name the 4 billion people in the world who fit into the category. These aren't people specifically known for their stance on the question of abortion, but rather instead celebrities, politicians and 'other' who have at some point given an opinion. Sherurcij 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete an unsourced list. Durova 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete oooh ooh I was waiting for shit like this to delete EscapeArtistsNeverDie 01:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no context provided, and probably could be defined to include everyone who isn't fervently in favor of abortions being performed (e.g., Bill Clinton, who hoped that the procedure would be rare). BD2412 T 01:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a useful list, doesn't cite sources. Catamorphism 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of room for improvement. -- JJay 03:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vague and unsourced. Olorin28 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also per Olorin28's statement regarding vague and unsourced. Who is going to be here? Celebrities? Health-care workers? Ifnord 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources. What about people who change their mind? Why do I see no popes on this list? Totally unmaintainable. Chris the speller 04:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and if need be create a category.Gateman1997 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a category I think. Category:Pro-life celebrities. If there is a List of pro-choice people then this should stay, if not I have no opinion.--T. Anthony 05:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
That said if it's deleted would it be okay to make this a redirect to the category? Is that even possible in fact?--T. Anthony 05:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It's possible (AFAIK), but generally discouraged. Cross-namespace redirects are generally frowned upon, with the exception of shortcuts to the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. WP:AFD). I'm not sure if we have other exceptions, I certainly could be wrong. Blackcap (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- this is listcruft. It's not an article. It can never be a decent article because any attempt to improve it would make it gigantic beyond reason. 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable shit. Firebug 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopaedic, arbitrary, prone to unverifiability - in short, listcruft. But Firebug said it better :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to arbitration :: since a significant number of commentators say that they have specifically been waiting for a chance to delete this article, this sounds to me (IMHO)like a pre-emptive campaign by the cabal to block discussion of a topic--SockpuppetSamuelson 13:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - only one person has said they were waiting for something like this, and it could easily be meant in a different context. I'm a pro-lifer myself, quite militantly so, but such a 'list' doesn't foster "discussion of a topic" at all, it just sits there making Wikipedia look bad because it's a hopeless attempt. I would AfD a "List of anti-life people" just as quickly. (Notice also that the article didn't use the prolife/prochoice positive-sounding terms, but referred to "anti-abortion" which is similar to "anti-choice" shrugs Sherurcij 14:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't anti-abortion the opposite of pro-abortion? Aren't you anti-abortion, or just "pro-life"? -- JJay 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that that matters, here, mate. The debate over abortion and even whether we call it pro-life/choice or anti/pro-abortion often turns discussions into a shitfight. Since we're here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia, it's probably best to avoid that kind of stuff unless necessary, and it isn't, here. Blackcap (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Excuse me, but as the only Keep on an article that is obviously heading for the dustbin, I have the right to ask a question. Lots of diverse reasons are being cited for delete, and someone mentioned the name. Names can be changed. I don't care about the name. But I just can't see the difference between this list and numerous others on the site. -- JJay 19:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you mean to be talking to me. Yes, of course you have the right to ask questions. Nonetheless, whether or not Sherurcij considers himself to be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" is totally irrelevant to this article, and is the kind of question that starts flames. Why not stay on topic, and argue the keeping of this article on its merits, rather than starting a discussion that's likely to start a fight and isn't relevant? Blackcap (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I Think we agree. But I'm not going to try and argue against the 16 or so reasons/non-reasons given for deletion- most of which are not relevant. That seems a lost cause. -- JJay 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There isn't a similar list for pro-choice or pro-abortion people. Because of that it makes the lists on this issue unbalanced. Also I don't think it's common for there to be lists concerning a position on a single issue. For example List of euthanasia opponents, List of gay-rights activists, List of birth control opponents, etc. I'm pretty sure will all come out red. Somewhat embarrassingly for my case though there is a List of disability rights activists. I am disabled, however I don't entirely agree with the activists, so I'm not sure where I feel there. Still that issue is in least able to be annotated without ticking people off and there is no category for the activists themselves. (There is Category:Rights of the disabled, but it's not specific to people) Still I have not yet voted though and I'm not sure I will. I am Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion/Anti-Choice(terminology is irrelevant to me) but still in this case I'm not sure the list can do more then the categories on this.(There is also Category:Pro-life politicians) Normally I like list, but as mentioned this maybe can't be annotated or sourced without causing a fight so may become worthless. If this gets deleted though I will actively vote to delete any List of pro-abortion people, List of pro-choice people or whatever term is used when it arrives.--T. Anthony 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that List of disability rights activists are of people who are actually DOING something, not just holding an opinion.--Calton | Talk 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Well said. We do have plenty of lists like List_of_pacifists and I have a hard time seeing why this list is so different. We also have important lists such as List of computer games featuring ants. Anyway, don't waste a lot of time considering your vote, the fat lady has sung here. -- JJay 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for making me aware of that. I added a "mergeto" on List of computer games featuring ants. On pacifists I don't know. That's also single issue I guess, and there isn't a List of militarists, but somehow it feels like pacifism is more of an entire life. My life is really not much like Wangari Maathai, she isn't on this list but she did come out against abortion[3][4], and there is a great chance anti-abortion people have less in common then pacifists do. Which would risk having a list that's a random group of people with little in common which seems to be something they're moving away from. Although a list of anti-abortion activists would be relevant I think. I'd have to think on the whole thing.--T. Anthony 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:AGF, please. Oh, and WP:TINC. — Haeleth Talk 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lists of people based on views they may or may not have had at one point is bad enough, but this list doesn't even have a single source, citation, or reference anywhere in it. Unverifiable and pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete please. --Bachrach44 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, interestingly... many pro-choice people say they are anti-abortion... just... the right to choose is more important or some such. They arent't pro-abortion by any means ~_~ --gren グレン 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Sachabrunel 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Blackcap (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill with fire. Unsourced, and of little value as a navigation tool due to its hopelessly broad nature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wow 4 billion people? I didn't think it was that many, but cool. Croat Canuck 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hopeless POV list for which there is no hope of maintaining accurately.--MONGO 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, start over and then give sources. If you people are so smart, why can't you just figure this out? Wikipedia is not paper! Эйрон Кинни 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree and thanks for the support. -- JJay 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You may want to reconsider your wording about the above. If you do feel free to delete this comment when you make your change. gren グレン 01:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So the fact that WP is not paper justifies an article with serious and permanent POV issues starting right from the title? Fascinating. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • First, nothing is permanent. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Second, I suppose that Anti-abortion movement and Anti-abortion violence in the United States are objectionable on POV grounds as well. -- JJay 17:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Both those articles have the potential to be POV, and I would certainly support renaming if a better name could be found. But they do document a real and significant movement, in a way that a (hit)list of people does not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. How consistent. The preferred response to the CFD attempts on Category:Pro-life celebrities et al was "there's already a list; listify." Now we finish up by deleting the list. Also, anyone who claims this is unverifiable isn't paying attention. Read Kathy Ireland or Kate Mulgrew, for example. If it's verifiable enough to get into each article, it's verifiable enough for a list or a category. As for my "vote" in this alleged consensus process: Keep. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record I'd have voted keep on that category. I strongly believe that categories are the way to handle this kind of thing, not least because individual article authors will see and review the addition of the category. It also ensures that only those who have a strong and widely-publicised interest will be added. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      Thanks, Zaphod. ;) I was somewhat out of line with that consistency remark, as it's not the same people participating in both discussions. But it is true that when the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, we can get those kinds of effects. I think we'd also see very interesting results in both discussions if we correlated each person's personal view on the political subject with their view on whether or not the category or list is encyclopedic. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In my case you'd probably find I'm less likely to nominate somthing if I support its agenda, but on AfD I will vote to keep stuff I hate and dleet stuff I like based on my best guess at whether it meets the criteria. I think a large proportion of lists are arbitrary, often dangerously misleading (as I believe this one is), and dulfil the same function as categories but less well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a useless list. It isn't a list of people who belong to a recognizable group (college alumni, say), have a common intrinsic quality (Italian American, say), or recognized achievement (Nobel Prize winners, say) -- it's an unverified list of people who (may) share a specific OPINION. And it's an opinion singled for noting WHY, exactly? Next up, List of free-trade supporters, List of believers in a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, List of people who crack open their boiled eggs on the narrow end, etc. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • HOW THE HELL DO YOU PUT ADOLF HITLER IN AN ANTI-ABORTION GROUP!!!?? WHAT KIND OF LIBERAL SICKO DID THIS?!?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.91.214 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. It was deleted by Flockmeal, and then again by RHaworth when it was reposted. Blackcap (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AMACOE

Delete Neologism at best. Enochlau 01:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Enochlau <->Refusetobesilenced 01:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharwoods

No claim to notability, just links to the firm's website. Durova 01:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sharwoods is just one among thousands of food manufacturers, can see no reason for the name to be in an encyclopaedia. Since no claim to notability is even asserted, it could perhaps be speedied. Flapdragon 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sharwoods and the direct competitor Pataks are the two largest manufacturers of Indian sauces and foodstuffs in Britain. Pilatus 03:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And this means they should be in an encycopaedia even when there's nothing say about them? Just how many thousands of non-notable companies would be included on the grounds that they are the biggest manufacturer of something or other? Even a tiny company could qualify if the product were obscure enough. And of course a tiny company could rightly get in if it were genuinely notable -- but size is not the same as notability. Please, people, Wikipedia is not a business directory and things don't get in just because they exist. Flapdragon 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Can I point you the direction of WP:CORP? Pataks and Sharwoods are household names, they are almost synonymous with "Indian cooking". Pilatus 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry to keep on but could you point me to something more specific? Which "multiple non-trivial published works/ranking indexes/stock market indexes" exactly? (Note we're talking about Sharwoods and not Pataks or Rank Hovis McDougall.) Some of the comments here imply an inability to distinguish between "yes, I've seen that in shops" and "yes, I'd expect to see it in an encyclopaedia". Even a small supermarket has thousands of product lines and brands; where should we draw the line? Everyone seems to think this is a notable company but no-one seems to know anything very notable to say about it, and we're still waiting to see any evidence of notability in the article. And no offence, but while I'm sure Sharwoods would love to be thought of as a synonym for Indian cooking, someone's idea of Indian cooking would have to be pretty limited to think "Indian cooking? Oh, you mean Sharwoods?"! Flapdragon 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Note that I wrote "Indian cooking", in quotation marks. I see no reason to disbelieve their statement that the company is leader in their not-so-small corner of the market. Besides, we keep well-known brand names, such as Hovis, Whiskas, Oxo and so on.
  • Delete- Unencyclopedic. Reyk 06:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable company. I can find plenty of Sharwoods products in my local supermarket in Sweden. u p p l a n d 06:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable company. Well-known in Australia, too. Room for improvement [5]. Cnwb 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This company is in the leads market performance in their corner of the food industry. Whilst they are specialised, they are certainly notable and warrant an entry. The article does need to be expanded a great deal. Movementarian 10:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Company is tasty large enough to be notable. Articles requiring expansion shouldn't be deleted on that basis alone. --Squiddy 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Rank Hovis McDougall. Verifiable and well-known company - a household name in the UK and elsewhere. Merge would be fine as the current content is a stub; maybe RHM (brands) is called for, I don't know. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article is justified if it can be improved to include company details. Keep for now with a request for improvement. Rob cowie 13:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously per everyone above, but stub-writers please remember to explain the notability of the subject when creating your stubs. Ideally, do that in your first edit. Durova was quite right to send this to AfD on the content I see. AndyJones 16:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My favourite spice manufacturer, I can't find it in the US so have to import it from Canada. I will attempt to bring this stub up to code. =) Ifnord 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Maybe the article has been modified, since its nomination, but it seems to be a good start towards a worthwhile article. -- Geo Swan 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Just improve the article if you think it reads like an ad. Do deletionists want to be able to read the entire Wikipedia? Yeltensic42.618 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh? Who said it read like an ad? Flapdragon 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a reason often cited by deletionists against articles on "non-notable businesses", so I just pointed that out in case anyone was thinking that (also, the remark about it only linking the website implied as such). It was really more a bit of advice for this general kind of situation than anything to do with this article. Sorry that it wasn't clear, I should have worded that better. Yeltensic42.618 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Dropping that offensive "duh" would be a good step towards wording that better. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Dropped it. Sorry, I just get tired of people voting delete on articles for (in my opinion) no good reason. Yeltensic42.618 06:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup.--MONGO 01:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. JoaoRicardo 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep certainly asserts notability. Hiding talk 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep hundreds of thousands possibly millions of people rely on the safety of Sharwoods products every day. Why not delete Boeing instead? They're just another aerospace company. The food safety issues I have added to the article alone make this worthy of a place. Please make some effort on articles before nominating them for deletion. Mozzerati 19:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free game forums

Spam. Unlikely to be notable. Zero Google hits on their URL. Difficult to Google on their name (which on their website is given as "Games Forum", not "Free Games Forum") because combinations of "Free", "Games", and "Forum" are everywhere; however they do come up as #1 on free games-forum. Website looks nothing special. Any Australians know about this? Herostratus 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not being particularly involved in Games I don't know but I will place the appropriate messages. WP:WEB is the appropriate policy to use. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 02:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It claims 33,000 registered users which would meet the general criteria in WP:WEB, but about a quarter of these are listed as 'never logged in' which sounds a bit suss. Looking at a one page sample (I chose "M") of members with more than one post is 40% which would still leave them with > 10,000 members. IanBailey (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unless some claim to encyclopedicity can be found. As has been discussed, pages like this have an inherent failing: There's nothing to expand. What, encyclopedic, do you write about a forum? The number of users? The stupid user dramas? Who's a moderator and who isn't? Unless a forum has had an impact on the world outside its user community, it is not likely to be encyclopedic. If verifiable sources can be found that discuss the forum in question, my vote will be reconsidered. FCYTravis 05:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and agree 100% with FCYTravis above. To be brutally honest, very little of any encyclopedic value can be said about the vast majority of forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-promotional and the three contributors (Zena, Luffy 747 and Rex. look suspiciously like sock puppets. Tim Pierce 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promotion, vanity.--MONGO 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per FCYTravis Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Travis. Sarah Ewart 09:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ambi 11:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 vanity - Lucky 6.9 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick perez

vanity, author is most likely subject (user:NJNEWS), 556 google hits but most not for this guy. had an interview on cnn though. speedied but then somebody changed that to a wikify tag. Heah (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Being interviewed on CNN doesn't ring the bell for me in terms of notability. Guy sounds wonderful, but...it's a vanity article. - Lucky 6.9 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as link spam - Lucky 6.9 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hatzolahtalk

Non-notable Flapdragon 02:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Worse. Link spam. It's gone. - Lucky 6.9 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology

Unsourced, reads like an advertisement. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Piece of crap. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs to be improved, not deleted. The topic seems verifiable and it can always be rewritten to a more neutral POV. squell 14:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete but only because I can see little point in having a page about every minor education establishment in the encyclopedia. I have just added a link to its homepage and it looks real enough. It's just a question of notability for me. --Spondoolicks 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: accredited status is verifiable, and most such institutions wind up being kept. Needs expansion and NPOV treatment: in particular, we can't claim the curriculum is "unique" unless we have verifiable evidence that there is no other school in the world offering similar courses, which I somehow suspect we don't. — Haeleth Talk 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Haeleth - I could be persuaded that the school is not notable enough to warrant its own entry, but until then I'm inclined to keep. Tim Pierce 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The curriculum is assuredly unique. I will ask someone at the school to submit a more detailed entry. Meanwhile please remove the contractive apostrophe from the word 'It's.' -- visitor.
  • Delete advertising...who cares if it is approved by a few universities.--MONGO 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and expand. Stifle 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 65,000 googlehits on exact phrase. — goethean ॐ 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as G4 recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 02:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Fleet

This page was already deleted once. Wolf530 02:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palladiation

To quote "It sounds like someone's pet neologism" [6]. I could only find 4 links when searching for Palladiation + microsoft. Also, Palladium has been renamed to Next-Generation Secure Computing Base. I would say delete Garion96 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only two real instances of the term appear to be used by outsiders to criticize Palladium. Microsoft's change in the root word mean that it's unlikely to see much additional use. --Interiot 03:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Though the term "Palladium" is ingrained in anti-DRM circles, and Microsoft's official name change is unlikely to stop people using the old name, I see nothing to suggest that this word itself has any currency. — Haeleth Talk 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triangulation (podcast)

Doesn't seem notable. Delete. Catamorphism 02:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I created the article. It may not seem notable because the podcast was just created today, but if you check the page history for Triangulation (disambiguation), a link was already present before I created the article. As the technology emerges, it may become of more significance, and my intention is to provide as much relevent information as possible. If you check my user history, please note that I do not have a pattern of bad behavior. Runnerupnj 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong delete if it was just created today. Notability is inherently impossible. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia writes backwards, not forwards in time. Articles are here for subjects that have demonstrated their significance, not for subjects that may be significant in the future. When this podcast is famous, an article can and should be written! Ziggurat 03:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Just for comparison, what if it were a musical album that was released by a major band today? Certainly the association with the major band would make it potentially useful. What if it were a new show premiered on a major television network? Would that not then justify a new Wiki article? Runnerupnj 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Runnerupnj, that's irrelevant. This isn't an album by a major band. It's not a TV show that will be watched by many people. It's a podcast. Catamorphism 05:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Following your argument, should we also nominate for deletion Laporte's other podcast Inside the Net, along with other podcasts such as The Overnightscape, The Dawn and Drew Show, and Catholic Insider? And what about other media such as the book How to Good-Bye Depression, which, as I mentioned below, was nominated twice for deletion and retained both times? Or what about a movie such as Ensign Pulver, which seems to be notable only because it was a sequel to a more popular film? It doesn't seem clear to me why individual episodes of The Simpsons can have entries while a popular (even on its first day) podcast cannot. It is not clear what is defined as notable and what is defined as not notable. Runnerupnj 06:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Podcasts that are notable should be kept. There are probably a lot of podcast articles here that should be deleted. You can nominate them for deletion if you'd like to spend the time on that. However, the existence of other inappropriate articles on Wikipedia doesn't make your article appropriate. Notability or lack thereof is defined by consensus, and so far, the consensus is overwhelmingly that this is non-encyclopedic. Catamorphism 06:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • "Notability or lack thereof is defined by consensus" -- I understand this, but I do feel compelled to put up a spirited defense. I didn't have any interest in starting this article, but someone had already created a link to the Triangulation website over at the Triangulation (disambiguation) page. Should that entry be stricken as well? At the same time, I would like to site WP:FAQ which states "Most people dislike stubs, even though they are probably a necessary evil. Many excellent articles started out as short stubs, thus existing stubs should be expanded into proper articles." Is there anything I can do to meet your criteria for making the entry more WikiWorthy? I would surely like to retain the article on some level, because more information is better than less, and because when visitors come looking for information in a week or two, there should be something rather than nothing. And for the record, I would not delete for the Simpsons episode articles for deletion because (a) like I said, more information is better than less and (b) such a motion would almost surely fail not because the episode is more worthy than this podcast but rather because the supporters of The Simpsons -- of which I myself am a fan -- would defend it with such overwhelming vigor that my vote would get hammered. Runnerupnj 06:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-noteworthy, borders on vanity. Ifnord 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well it's not advertising or vanity, in as far as that I am not involved with the podcast nor do I have any connection (personal, professional, or otherwise) with the people involved. As for non-notable, I remember that How to Good-Bye Depression was nominated not once but twice for deletion and yet was voted to be retained both times. If sufficient justification was found for a book like that, then certainly I would assume that one can be found for a podcast with an association to three major tech figures (the first podcast includes Lawrence Lessig). Before posting this reply to your comment, I reviewed WP:FAQ and WP:NOT, and I still think there is sufficient justification to retain the article. Runnerupnj 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn podcast, which in my view is practically a redundancy. Eusebeus 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could be mentioned in a sentence on the pages of the two panel members, Leo Laporte and John C. Dvorak. At the moment it does not warrant it's own wikipedia article. Movementarian 11:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this podcast may well become widely known and socially significant one day, and at that point it would not be unreasonable to create a Wikipedia entry for it, but that time has not yet come. Tim Pierce 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - What is the downside for having an article? If Dvorak and the other panelists are notable, then surely a joint venture merits an article of its own? -- Geo Swan 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The downside is that every other of thousands of other people in the world who want to advertise their podcast can point at this one and say if their one-day-old podcast can be kept, why can't mine? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Tim Pierce, it may become notable one day, and merit its own article at that time. I am a podcaster too (as are 10,000 other people) and would have articles on no more than a dozen individual podcasts (ones that are historically important - a show that 'just' started yesterday hardly fits that description, even if Laporte and Dvorak are in it). JanesDaddy 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with This Week in Tech until notability is established. --Randy 22:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delay judgement - Don't underestimate the importance of Leo Laporte and John C. Dvorak in the podcasting world. They are huge. Their current podcast, this Week in Tech, is consistently ranked in the Top 5 on iTMS. And this idea for the new podcast sounds really good, so you may end up deleting this page only to need to recreate it in a few weeks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. iTunes is not the only barometer of popularity (in fact, it's quite flawed these days), and TWiT is not Triangulation. I still say Delete until notability is established. JanesDaddy 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. A Podcast Alley search shows No Result, and Laporte's own web site doesn't mention Triangulation. If you follow the link at the end of the article, it points to a TWiT page that includes this text "Here's a new show we're trying out. As yet there's no feed, it's just a direct download from this site, but we'd like your opinion. If there's interest we'll make more." I'd say that proves it's NN. It's not even a REAL podcast! JanesDaddy 03:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artan Jemiri

Non-notable footballer. This article was submitted in Albanian and has been discussed on the "Quick translation page". We can find no reference to him on search engines or even on an Albanian football site. Jameswilson 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. In Albanian and no Google hits outside Wikipedia suggests problems with verifiability and notability see [7].Capitalistroadster 02:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Discussed at WP:PNT#Artan Jemiri. - Introvert talk 03:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussion at WP:PNT#Artan Jemiri. Punkmorten 19:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and why waste time bothering to translate nonnotable persons.--MONGO 02:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, By the way this is English Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 02:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Exactly, this it the English Wikipedia - and that is why to make a decision whether the subject is notable or not, it would help English-speaking authors to have at least rough translation from a foreign language into English... kinda obvious, no? - Introvert talk 07:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jamie 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camp zondo

An article about an individual chapter of a fraternity. Meelar (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 05:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete completely NN. --Bachrach44 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In fact speedy this one for all the good reasons.--MONGO 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete just a clubhouse
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Young Filipino Basketball legends

Inherently POV, subject matter is probably covered elsewhere YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 02:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • i dont this it should be deleted becasue its not on anywhere else on the index --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotchocolate17 (talk • contribs) , who is the author of the article under discussion
  • Delete. There is only one "legend" described in this article, and he is apparently a 15-year-old student whose name yields only 2 Google hits [8]. If we wanted an article about Filipino basketball players in Wikipedia, we probably wouldn't call them "legends" in the title, and there's no verifiable evidence that this particular person is a notable basketball star. --Metropolitan90 06:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite the title, it's just a vanity page who is apparently a legend in his own mind. Eusebeus 08:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --gren グレン 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Tim Pierce 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity.--MONGO 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, very verocious vanity. Good Riddance, Paul Martin! Croat Canuck 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV in concept and execution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious oxymoron —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Its fine —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.72.208 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, influenced by the flood of anonymous/unsigned votes. Stifle 00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy if possible - User:Hotchocolate17 mentions that he plays basketball, so maybe the article is about him. If it isn't, then delete it. --Idont Havaname 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I wish Hotchocolate17 the best of carreers, so that he may have reason for this entry someday. Ronabop 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract (rock band)

no assertion on notability. The site exists, but I can't read Hebrew. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC SYSS Mouse 02:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A7 nonnotable biography.Capitalistroadster 04:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Colosimo

Patent nonsense on non-notable person. Tagged for db-bio but was removed by author. Hurricane111 03:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abomination (disambiguation)

Delete; it's redundant now that the main page for abomination is the disambiguation page Pitr 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup, delete unnecessary/useless pages. However, since the vast majority of the edits to Abomination referred to the Biblical meaning, it probably should have been moved to Abomination (Bible), with the redir converted into the disamb page. Now an admin would have to merge the histories to get the edit contents connected back with the edit history entries--maybe refer to Wikipedia:Requested moves if no one does it from seeing it here? Regforafd 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah I sort of made a mess because I realized halfway through what I should've done from the beginning. What's the easiest way to clean this up? Pitr 08:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles, and restart from beginning --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we definitely shouldn't delete all the articles. The main problem is the issue of keeping the edit histories in the right place, which would be lost if we started from scratch. Pitr 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no reason to delete everything--it would probably be a GFDL vioalation anyway. All that needs to happen is have an admin merge the appropriate histories and get rid of the useless stuff left over--that's why that functionalality was added to the software. Regforafd 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • So how do we notify an admin and get them to clean it up? Pitr 19:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicate of abomination and therefore unneeded. ◎DanMS 16:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant Barneyboo (Talk) 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no need for deletion, or requested moves, or history merger. There is no need for an administrator to do anything. Non-administrators can easily fix this themselves. Just redirect abomination (disambiguation) to abomination. This will allow you to use the {{otheruses2}} template, which requires an "X (disambiguation)" article, on the disambiguated articles, should you want to. This simple redirection mechanism is commonly employed in equal-weight disambiguations that use {{otheruses2}}. Uncle G 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This should be no-brainer for any admin and not to take time here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zuhoski

suspect non-notable topic by unregistered user Ariele 03:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Zuhoski appears to be nothing more than a surname and returns only 538 Google hits (all were referenceing the surname as far as I could see) [9]. Zuhoski warrior gets 8 Google hits (none relating to this article) [10], Zuhoski clan gets 3 Google hits [11], and Zuhoski Slovakia gets 6 Google hits [12]. This is most likely a hoax. Movementarian 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am from Montana and I never heard of them. Google shows nothing! It's a hoax, but my be a play of the author's last name, which makes it still a hoax.--MONGO 02:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's just a last name. I'm guessing that's what the article means by "clan". Bmdavll talk 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, as long as it's not delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rigoberto Alpizar

At best, this person deserves a three-line article on Wikinews. He does not meet notability criteria for Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep for a few weeks at least to see if anything comes of this. Lkesteloot 03:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeep because this may be an notable part in the post-9/11 world. This is the first air marshall shooting since 9/11. --THollan 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think he's pretty notable, and I agree the article should be kept a few weeks until the entire story develops, if in a few weeks he's not as big as Richard Reid, then we can just merge everything onto AA 924. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 03:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Central figure of important post-9/11 incident. Flapdragon 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, how is he nn? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For now lets keep this article and wait a little longer before considering deletion. If in a few weeks nothing much more develops, then I agree with its deletion. After all, this page was just created today. Dustimagic 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. First person shot by air marshalls. He didn't have any weapons whatsoever. At least let the thing mature a little, but I would argue extremely significant for some time. Will no doubt be cited by academia for some time -- security paranoia and whatnot. Jackk 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, first air marshall shooting. --Benna 04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with American Airlines Flight 924. Both articles are going to cover the same issue and Rigoberto Alpizar is only notable because of the flight and what happened on it. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep/Do Not Merge Today's events are a guarantee he will be note-worthy for quite a long time. Inquiry into his background, mental soundness, possible motives (or the lack of them), etc. is encyclopedic, and too important to merge to an article on the flight/event generally. Xoloz 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Evil Monkey --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, information relating to flight 924 should be in that article, info about Alpizar's childhood, education, hobbies or favourite food are not encyclopedia material. Thuresson 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or* Merge Reyk 06:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Evil Monkey. Not notable outside the context of the flight, although the flight isn't notable outside the context of him, so one should be merged into the other and since Rigoberto is the one on AfD... Lord Bob 07:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This made national news. Firebug 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Evil Monkey merge (with redirect). Deletion strikes me as weird spite reaction. This marks a major milestone in the air marshall program. Perfect Tommy 07:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with American Airlines Flight 924 as suggested above. PJM 07:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep given that his death will some implications for future air security. This article can give some background into his background and mental health issues while Flight 924 can give the background of what happended on the day including other responses. Capitalistroadster 08:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with American Airlines Flight 924 as per Evil Monkey. --Oberwolfach 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep --Irishpunktom\talk 10:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can't even believe someone would nominate this for vfd. --One Salient Oversight 11:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This incident may have longterm repercussions on stringent air travel security measures in the US and is bound to be cited frequently in the coming months and years. Danny 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. First person shot by a Federal Air Marshal makes him notable. Quite possibly going to turn into a cause celebre as with Jean Charles de Menezes. David | Talk 12:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the future, this article could become xref'd to and from other articles addressing use-of-force policy, accommodation of mental illness, aviation security, and several other salient topics. knoodelhed 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, revisit the issue in 6 months or a year when we can determine how important this event will be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE It's a random entry of someone that doesn't merit an entry like this. (similar to all the entries for executed criminals we see here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dquiring (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There's absolutely no reason to delete this. Perhaps it can be merged in a few weeks. This is pretty important otherwise. Afterall, he was the first person shot by an air marshall. iKato 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly exceeds any notability standard established in Wikipedia (where there are Pokemon characters, dead race horses, Harry Potter fancruft, ...). --DrTorstenHenning 15:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. If Jean Charles de Menezes rates an article, so does this fellow. 23skidoo 15:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello? Of course Keep! Agree with user Dbiv. First person shot by a U.S. Federal Air Marshal makes him notable. He is without a doubt a turning point of another U.S. policy and international criticism. Al-Andalus 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Major media topic. Consider merging in six months to a year (as Andrew put it) if no political shitstorm ensues. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe merge with American Airlines Flight 924.--Kalsermar 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, I notice the overwhelming amount of keep votes here and have seen similar trends in other articles. What people seem to forget, imho, is that while the act of the first passenger shot by an air marshall is significant, and I therefore support keeping the AA flight article, the person Rigoberto Alpizar is in no way notable except for (the sad) fact that he happens to be dead. An encyclopedic article about a person should, again imho, be a biographical article about the notable life and/or accomplishments of said person. Mr. Alpizar has accomplished nothing that is notable enough for him to be remembered in a few weeks time except, again, for the fact he was shot dead. He was no politician, scientist, humanitarian or artist, he was no more notable than you or me. I suggest we put the info that is of note into the flight article but I vote delete for this one for the stated reasons.--Kalsermar 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • By that reasoning should we not also delete articles like Lacy Peterson? Sure, it has a bit of biographical information but that information is not particularly notable. The only notable thing about her is that she was killed. I can't imagine deleting that though, so this shouldn't be deleted either. --Benna 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Look, the man himself is utterly non-notable. What is notable is that he was shot dead by air marshals. It is the shooting that is notable, not the man. Therefore, we should only have an article on the shooting, to which the man's name should redirect, so that people who look for the man find the information on the shooting. This isn't rocket science, guys. The event is important, but we only need one article on it, not two. — Haeleth Talk 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Kalsermar and Haeleth. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Jackk, Danny, and others. Hall Monitor 21:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. We'll be in a better position to evaluate long-term notability if we wait for a while. —Caesura(t) 23:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into American Airlines Flight 924, for reasons stated above. -- Mwalcoff 23:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Individual will remain notable as people will continue to use his name, as a shorthand, in debates, as people still use Willie Horton or Richard Jewell. -- Geo Swan 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment ...or Stephen Waldorf, or Harry Stanley, or Jean Charles de Menezes... Many comparable articles would have to be deleted on that basis. I see Kalsermar and Haeleth's argument in the abstract but feel it's flying the face of reality. People do acquire a sad celebrity through these incidents even when (almost because) their lives were completely non-notable. Flapdragon 01:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone saying we should merge is saying we get rid of information. What we are saying is that we shouldn't have an article on the man and an article on the flight. The flight is only notable because of the man, and the man is only notable because of the flight. The people you all name are not fair comparisons as they do not really have an article that they could be merged into (apart from a more general article on police shootings or something). Evil Monkey - Hello 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I take your point that information is duplicated in those two articles (though surely this should have been a vote to merge rather than delete). You could see the incident as being about what happened to a certain man, or what happened on a certain flight, and no doubt time will tell what name it goes down in history under. But I was disagreeing with Kalsermar's view that the man is non-notable because he never did or achieved anything notable except by dying -- this is what I meant by "sad celebrity". Also, I would think that there is scope for the article about the man to contain important information (yet to appear but no doubt emerging as investigations progress) that perhaps applies more to him than the event itself. Not just trivia but stuff about his personality, mental condition, (lack of) terrorist affiliations etc. Flapdragon 19:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep the only man shot by the FAM since 9/11.--MONGO 02:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xoloz. It's a notable event and information about him belongs separately in this article. Bmdavll talk 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Give it a few weeks, THEN decide if it is a good idea to merge with the article about the flight or not. Crypticfirefly 05:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge --Ajdz 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep because Wikipedia isn't paper --Brendanfox 10:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Do Not Merge. Goes to US anti-terrorism policy, first post-9/11/01 shooting by FAM, etc. Couldn't give a toss about the flight (delete that, if you must), but the man is definitely noteable (and dead!) JanesDaddy 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Take five, folks - this happened only two days ago, and his shooting could lead to strong US national ramifications. Regardless, we should wait a couple of weeks to a month and assess his notability with the perspective of a little time. I strongly urge to defer any action for three weeks, then revisit. B.Wind 21:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep certainly notabile. Hiding talk 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak, dangling keep. Article needs to prove itself of notability of the person, and not of the event, otherwise I'd be voting for a merge. --Mrmiscellanious 06:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep How can it hurt by leaving it on here???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapptastic (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This is news, it's not the first time someone is going to die by law enforcement and it will NOT be the last. If we fill this wonderful archive with trivial garbage like this it will become useless resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.158.153 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or Merge How is the victim of the first ever shooting by Air Marshalls not notable? Me thinks somebody doesn't like the focus of this story. Also worth keeping for a while just to see how it develops De Menezes page was hailed for its probing of the incident far more in depth and thoroughly than the Media.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.21.72 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now If or perhaps when the incident loses prominence merge with American Airlines flight 924. By then it will be clear whether the incident is known best by its circumstances or its victim Rigoberto Alpizar. Gavin Moodie, 11 December.
  • Keep - the issue around him and the facts of his case will certainly grow in importance, and the Wikipedia article is the most thorough and balanced I have seen - David Wilson, Dec 10 1PM
  • Strong Keep and merge American Airlines Flight 924 - important case with wide ranging consequences for US security policy. Consider also Jean Charles de Menezes. If it is on international news, then it's very, very, notable. Most major news articles also give precedence to the name over the flight number, and indeed the incident in question did not involve the flight itself - he never got on the plane. Suggest the delete people try and look past their political bias here, if that is motivating them. Finally, for merge people, compare google results: [13] vs [14]--Fangz 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? what happened to assuming good faith here? I object strongly to even the notion that a delete voter may have political bias just as I would object to the notion that a keep voter has, opposite, political bias, which some may very well have. The existence of bias is neither here nor there. Inserting an "if...." comment in the same sentence is of no consequence, the suspicion has been stated.--Kalsermar 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry. Was kinda cranky this morning.--Fangz 20:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Accepted. Thank you for striking that part out.--Kalsermar 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, ambivalent about merge... but, his only fame comes from that flight. gren グレン 12:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per important reasons above. Jokestress 19:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This man is the first American to die on American soil because of 9/11 since 2001. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The only flight number that I remember after an air disaster was the Lockerbie bombing, which had 270 victims (it was flight 103, by the way). Clearly, you wouldn't have an article about each individual on that flight. But when it's ONE INDIVIDUAL who is the victim, everyone remembers the VICTIM'S NAME way before they remember his flight number. It's total nonsense to merge with Flight so-and-so (the flight number is totally inconsequential). Of course it should be an article about THE MAN. JanesDaddy 20:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Good observation. Couldn't agree more. An article based on the flight is more appropriate for an event that affect all the passages. Here, even if we use flight #, the whole article end up talking about a single person. That don't make sense. The net is unnecessarly too wide.
  • Keep Agree with most of the reasons above --87.72.52.192 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Strongly agree with the other 'keeps'. Certainly Sr. Alpizar's unfortunate death deserves to be memorialized.
  • Keep The flight number isn't important Lockerbie 9/11 flights are important they crashed and will never fly again. 924 is probably up there flying daily flights from Miami right now.
  • Keep. I see no reason as to why to delete this - it's well formed, informative, and is of significance. -Jetman123 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. First person shot by US Air Marshalls - this deserves to be in a seperate article like this.
    --Peter McGinley 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep We need consistency dudes. Why are people bringing this argument that the guy is an average joe, while they remained silent about Jean Charles de Menezes? Or is there any difference between the two cases I am missing?
  • Merge or Keep Merging Rigoberto into Flight 924 article with a special subsection for him in the article. Having the two articles is confusing, repetitive, and sometimes they contain conflicting information. At first I was for having two seperate artciles, but now I think it is best to merge. Some good points have been made though on the importance of the article about Rigoberto, however, I think merger is better than keeping. Dustimagic 22:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If Jean Charles de Menezes has a page, then this man does. Crunk 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable for being the first person killed by air marshalls after 9/11, and the story continues to develop. nae'blis (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge clarification

Quick show of hands for the keepers/mergers etc... Which is preferable? (Sign under the appropiate option)

(A) Merge flight 924 into rigoberto, and make flight 924 into a redirect

(B) Merge rigoberto into flight 924, and make rigoberto into a redirect

(C) Do nothing, and wait until situation clarifies and it is clear which term is better

  • Jdcooper 02:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Flapdragon 15:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Will depend on how the event comes to be referred to, and whether significant info emerges about the individual apart from what he did in the event
  • MitchRose 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(D) None of the above

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic conflicts involving the British Empire

It is pointless and practically a waste of space as it only includes a list and practically no information. None of such facts that UK triggered these conflicts can be proved. Secondly such information can be included on articles for those nations involved or on articles specifically for the each nations ethnic conflict. CooldogCongo 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Random and context free. Choalbaton 03:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Olorin28 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete *in my Biff Tannen voice*, "Listcruft. I hate listcruft" Reyk 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if a more scholarly basis for this list can be found. As it is, smacks of being a personal list --- Charles Stewart 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is. I would vote to keep if the article had more context, or contained links to articles ABOUT each conflict in question, rather than (as we generally have here) a link for one party to the conflict, a link to another party, and a link for the geographic region where the conflict occurred. AndyJones 17:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is no good now... the Brits had some important role to play in ethnic disputes in their empire. gren グレン 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, that'd be a good article, not a good list. gren グレン 18:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that there is a precedent here, and that is to keep: the related List of ethnic conflicts involving the Dutch Colonialists survived AfD in November (debate). My vote here is the same as there: the subject is encyclopedic, so this should be kept if it is cleaned up and rewritten as prose. — Haeleth Talk 18:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be much better disposed to these lists if they linked to articles that were about the conflict, rather than to pairs of articles about the participants more generally. As it stands, both of these lists have a tendency to be whimsical and unverifiable. --- Charles Stewart 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's better than List of ethnic conflicts involving the Dutch Colonialists and that was kept. Rhion 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a longer list, but, unlike the Dutch list, it has entries with no links to support the claims. Take the 2nd line: The country article Peninsular Malaysia does not mention the ethnic conflict, nor do the two ethnicity articles, Han Chinese (which doesn't even mention the British Empire), the Malay people article mentions Chinese but no conflict.
Similar issues exist for the other article, but that's not an argument to keep an article we think should be deleted. If we are bothered by the inconsistency, we could raise the matter on WP:DRV --- Charles Stewart 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. This is POV, poorly defined, and unmaintainable.Gateman1997 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge into British Empire (Aftermath)) if improved to provide evidence and counter-arguments in each case. A list on this subject is in itself appropriate because the (disputed) question is whether there is a common pattern of ethnic conflicts in the ex-colonies. Did the (undisputed) British policy of "divide-and-rule" between different ethnic/religious groups in the colonies create a legacy of bitterness which led directly to civil wars in the newly-independent countries? As such you need a central list somewhere not just references country-by-country. Jameswilson 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It sounds more to me that you are arguing for a List of lists of ethnic conflicts involving colonial rule together with some related article on the aftermath of colonial periods. --- Charles Stewart 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, something like that! Ex-colonies have a common legacy (eg legal systems). Is this another part of the legacy in the case of the British Empire. I think an improved article on this would merit a place somewhere. I cant be bothered to hunt around now but there is certainly a lot of academic debate on this point. Jameswilson 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment following Jameswilson's post: If someone would make a credible offer to properly check and vet this list so that I could be confident the list was not slanted and tricky to verify, then I would change my vote to keep. --- Charles Stewart 23:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV potential is huge...--MONGO 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, can be specifically addressed in articles. Jtmichcock 02:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete among other things, it doesn't even link to articles about conflicts--Ajdz 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: low quality, topic not suitable for lists. Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calgarychillin.com

Wikipedia is not self-promotion. Article is about a website with an Alexa rank of 1,018,050 [15] and 900 members in their forum. Fails WP:WEB. Mentioned on a total of 9 domains on the entire internet [16], and those mostly look like advertisements done by the site. --W.marsh 03:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete obviously. I like this: It originally started with 0 members. With minimal advertising the site has grown exponentially to 891 I gotta learn this new math though. 0 raised to what power is 891? Eusebeus 08:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. If there is, I'll change my vote. --Bachrach44 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Ifnord 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, period.--MONGO 02:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bachrach44. Stifle 00:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • harsh aren't you per anonymous: I didn't add this website so you could shoot down my entry as spam; it's not- I wasn't aware of the WP:WEB requirement, although given how harsh you people are I don't think I'll submit it for inclusion when it reaches those levels; there is a wikipedia policy which says "don't bite newcomers", you know. I really don't care if you delete it or not, but what gives you the right to be so self righteous about it? User:Poutinginacorner

And Eusebeus, a website which has added 891 members in 5 months members actually has grown quickly. "Growing exponentially" is a common turn of phrase for growing quickly; it sounds better than "the website has grown something like exponentially but not exponentially because exponential growth requires something greater than 0; um that's just my two bits though.......User:poutinginacorner 19:38 December 10 2005

  • Comment The tone of the votes here is typical of how most AfD discussions go, I don't think anyone here is trying to be mean to you. I personally welcome you to contribute to Wikipedia, but you might want to be aware of what Wikipedia is not first, to avoid misunderstandings like this. --W.marsh 03:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I suppose I understand that, although a few comments seem a little snide. One thing I don't understand about the WP:WEB rules is that no site with less than 5000 members on a site is worth mentioning. Why is that? Does that mean that what has not reached the mainstream media is not worth considering? Does that mean that only popular things are worthy? If oprah talks about it then it's worth including, but otherwise it's not? Whatever happened to the concept of exchanging ideas? Or is it designed to remove clutter from the website? User:poutinginacorner 23:14, 10 December 2005
Pretty much. I mean, Wikipedia is not just free space for whatever people feel like. I know people get that impression sometimes, and it seems harsh when a bunch of strangers start going "Delete your webpage" but the bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia. What exactly "notability" means is an endless debate, but WP:WEB tries to establish sites that a lot of people have heard of, and are likely to be looking up in an encyclopedia. It's not at all a slight against a given site (my favorite website/community for example, which I've been a part of since 1996, wouldn't meet WP:WEB in a million years). --W.marsh 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Nair

A long vanity entry. I can find no mention anywhere of the "literary classic" titled Ho Getting in the Purist Form, which is just about the only assertion of notability in the article. Joyous | Talk 03:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Cannot find anything about the book. Olorin28 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search finds nothing to verify this see [17]. Capitalistroadster 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax probability is extreme.--MONGO 02:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stigmata (Band)

  • Delete non-notable band. They want you to listen to their demo. Chris the speller 03:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:NMG. PJM 07:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn band Spearhead 20:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep - This band is very well known in Australia, and get daily airplay on Triple J radio. [18]. They have played to large sell out concerts, and their music has been included on several best selling compilation albums. Their first album release was 1998, and I think that they have had 5 or 6 album releases, not including their inclusion on about 15 compilation albums. Allmusic.com recognises them. It is a bit difficult to search for them though since the name is used in so many other things. There are many songs called Stigmata (Ministry had a famous song called Stigmata, for example), and there are quite a lot of other bands called Stigmata as well. Therefore, they probably should be changed to Stigmata (Australian band), just to be safe. I have some of their music here, from a triple j release of "the best in heavy metal music for 2004". Something makes me think that that doesn't count as non notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Never mind. Apparently I was looking at the American band called "Stigmata", which is actually a famous band. Does that mean that we should rewrite the article? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As long as you aren't thinking about Stigmata band, give it a try. Uncle G 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I am just plain confused. There seem to be so many bands/songs/albums called Stigmata that this is just about an impossible project. It probably needs a disambig. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I just had a thought. What I could do is write an article for Stigmata (song) for the famous Ministry (band) song that inspired everything else, and then include all of the snippets in there. Its pretty clear that the Ministry song inspired all of this. Then we can do a merge :). That might be a better way to go about it. Sepultura also did a song called Stigmata (or at least a cover of Ministry's song) and I keep seeing Stigmata this Stigmata that everywhere. LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, just on that, I noticed that NONE of Ministry's songs have their own article. I was like WTF? Jesus Built My Hotrod was extremely influential, if for no other reason than it was banned worldwide by religious groups. A line out of the song was "Jesus is the Devil". They were sued for that, and had to change the line to "Jesus was a carpenter". It was perhaps the most famous banned song about Jesus Christ. Because there is a Christian Rock band called "Ministry", the heavy metal band has come under constant criticism for the way that they do their music, which in turn has led to Ministry in effect taking them on and releasing both fake Christian Rock songs like "Jesus Built My Hotrod" and "Stigmata" as well as raging criticisms of Christianity, in a similar vein to Black Sabbath, except that Ministry are not satanic - they are in effect having a joke at the expense of Christianity. Ministry inspired such bands as Soundgarden and Alice In Chains to create their own stinging attacks on Christianity, and the song "Stigmata" was seen as the inspiration for the concept for all of these bands, which also later included Alice Cooper's own attack on Christianity. These stinging attacks were also referenced in the movie by the same name - Stigmata (film) referenced some of the criticisms from the 1988 Ministry song. However, Ministry's most popular song was in fact "Just One Fix", which was in reality an attack on drug use and trying to convince people not to take drugs - but for a long time was portrayed in the media as encouraging it. As Ministry's lawyers were able to prove that it was discouraging drug use, that song increased their credibility significantly, and became their signature song. Whilst they were hurt by the likes of "Jesus Built My Hotrod", "Psalm 69" and "Stigmata", "Just One Fix" helped them. According to chart success, however, "Lay Lady Lay" was their most popular, and, like Metallica, their cult icon status eventually led to actual chart and album success in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Many other bands have copied Ministry, and they have been regarded as one of the forefathers of death metal, and were often referenced with new hard metal groups. Eventually, groups such as Opeth and Carcus came about which were in fact heavier than Ministry, and that became the description of what death metal was - if it was not as heavy as Ministry, then it was merely heavy metal - any heavier and it was death metal. Stigmata the song was known to describe what Ministry was all about, and influenced culture throughout the heavy metal and death metal world, leading to the creation of a number of bands including A US band in 1989 who had 6 major albums, a Sri Lankan band and most recently an Australian death metal band in 2004. The song has been covered and referenced in a large number of others.

Yes, I know that's original research, but I know its true. I think that's the way to go though. But is there agreement that the song "Stigmata" is suitably influential to warrant its own article? It didn't have chart success, but had a huge influence. There are a number of Metallica songs like "One" that were similarly influential. I would like to make an article for Jesus Builty My Hotrod, Just One Fix and Stigmata, all Ministry songs. IMO the others weren't influential enough. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Daily Pro

Spam, but I'm AFD'ing instead of speedying in case anyone can rescue this. 23skidoo 04:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (speedy) spamvertising of the most shameless kind. Chris the speller 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (speedy) as above.--Bkwillwm 18:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete oh yeah, spam for sure.--MONGO 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copy-pasted advert. Not a speedy, we don't appear to have a category for these (yet). Stifle 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete could possibly become a worthwile article but as written it is shameless advertising and the topic doesn't seem too notable. If someone rewrites it seriously, i'll probably change my vote. Cool3 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion G4). howcheng {chat} 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Daily Pro

It's back, blatant marketing spam Wyss 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy please... Wyss 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys realize there is another page at 12DailyPro? Merge it first, then consider deleting the entire thing. Meandmyself 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not anymore there isn't. howcheng {chat} 18:57, 2 February 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 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anothersite

Delete per nomination. Lovelac7 04:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... "per nomination" means "for the reasons given by the nominator". In this case, the nominator appears to be you, and you haven't actually given any reasons.
Allow me to help: this article should be deleted because it consists of two sentences, both of which are nonsensical, and an external link. On the other hand, an article on the subject might be keepable per WP:WEB - anothersite.co.uk has an Alexa rank of 7,843, which means it's pretty popular. But this isn't that article. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I don't have much experience with listing items on AfD. If the site is fairly popular, then there should be an article about it, but as you said, this is not that article. Lovelac7 20:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - two sentence fragments do not an encyclopedia article make. B.Wind 21:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haeleth. Stifle 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 FCYTravis 01:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kryptikt

Not notable singer, Delete' abakharev 04:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Rugby Chat Forum

Article on obscure chat forum JoaoRicardo 04:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

This chat forum gets thousands of hits per day and millions of hits per year. Many posters spend hours there every day. Two posters have dated after meeting on the forum, and one poster went to stay with another as an exchange student. It is much like a sitcom, but very real. Josecuervo

This article has to stay. The bored is an important part of people's lives and it deserves recognition for the sheer comedy value. The characters on it should go more recognition and Wikipedia can provide that.CalebRalph

  • Delete - Another forum with no particular claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 05:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


This is a good link for someone who doesn't think it has a claim to encyclopedicity: http://www.geocities.com/quentinpoulsenandfriends/home.html

Josecuervo

Travis has no sense of humour. TheRalph

  • Delete. The article as it is lacks merit. If it were to be kept, it should be kept as Planet Rugby. In order to be kept, it would need to meet WP:WEB. The article is forum board trivia but it is interesting to see that a journalist called Waratah Fitzsimons is supposedly a contributor. That would be Peter FitzSimons who played rugby for NSW and Australia and would indicate that the forum is more notable than the article suggests. However, the socks are persuading me to delete. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The Brian Moore link is interesting and improves the verifiability but what I am after is evidence of its wider influence on rugby. Capitalistroadster 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist,

Former Lions and England hooker Brian Moore posts on the forum and it is suspected that journalist Stephen Jones posts there as well. It has also been quoted during rugby events such as the 2005 Lions tour as an example of what the fans though. Josecuervo

  • If you can show verifiable evidence of this, I and others could be persuaded to change our votes. At the moment, we have a lot of new people casting votes with no evidence and attacking Wikipedians of good standing. I would also recommend a change to Planet Rugby and provide verifiable evidence of its significance by mentioning its significance in the rugby world. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Planet Rugby Chat Forum is the infamous messageboard of Planetrugby.com." Is that enough evidence to suggest it is legitimate. **** TheRalph

  • What we are looking for is verifiability ie third party accounts from reputable sources of its influence on rugby. We are also looking for some sort of indication of notability under WP:WEB such as :
  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention:
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

We are not interested in statements that x is a troll or y is an admin. What we are looking for is verifiable evidence that significant people in the rugby world contribute to the forum or that it has an impact on rugby as a sport. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Alexa ranking of 29,997 , just 7000 registered members and only 2700 have ever made a post. Actual article no real useful content. SimonLyall 07:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist do you have a life? seriously. Type Planet Rugby Forum into google and see how many hits that come up (over 2,000,000). New Zealand All Blacks Rugby coach Graham Henry has posted on the forum, legendary Australian coach Rod Macqueen, Brian Moore (BCM), Stephen Jones (Southern Softie), If those people aren't significant then I don't know who is. If you don't believe me then check it out for yourself. TheRalph

    • Those men are indeed significant. However, I would need verifiable evidence such as links to the forum posts made by significant rugby figures in order to change my mind that the forum does not meet our criteria. User Simon Lyall has presented evidence that they fail to meet two of the three criteria under WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 08:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN chatcruft, insignificant and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 08:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article reads like vanity and POV, and as per Capitalistroadster, the article does NOT demonstrate that the forum has had any impact outside its own user community, NOR does it provide evidence of having been quoted in the media, NOR does it provide evidence of having been used by the famous rugby celebrities mentioned by Josecuervo. To quote this line from the article: "A poster named Hippo also needs to keep his trap clapped." Says everything really. Zunaid 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

People criticising the site aren't getting their facts straight. Planet Rugby chat forum has 5816 users and over 700,000 posts. I take it that none of you have actually visited. I am also very interested in the Rowan Quinn biz. I take it you all are colleagues of hers Quisling

Honestly, what harm is there in this for one. Secondly what is the point in deleting something that nobody really checks on. Finally, it has its place. Wikpedia has become a social encylopedia where people search for things that are not only obscure and bizzare, but with the current trends and a history on something you will not find in your Britannica's and Funk n Wagnalls. It should stay for the fact that somebody has spent time to write it, have a laugh and allow people to voice an opinion, point of view, whatever. If you start silencing things as inane and trival such as this; when will it stop??? (Note: this previously unsigned comment made by LachlanG on 13:54, 8 December 2005 and moved from top of page to here for readability by me.) Zunaid 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Should be saved, it's a large forum which has grown loved by the people that frequent it, I ask you: how can musicianforums have an entry and not this?

It should certainly be indexed on Wikipedia. There are some very useful threads that run here too - there are enlightening law discussions following major games, and more often than not it is possible to follow a game in realtime because some dedicated individuals post regular updates as they happen. This is very useful to rugby devotees who live in countries with little or no rugby traditions, such as Thailand, China, and Australia. Steenbras

  • Comment: "Useful", "enlightening", "loved by the people that frequent it", "being able to follow games in almost-realtime" does not make it encyclopaedic. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but it is an encyclopedia, and as such subjects have to satisfy certain criteria to merit articles, which this doesn't. Zunaid 13:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok why not clean it up to make it further encyclopedic? It should be kept, it can be useful for people since this is indeed the biggest rugby forum on the internet that doesn't contain one-eyed bias.Girvan Dempsey

Members of the forum have led campaigns to get rid of current England coach Andy Robinson. Former Sprinbok media adivisor Mark Keohane quotes the website in his web blog keo.co.za. A poster on his site played a part in the decision of Clyde Rathbone to switch to Australia from South Africa. The forum is good for fans in Istanbul and Yemen Alicia the Mousa Tamer


Definition of Encyclopedia from Dictionary.com "Encyclopedia

n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty" There you go this site relates to human knowledge about the game of Rugby Union and spite. Alicia the Mousa Tamer

May i suggest, to those who wish to preserve this pagem that their best strategy is to enlist a leading member of the cabal to their cause: basically, if the Wiki-Cabal want your page dead, it is dead; if they approve of you, then no-one will ever actually get to delete what you write, so long as you stay Inside the Rules (qv).

--SockpuppetSamuelson 14:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn forum vanity, and a particularly awful example of it too. In addition, the whole PlaneyRugby site has an [Alexa rank of 179,966 and note that figure is for the entire site, not just the forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seem to be a lot of users who only started contributing today (Josecuervo, Alicia the Mousa Tamer, Quisling, Girvan The Swerve, LachlanG, Steenbras), some of whose only contributions are to this debate. A word of advice to the newcomers: meatpuppets are generally frowned upon, and on issues such as this their voices carry comparatively little weight compared to people who have been contributing for a long time. See this AfD debate for an excellent example of severe meat puppetry and how it fails to influence decisions if, and I stress, IF the supporters for the article being kept do not argue coherently and do not motivate for keeping the article by citing the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines or by demonstrating that the article does meet those policies or guidelines. Zunaid 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Zunaid - I appreciate the positive nature of your post. I would like to make the point that all of the new users that you list are genuine, unique posters on PR forum. I think that 'meatpuppets' refers to multiple personas from just one person? I would argue that the entry for the PR chat forum be retained as it is a very real entity and therefore its entry may be of some reference value to users of wikipedia. The arguments against retention appear to be more based in a general disdain for message boards in general. PR forum is quite obscure, I will certainly concede that much, but surely obscurity is the raison d'etre of an encyclopedia? Girvan The Swerve 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Planet Rugby itself doesn't have an article, or I might have suggested a paragraph be added to that article about the forum. and Comment for Girvan the Swerve: meatpuppets are a bit different from sockpuppets, at least in Wikipedia usage of the terms. Sockpuppets are alias accounts for the same person. Meatpuppets usually refers to real separate individuals who have been brought to Wikipedia solely to participate on one side of a discussion. CarbonCopy 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for that Carbon Copy. I realise now that I am guilty of meatpuppetry, but with the sincerest possible motives. I think the general concensus is to delete the entry for planet rugby chat forum and add a new entry for planet rugby with a reference to the chat forum. Girvan The Swerve 14:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Multiple personas from one person are sock puppets. From the sock puppet article:

    A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues.

    You have to concede that the current situation is almost exactly the definition of a meat puppet; it looks as if new members are being recruited on some sort of "save this article" campaign. Obscure does not = non-encyclopedic, but unimportant/unreferenced/non-notable does. The article isn't up for deletion because the topic is obscure, it's up for deletion because the article itself fails to assert the notability of the subject. This does not neccessarily mean that the subject isn't notable, just that the article doesn't provide evidence that it is. If you really want to save this article then take heed of the suggestions being made here: include references to the media, provide evidence that famous rugby players post there, demonstrate that the site has influenced some aspect of the game or society, show that the forum has been cited in a newspaper or other published medium. If the forum really has done that then I'm quite sure it is notable, but the article doesn't provide any evidence of this, see what I'm saying? Maybe the article doesn't do the topic justice. Heaven knows it's in a god-awful state at the moment. So rewrite the article, and maybe, just maybe, you can save it from deletion. What could then happen is that people here would re-read the improved article and hopefully change their votes because of the improvement. Zunaid 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (That's enough rambling from me, I'm off home, will catch up on this tomorrow.)
  • Delete no assertion that the site meets WP:WEB. If someone can prove that they do, then I'll happily change my vote. --Bachrach44 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Brian Moore, former England international rugby player, former Lions player and current BBC rugby commentator/pundit is a regular contributor to the board. Here is his profile, see for yourselves. http://forum.planet-rugby.com/index.php?t=usrinfo&id=2736&rid=&S=600a610ee64e5f9111412846095b3a3d . In addition, the planet rugby chat forum was recently mentioned in a letter to the Sunday Times (London) as a result of its campaign to remove rugby columnist Stephen Jones. Girvan The Swerve (This comment moved here by me from the top of this page. Posts read top to bottom with newer posts below. Your comment will probably be missed by most people who only look for the latest posts near the bottom of the page.) Zunaid


  • I am no sockpuppet. You guys really like to throw the book at people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girvan Dempsey (talk • contribs) 09:47, December 8, 2005 (user's third edit)


Can I just ask again how Musicianforums or Mx Forums has a Wikipedia entry? I'd be very surprised if it is half as influential as the world's prime rugby forum.Peter Stringer

Peter - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Musicianforums. I cant find an articvle for MX forums. Agnte 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article and transfer salvageable content into Planet Rugby. By itself does not meet WP:WEB. Agnte 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Just have to say this place is a beauraucratic nightmare.
    • No, it's an encyclopaedia. The concept is often an alien one to people used to discussion fora. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopaedia. On discussion fora, there is no requirement for providing the means for readers to check what one writes. Here, there is an absolute requirement. If you want to provide an argument to keep this article, you must cite sources to demonstrate that this forum has come to the attention of the rest of the world enough that the rest of the world has published things about it. Point to the independently sourced "in depth" magazine articles, third-party guides and FAQs, significant press coverage, or books that have been written about it. Uncle G 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that everyone should be given a fair go and this includes Planet Rugby Chat Forum. You wikipedians are behaving like a bunch of stuck up, obnoxious imbeciles. Clearly seem them as a threat. As you know I have no time for dickheads and their ramblings on. Get back to your shitty. jobs. It is a free country, you know. I'm Sam Kekovich.

Comment: The Planet Rugby page is almost an exact duplicate of the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article. A subversive attempt to keep the content alive? It certainly seems so. To Sam Kekovich, Wikipedia is not about giving everyone a "fair go". It is an encyclopedia. Read the criticisms people have been posting, you'll see they are mostly constructive and show a clear way in which this article can be saved. Zunaid 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Zunaid no kidding it is an encyclopedia you have mentioned this several times like a broken record your keyboard is. Everyone is entilted to publish their articles on here so go jump you flippin imbecile. You are what is bad with this world. You seem to place your views above everyone elses. How about you take a hike, the world could do without your types. Time for a beer. I'm Sam Kekovich.

  • Delete Sarah Ewart 09:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The Planet Rugby page is almost an exact duplicate of the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article. Therefore Delete the chat forum article, and Improve the Planet Rugby page. JanesDaddy 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, very notable per Zunaid. Stifle 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 11:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn, poorly written, about insignificant web "bored" Ronabop 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per website's tactics. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6E Kurds

I was unable to verify any of this article at all. A gang that claims connections throughout the United States, Canada and Europe should surely attract at least 1 Google hit. It would seem to be another vanity page Kevin 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • delete, hoax. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, almost certainly vanity page. I put up the cleanup-verify tag quite a while back, and nothing has been done about it. --Slashme 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. However, to delete it because it has too few Google hits is unsound. It may be the case that this is the first mention of this topic on the internet; it could also be the case that Google has intentionally or otherwise removed it from its indices. It would be unwise for a collaborative and open project such as Wikipedia to rely on a soley commercial organisation (however 'nice' they appear) for its inclusion policies.Rob cowie 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • However, if there is no proof of their existence, then it can be deleted for lack of verifiability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that the Google check is not totally sound, but we need to be able to verify the information somehow. The first place written information would occur is on the web, or in Usenet, and there is no info in either place. The Streetgangs.com forum also has no reference to 6E Kurds, and this is a much more authoritative source. Kevin 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax and possible vanity.--MONGO 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Slashme. Stifle 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax or vanity. Blackcats
  • Delete unless the author produces some form of verification. A google test is not a be all end all, but it is suggestive and verification must be provided to keep this article. Cool3 00:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feverov hero station

Fails any conceivable test of notability, clear-cut fancruft. Deltabeignet 05:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find anything to verify the related Hero xp, Sunslayer, Atomancer, or Jack Iron, either. 24.17.48.241 19:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to nonsense--MONGO 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

the webcomic may have gone offline.

  • Delete, not nonsense, but definitely not WP material. Stifle 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and recreate as redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sky marshalls

This page is utter nonsense for such a pertinent subject, should be eliminated immediately Adjuvat 05:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Federal Air Marshal Service. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Zoe. Joyous | Talk 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a hoax/nonsense. Since the name of the program is air marshall and not sky marshall, I don't feel that a redirect is needed. --Bachrach44 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a “PRANK”. Did you catch that? Right in the article, practically begging you to notice. ◎DanMS 18:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh for crying out loud.... how on earth did I miss that? Thanks for being more observant than any of us - I've upgraded my vote to speedy. --Bachrach44 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Ifnord 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Many thanks to those of you who took the time to help! I have been a heavy user of Wikipedia but haven't taken action or editted, am glad to see that there are many out there to rely upon! --Adjuvat 13:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note the spelling: Marshall is a person's surname. The correct spelling for the security officials is marshal. Redirect to Federal Air Marshal Service. The redirect is appropriate as "sky marshal" is sometimes misspoken when one means to say "air marshal." B.Wind 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as junk, and then create a new redirect per B.Wind. Stifle 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legend of the Green Dragon

Nonnotable fantasy CRPG; about 230 players worldwide (according to the server statistics; there might be other players on other servers as well). I'm sure a lot of effort went in to making the game, and if the article is deleted I encourage them to come back and create an article again after their game becomes popular and notable. I'll even help edit it. But as it stands now this is basically a vanity article for an unknown game. Withdrawing AfD Nandesuka 05:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, though I may be partial as I'm one of the major authors of the article. Just noting some small facts: "there might be other players" is probably a gross understatement as there's dozens of servers [19], a fact which alone could be considered some sort of indication of its popularity. The busiest servers seem to have 100-200 users online at peak times, which is (at least so I've noted) pretty much for a MUD-like environment. Plus, do we even have notability criteria for online games, anyway? Especially MUD-like systems? By the way, I'd be very interested to know how you pulled the 230 player figure, I'm not sure how to get the server to report that, anyway. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Amending this vote a little bit: If the vote goes for removal on grounds of notability, may I suggest we Merge something to Legend of the Red Dragon instead, for example, by expanding the definition. LotGD is heck of a more complex game than LoRD though, which may make the article look very silly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comments: Ngh, I'd really like to know how to come up with the player statistics. The only statistic I could find was the central server forum, which has 1851 members (and I'd make a careful educated guess and say only a fraction of everyone who plays posts there). And before you toss Alexa or WP:WEB at me, remember that this isn't a web site, it's an online game, for which there should be a notability criteria of some sort. Played by a huge number of open-source hippies who use Firefox and don't subscribe to Alexa spyware, too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Objection! The witness seems to be disparaging Firefox users. Request the statement be withdrawn. ◎DanMS 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Note': I'm totally and utterly contesting the user figure the nominator says, now that I found a reliable way of finding the user statistics Here's a hint: Log in. Hit "List warriors". Browse around in awe. Currently says something like "Warriors of the realm (Page 118: 5851-5888 of 5888)" Characters get purged after 30 days of inactivity, so I guess that's a rather good indication of how many active users there are. I'm completely puzzled on how the nominator got to the 230 player figure! Now start adding the users from the other popular LotGD servers. Active enough of a player community to be considered notable, I ask? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I embarassingly misread the statistics here [20], mistaking pages for users. Doh. Consider this AfD withdrawn. Nandesuka 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As the nominator has withdrawn this, could an admin please close it before the AFD-horde arrive and try to colonise it ? SpeedyKeep --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Witch doctor looks like the most popular slash appropriate location, so I'll go do that now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curer

The article is largely plagiarized from [21]. I removed the most blatant part of the plagiarism, but it needs a lot of help. Frankly I'm not sure if it should be redirected to Witch doctor or just wholesale deleted, it seems to be a rather generic term. So, I bring it to the wonderful folks at AfD. I'll give a rather weak delete. stillnotelf has a talk page 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect Shamanism or Witch doctor.--Bkwillwm 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When I first saw the article title, I thought it was a reference to the Dragon Warrior III monster. That's the only context I've ever heard this term in. Delete. Firebug 07:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Bkwillwm. Stifle 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Redirecting to cure is probably the least ambiguous target for the redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Pants - Sketch Comedy

  • Wait a second per Secret Pants. SecretPants 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here... Secret Pants neither wrote nor endorsed the deleted article, which was wrought with misnomers and poor grammar. Secret Pants has most certainly been in existence for over a year. The group does not yet have it's own TV show; however, we also don't appreciate being equated to a "garage band." It lends a poor image to potential fans, is false, and the statement is discoverable via a google search. The Secret Pants cast and production team includes a three time Emmy nominated producer and a collection of sketches, some of which boast over a million hits on the internet. Just last month Secret Pants was listed as a "Best of the Web" editors choice, keeping company with the Daily Show and Microsoft. This New Year's Eve Secret Pants was offered (did not seek) a headlining show at Philadelphia's North Star Bar, a venue that plays host to hundreds of celebrity acts per year. It is not simply a local club, as the administrators have suggested. And Secret Pants only makes live appearances on special occasions. We are not a touring group. That some Wikipedia administrators have equated the comedy troupe to a garage band (based on what?) evidences a research effort that is lackadaisical at best. We feel Wikipedia, as a heavily consulted internet reference database, should make amends by undeleting this article so Secret Pants can edit it for accuracy.

PS. We modified this page against the warnings of the disclaimer below because it contains false information and is evidence of poor research on the part of the website's moderators.

THE ABOVE WAS WRITTEN AND POSTED AFTER THE COMMENTS BELOW IN AN EFFORT TO STOP FALSE INFORMATION FROM BEING DISPLAYED IN THE RESULTS OF A GOOGLE KEYWORD SEARCH.


Delete, this page is on a comedy troupe. The group seems somewhat known but not much beyond a garage band. It looks like they mainly perform at bars and the like. The page is horribly done too. -Bkwillwm 05:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Group hasn't even existed a full year yet. Airumel 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and if they become notable in the future, the article can be rewritten then.--MONGO 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait a second per Secret Pants. SecretPants 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here... Secret Pants neither wrote nor endorsed the deleted article, which was wrought with misnomers and poor grammar. Secret Pants has most certainly been in existence for over a year. The group does not yet have it's own TV show; however, we also don't appreciate being equated to a "garage band." It lends a poor image to potential fans, is false, and the statement is discoverable via a google search. The Secret Pants cast and production team includes a three time Emmy nominated producer and a collection of sketches, some of which boast over a million hits on the internet. Just last month Secret Pants was listed as a "Best of the Web" editors choice, keeping company with the Daily Show and Microsoft. This New Year's Eve Secret Pants was offered (did not seek) a headlining show at Philadelphia's North Star Bar, a venue that plays host to hundreds of celebrity acts per year. It is not simply a local club, as the administrators have suggested. And Secret Pants only makes live appearances on special occasions. We are not a touring group. That some Wikipedia administrators have equated the comedy troupe to a garage band (based on what?) evidences a research effort that is lackadaisical at best. We feel Wikipedia, as a heavily consulted internet reference database, should make amends by undeleting this article so Secret Pants can edit it for accuracy.

PS. We modified this page against the warnings of the disclaimer below because it contains false information and is evidence of poor research on the part of the website's moderators.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balearic Anticolonialist Group

Was nominated for speedy. Reason given was "Non-notable political group. Possible merge if appropriate article is found? Google shows no results". -- Scott eiπ 05:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Grup d' Alliberament de Balears gets two hits on Spanish-language sites. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: There has to be an understanding that organizations that folded well before www was launched. This group was a clandestine movement during the Franco regime. Limited avaibaility of info on the web is thus explainable. Still, it was a separate political entity and deserves a separate article. Possibly also, it would be good if someoen savvy in Catalan could have a look at the name. Perhaps its missspelled, and thus resulting in low hits. --Soman 08:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This group is called by a different name, Grup Anticolonialista Balear, on various Catalan language forums. The Spanish version of that name, Grupo Anticolonialista Balear, gets some hits on sites listing abbreviations. --Soman 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a case where the number of Google hits doesn't present enough evidence to determine whether something is notable or non-notable. —Sesel 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There should be a book or essay that can be listed as a source though. Still I think I'd also go for keep for the reasons you state.--T. Anthony 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified and properly referenced. Stifle 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sticking with my Speedy Nomination. -^demon 15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason given is not a valid reason for speedy deleting an article. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CSD before nominating an article for speedy deletion again. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Question 1 is whether anyone actually disputes the very existance of this group? The way I see it there are, from each other completly separate, websources confirming the that such a group had existed. The speedy deletion nomination was posted when the article was still at Liberation Group of the Balears. Question 2 thus becomes the issue of notability. IMHO any political organization that operates in the public sphere is notable, because it operates in a context of interaction with other political organizations and currents. Of course there is a possibility to delete obvious frivolous constructions, which are a phenomena of the internet age (for example, check dalitstan.org for a number of obviously imaginary outfits). On the Swedish wikipedia there was a discussion on whether to delete the article sv:Högerpartiet de Konservativa, which obviously was four guys and website. But I don't really see any such aspect being raised in this particular discussion. This article obviously needs expansion, perhaps putting a notice on the Catalan wikipedia to assist with providing info on the group. --Soman 17:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Moreover I find this group notable in the sense that they promoted a line in the national question that differed significantly from the major trends at the time. The virtually permanent debate on pan-Catalan identity versus provincial identities (like Valencian/Balear language, etc.) comes into play. More deserved to be written on wikipedia about these issues, and in this case about the national project of PCE(i) and GAB. It is already noted that PCE(i), which essentially emerged out of the Catalan left did propose a line in the question of nationality (amongst other thing designing its own national banner). In short, contribute rather than delete. --Soman 17:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex hitch

This attracts no relevant [22] Google hits, and is coincidentally the name of a character from a popular movie. Probably a hoax. The history page shows a speedy nomination, which was removed. Kevin 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, eh? Stifle 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midtown Furniture

Advertising, no claim to notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just one of several local run-of-the-mill furniture stores named "Midtown Furniture". 24.17.48.241 11:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • EXTREME keep. Deleting things for being non-notable sucks ass. Then where can you find this information.Ridnik 14:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment If you want to publish information about yourself, I would suggest that you make a website. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that this is not the place for advertising and non-notable entities. --Bachrach44 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Where can you find this information? Given that "this information" refers to a single sentence giving the name and location of a store, the place I'd look for this information is in the Yellow Pages. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia, not a directory. — Haeleth Talk 19:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The "Wikipedia is the only place where this information can be found." argument is an argument that an article is unverifiable, and does not belong here. Use it, and you make a very strong case for your article to be deleted, regardless of what words you preface your rationale with. For company directory information, Yellowikis is the place. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not intended to be a directory. Uncle G 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note that User:Ridnik has been identified as the North Carolina Vandal. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim of notability. --Bachrach44 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete substub with no scope for expansion. — Haeleth Talk 19:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Gazpacho 02:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Chicken-on-a-stick" Chevron

Franchisecruft YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 06:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. nuthin but an ad. Airumel 10:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a local gas station-cum-convenience store. There is one on nearly every corner of every American city. At the risk of offending all the good Mississippian contributors out there, if a gas station is “one of the most popular destinations in all of Lafayette County,” life must be pretty dull there. ◎DanMS 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. — Haeleth Talk 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad ad ad StealthFox 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or if this gas station is really so important merge into Lafayette County, Mississippi. Cool3 00:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. — --Computerjoe 16:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Video Intelligence Agency

This is an article about a non-notable (somewhat secret?) group. The phrase only gets 91 google hits many of which seem coincidental. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Surprisingly, this does not seem to be a joke or hoax. They actually do have a website. The website is in Norwegian. Since I can’t read Norwegian, I would like to see some comments here from some of our Norwegian contributors on the notability of this group. This Wikipedia article does not assert notability, so we need more input. ◎DanMS 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Thanks to EliF below for the comment. I am now voting delete. ◎DanMS 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether they're real or not, the article says they're seven men who meet on a Sunday to watch videos together. You don't have to read Norwegian to see that the site is a joke: visit the "press" link and marvel at their mad photoshopping skillz... or not, as the case may be. — Haeleth Talk 19:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I speak Norwegian, live in Norway and have never heard anything about them. Their home page is generally an explanation that all they do is to be lazy and watch movies, but now have started to do it not only as a group of friends, but with others (interprited by me as women) as well. this is their "cinema".

From their page (translated directly from regler (rules): The five basic rules

  1. To serve the movie, lazyness and the honor of the film.
  2. Follow the VIA's secret code to the last letter
  3. Avoid physical activity
  4. Turn the day around (be awake at night, sleep during the day)
  5. Get drunk at least twice a week

I believe this is pure BS and should be deleted as soon as possible. EliF 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per EliF. I am not a fan of vanity articles which try to make their subjects look mysterious; if the article writer knows something about the subject, he should say it rather than leave the facts in a haze. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

Advertising, unless someone can convince me they meet WP:CORP Dalbury(Talk) 21:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - Dalbury(Talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm fairly certain it has more than a million customers as it has been around for 55 years and has franchises on two continents. They hardly need to advertise on Wikipedia. WAvegetarian 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment One million customers meets WP:CORP. Do you know of any way that can be verified. - Dalbury(Talk) 01:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. They have 85 company owned locations world wide, including I now find in London, England. They have 75 franchises in the U.S., Canada, and Thailand. [23] I find it highly unlikely that they have fewer than 1000 employees between these 160 locations plus upper management. I can have my dad, who works for EEOC in Seattle, check their file to be certain, but I don't think that's necessary. His source wouldn't be available to the Wikipedia community so I'm not sure how much use it would be. Guess that depends on how much my word is worth to the editors reading this. --WAvegetarian 01:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There was also an EEOC sexual harassment claim that was settled recently and given WAVegetarian's testament. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it likely meets the notoriety test. Jtmichcock 02:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - WAvegetarian has convinced me the company meets WP:CORP. I am still concerned about the links to Coit Cleaners in Parquetry, Carpet and Curtain, which still look like adverising to me. I'll let someone decide whether to remove those, however. - Dalbury(Talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --Rogerd 02:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

created this article as just a modest piece of info on Coit Cleaners, a compnay I am fimiliar with. Since then this has become a place where users have spread insulting lies and falsaifed information on the topic. Every edit, since my opening one has either focused on irelavant sexual harasment cases, or misinformation. I have had to correct this article again and again. Just now I saw that another guy keeps adding sections on a sexual harrasment on Lou Kearn. (Who just happens to be my grandpa) Now let's cut the crap. Just delete this and we won't have anymore junk on sexual harasment or falsaifed information. If people just keep screwing this up there is no point in having it. It's not an important article anyway. Tobyk777 06:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep- I'm not entirely convinced of the notability of this company, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. As for the sexual harrassment, this article seems to indicate that it's not just a spurious claim. Just because something you don't like is in an article does not mean the whole thing should go. Reyk 06:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous vote. Nominator should make himself familiar with Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. There is verifiable evidence from the EEOC of problems so it should stay. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Reyk. I nominated this company for deletion last time, but was convinced otherwise by the discussion. The sexual harassment suit is documented. the only "falsified information" I'm aware of is the mistaken change of the company's headquarters to Arizona, which is easily rectified. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is the sequence of events, which I think might prove instructive to other editors who come here to promote a company.
  1. I found an egregious advertising link to Coit Cleaners in the Parquetry article, which had been inserted by the creator of the Coit Cleaners article.
  2. That led me to Coit Cleaners, which seemed non-notable (and also spammish), so I researched the company.
  3. The led me to the lawsuit information, which I inserted in the article. (My source, listed in the article, is the EEOC report on the settlement.)
  4. Now the original author of the article no longer wants the article to exist. A cautionary tale, I'm sure. I'd never have found the lawsuit info if the person hadn't spammed Parquetry.
BTW, the original author reverted my edits, so you all have not been discussing the article as it actualy is. If anyone goes to the article and doesn't see the info on the lawauit, if you'd be kind enough to revert it back in, that'd be great. Herostratus 12:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I went through steps 1 and 2, myself, leading to the original nomination. During the discussion, I was convinvced by others that the company did indeed have some claim to notability. I was still bothered by the spam-like links in other articles, but decided to not remove them because my objectivity might be questioned. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep under previous AfD. The article history does not support Toby's claims. Gazpacho 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous vote. I'm sorry that the creator is upset that a vanity piece turned into an informative article on the company and some of it's affiliates practices. Within the next 24 hours I will add citations for all of the info I have added to this article and specifically tag all non-sourced claims. This should address any claims as to misinformation, which I will note is not a valid cause for wholesale deletion. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've rewritten the discription section and provided sources for all of that. All of the harassment section is verifiable from the provided links. The only unverifiable claim was that of "world's largest." The company's website claims to be "one of the world's largest," so that's what the article now says. Everything is verifiable. The company is also notable per community consensus in the previous AFD. (As it is a privately held company there is very little information available on employment figures for Coit, but according to this the main headquarters employs 100 people.) There remains no reason for deletion other than the founder's family being upset that the harassment settlement is a matter of public record. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article, and link this AFD to WP:VAIN as a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks they should write a spam article. Them that lives by the sword... Grutness...wha? 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep more like a news story though. Stifle 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was who knows, so long as it's not delete. Pretty even split for keeping and redirecting without merging. I'll leave it to the article's editors to sort that argument out, but it's clear there's no call for deletion (except for the nominator's vote-instead-of-nomination, ho hum). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J.R. Writer

The text itself doesn't really assert notability, but since The Diplomats do (but I'm also going to add an AfD on that page next), decided I should use AfD rather than CSD. However, unless there is actual notability, speedy delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, [24]. PJM 07:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly keep, possibly redirect to The Diplomats, as he seems to be mostly notable as a member of the group. Note that search results are skewed by the existence of a game "Jr. Writer" - Google ignores punctuation, and AOL (as used above, for some incomprehensible reason) uses Google. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Diplomats. Gamaliel 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable as a member of the Diplomats.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.157.71 (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to The Diplomats instead.

    I Am Ri¢h! My Rich Contributions/My Wealthy Talk 2008-06-13 02:39 UTC

  • Redirect to The Diplomats, unless sufficient biographical info can be added. --FuriousFreddy 13:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a notable member of The Diplomats Rtblaze 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Diplomats unless expanded. AdamantlyMike 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per AdamantalyMike. Stifle 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Diplomats

Self-inflating description makes me doubt notability. Self-distributing. My current opinion is delete unless someone can verify notability. --Nlu (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

  • Keep. An allmusic.com entry attests to their notability. I've actually heard of Cam'ron before, and I know little about the current rap scene. We can edit out the tone. Gamaliel 07:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. [25]. PJM 07:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cam'ron is a notable hip-hop artist, thus this meets WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 08:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three albums all distributed by significant record labels in RocaFeller and Koch Records. Three albums all making the American album charts see [26]. Two notable members in Cam'ron and Juelz Santana. They meet at least three criteria of WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 08:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If they've signed wirh Rock-A-Fella, then they meet WP:MUSIC --Bachrach44 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very important iand influnetial group.See they're AMG entry:http://snipurl.com/kmd0.Whosdablacksheep 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Influential not only in hip-hop culture but recent popular culture in general. A rather strange nomination, in my opinion. Sleepypanda
  • Keep: It's useless to delete this article, it's just that we need a professional about them, this article can reach great lengths.

    I Am Ri¢h! My Rich Contributions/My Wealthy Talk 2008-06-13 02:39 UTC

  • Strong Keep. Notable and verifiable band, meets WP:MUSIC. I'm not a fan of theirs, but that puts me in a minority of people I know: they are immensly popular. Users should thoroughly check notablility criteria before listing articles for deletion, so as not to waste everyone's time. This is only one of many articles on very well-known hip-hop acts that have been listed for deletion by users who apparently don't know any better. --FuriousFreddy 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Diplomats are very well known in the rap community and have started many trends. For example men wearing pink was started by Cam'Ron Rtblaze 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned votes or votes from unregistered users

The Diplomats, while not as popular as say, G-Unit, do in fact have a dedicated following, almost along the lines of Wu-Tang Clan. Cam'ron has been mentioned as a top-notch rap artist since 1997/1998. The overall tone of the article may need editing, but the entry does not warrant deletion. I heard about the question of deleting this on Okayplayer... it reflects very badly on Wikipedia that there would be a question about deleting one of the most popular crews in hip hop at this moment, as it makes it seem like Wikipedia is out of touch with anything black. I know it's not Wikipedia's fault, but it just looks bad, you know? KEEP: Cam has had a very accomplished solo career and the Dips are responsible for a lot of trends you're starting to see in the rap game now. They may not sell as well as other crews, but niether did Gangstarr, and no one would question their influence. KEEP: maybe take out a bit of the slang, but this is an article about a legitimate group

  • KeepCollectively, Cam'Ron, Jim Jones and Juelz Santana, the three main members of the Diplomats have sold millions of albums. Juelz album is currently #9 on the Billboard charts, having sold 179,000 copies in its first week. This should absolutely not be deleted.
  • Keep. Dipset are very well known with young urban visitors to the site. Removing such a page would be losing touch with a key segment of society.
haha this line: "G-Unit, do in fact have a dedicated following, almost along the lines of Wu-Tang Clan" is the line of someone who knows nothing at all about hip hop, as such it is hilarious.

KEEP: They have been featured in numerous mainstream magazines. If you search google for "Diplomats" most of the links on the first page refer to this hip hop group rather than to the original meaning of the word "diplomat" which should say something of the groups popularity. I would suggest that whoever recommended this article for deletion do two simple google searches: one of "diplomats" and a second search of "dipset". Hopefully, this will remove any doubt as to the group's signifcance.

The guy must not have researched before nominating this.


KEEP: The Diplomats are legitmate and notable. I was absolutely shocked when I saw that this was being considered for deletion. Members of the group have appeared as the musical guests on the Tonight Show and the members have sold millions of albums.

Keep: This group is very well know. (personal attack removed)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth world nations

Cesidio Tallani and his micronation pals are back. This stuff was expunged from the Fifth World article when that was posted to VfD way back in the day; articles on Cesidio's various self-applied laws were deleted via VfD some time ago. This is basically recreation of deleted content, but is probably different enough that we might as well put it through a proper AfD before we delete it. Incidentally, according to an article by Mr Tallani, there is now a sixth world. When will it end? -Sean Curtin 06:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Apparently micronations reject the Antarctic Treaty for example. Will Sealand claim the South Pole? Inquiring minds want to know. Capitalistroadster 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be OR, and crank-vanity. --Squiddy 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete micronotable vanity, per Capitalistroadster. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I really wish micronation vanity/nonsense could be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article contente, make it a Redirect to Micronations. I must say, this nomination led me to the Sealand article, which was interesting. I want my own fort too! With a rebel goverment trying to take it over! But NO GIRLS ALLOWED lol. Herostratus 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect because this is a neologism which we should not be promoting. — Haeleth Talk 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable crankery, advertising, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang on... (comment) I remember looking through an old 1980's geography textbook once. It defind First through Fifth world countries as such:

  • First: Wetern nations, (USA, UK, etc)
  • Second: Communist nations (USSR, etc)
  • Third: Poor countries
  • Fourth: Really poor countries
  • Fifth: OPEC.

So, in the sense I know it as, its not a neologism. If anything, its an old-logism, that fell out of use the same time as all but First and Thrid World did, (and they apparently dropped out of official use soon after). Saberwyn - 11:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a source for it, that would be a good addition to the Fifth World disambiguation page. (I'm leery of adding anything unsourced to that page because micronationalists love to sneak stuff like this in there.) -Sean Curtin 06:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm never going to find that textbook again. My class was asked on the last day of term to help clean out the textbook storeroom, and these books got canned. Saberwyn - 09:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Wile E Heresiarch. Stifle 23:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as C&P copyvio - Lucky 6.9 07:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STACY'S MUSIC ROW REPORT

A PR puff piece, and definitely not an encyclopedia article as it stands. It's an online insider's view of the Nashville music scene, I understand - hard to tell, since the website it's promoting appears to be down right now. Alexa ranking is 4,245,324. Googling "stacy harris" "music row" gets 194 results. However, I have no way of knowing how influential - rather than popular - this site is. Right now, no such evidence is available, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - reads like an ad, possibly a copyvio. --Spring Rubber 07:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete+Comment I'm checking to see if it's a copy vio right now...So far can't find one, although 3 sites I tried were timed out. My google search did reveal [27] 218 hits but as of right now the article is poorly constructed so delete until it's proven not to be a copy vio, or it gets a huge clean up. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Found it. It's a Geocities site. Bye, Stacy.  :) - Lucky 6.9 07:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northeastern Russia

  • del. Text: "Northeastern Russia is the the Northeastern part of Russia" ... etc. Even if to ignore that the article text fits for BJAODN, the term in absolutely non-specific, like, Northern France or Eastern China, unlike East Germany or North Germany (guess, where is the latter one? :-). I checked the contributor; he seems to make serious contributions. I am wondering, whether he smoked pot today or his son stole his wikipedia password... mikka (t) 07:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Now that I mentioned BJAODN, I recalled this guy! I have already placed one of his pearls into BJA: his initial stub of Hînceşti: "Hînceşti is a town without a university in the part of Moldova not included within Transnistria. It is not among the largest towns of Moldova. It has about 15000 inhabitants. Since 2003 it is the seat of Raionul Hînceşti." Definitely this guy has a sense of humor! You better keep an eye for his fresh ones. mikka (t) 07:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete original research. There is no such a term in Russian parlance. --Ghirlandajo 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess Ghirla meant "in Russian formal terminology". Of course, one may speak about norteastern Russia, just like about northeastern Zanzibar, N-E Cuba, northeastern San Francisco, etc. mikka (t) 07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Belongs in Russian geography; not worth a merge. Herostratus 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The claim to notability seems to be that it “is featured by a low temperature.” I think we need a little more than that. ◎DanMS 17:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't make me laugh so BJAODN is out; let's go with delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next, Northwest Central Russia?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a real useful article could be created but this is just drivel. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yup, it is the northeastern part of Russia. Antidote 03:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as per Mgm. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rooms in Willy Wonka's factory

Anything worth keeping here should be placed in the main Charlie and the Chocolate Factory article. Firebug 07:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is a section in the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with this title already. I took the information here, condensed it into paragraphs (I hate lists), and combined it with the information in the main article. Movementarian 12:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to finish the merge of content and retain the attribution of the original information per GFDL requirements. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge what can be merged and delete non-obvious subject (redirects are cheap, but I can't see what purpose this one would fulfil). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It would fulfill the need to attribute the merged material to their original contributor. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merges need to be finished with a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Personally, I think we're going to look pretty silly if/when these guys pass WP:MUSIC, but who am I to truck with consensus? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bellaparker

Definitely one of the better articles I've seen for a non-notable band, but the band is nonetheless not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. They basically fail all of the WP:MUSIC criteria that I could check. Two of the three reviews are from sites that I've never heard of, though perhaps someone here could vouch for their influence. The third (first listed) says nothing more than "Local bands that won't stay under the radar much longer" and lists a dozen bands from the area. Delete until they hit it big. See also Chad Geraci. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-08 08:25:59Z

  • Delete. Per nom. Also see The Things We Say (album). Cnwb 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:V. Kappa 16:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the WP:NMG proposal. If we kept everything that was verifiable, we'd have individual articles for practically every single copy of practically every single issue of practically every newspaper ever. — Haeleth Talk 19:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haeleth. Stifle 23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails all of the WP:MUSIC tests. Nandesuka 18:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (spam). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dee dee reeves

Unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. First 100 Google hits seem to be about her. Cnwb 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 279 displayed hits for a nude female Internet model is shocking, but not in a notable way. 24.17.48.241 08:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tempted to speedy delete for an appalling lack of content beyond a predicate nominative and an empty taxobox. If this can be expanded, I'll change to "keep." - Lucky 6.9 08:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears that the editor has been spamming us. I have deleted all his articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ministry Of Blues

Unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Just a garage band.
  • Delete bandity. Formed "six months ago"? Buh-bye. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable band. Stifle 23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This article has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fizzlethorpe Bristlebane

Fancruft, not really notable. At the very least merge it into Everquest. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --QEDquid 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge somewhere separate from the main article. Kappa 16:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ∾ This article is a blatant copyvio. The text was lifted whole-cloth from the Official EverQuest website. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Deal with by means of copyright problems. Stifle 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The article has been sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erollisi Marr

Not notable enough, should at least be in the Everquest article. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The article was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodcet Nife

Not notable, at the very least merge with Everquest. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abigail Toyne

How is she notable? She appeared on Page 3 and in Penthouse? Does this make her notable? In what way did she influential? I say, delete. The image is also a promotional one. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Reasonably notable and there are far less notable Page 3/nude models with articles. However the image should be replaced with one without nudity (I also suspect it's probably a copyvio). 23skidoo 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has reached a very large audience. Kappa 16:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, done some research information is fine and subject notable so i see no reason otherwise, pic isn't copyright vio. just needs to be resized and the quality reduced slightly.
  • Weak Delete, per nominator. Stifle 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - has survived one AFD already for the same reasons - David Gerard 14:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Nichols

How is he notable? This just says he is a gay porn star. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neither he nor his film show up on the IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew's research. <speculation>it could be an {{db-attack}} page intended to disparage (a) Americans and (b) somebody's classmate named Aaron Nichols.</speculation> — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment He does appear to be real. --Bachrach44 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adele Stevens

She was a Page 3 girl: plenty of girls have been page 3 girls! How is she notable? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • not a voteShe may not be famous, but she has some credits. Looks like an ad, though. Hard to tell if this is a vanity page, or someone notable. Probably should keep it long enough to find out. --Dschor
  • Weak Keep. She appears to be fairly notable in Europe. However, there isn't too much information available online about her from a biographical standpoint, though that hasn't been a criteria for deleting an article, AFAIK.-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonably notable and far less notable Page 3 girls have articles. 23skidoo 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has reached a very large audience. Kappa 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - No reason to delete VanillaX 11:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I remember her from years ago (not sure how). Can anyone speak to the copyvio status of the photograph? JanesDaddy 16:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I suspect it may be a copyvio, since the image was uploaded by a user who was known to blatantly upload copyvios. If you want, you can post it on the copyright problems page. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thanks, Joe. I did post a question about the image there, for not being fair use (NOT low-res, and NOT illustrating DVD). JanesDaddy 22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You going through these by category? - David Gerard 14:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idiots in the Park

Vanity article, with non-working external link CarolGray 10:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete article itself says the "comic has never really got off the ground", and only nine comics have been drawn in the series - so without some other evidence, this just isn't encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete An article about a poorly drawn webcomic? Especially one about a webcomic that doesn't have a working site. Non-notable to the max. DeathThoreau 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, webcomics must exist for a year with weekly updates. Stifle 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, it is possible for a webcomic that exists for less than a year to be notable. It is possible for a webcomic that does not update every week to be notable. Harder, perhaps, but possible. I would not use that as a hard/fast rule. ++Lar 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, (that said...) This particular comic gives no evidence of notability. Google searching didn't find any for me either. ++Lar 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hdimage

Unimportant Linux utility, stub with little potential fopr expansion and doesn't realy belong in WP. I suspect that "not the yellow pages" also encompasses "not a directory of Linux tools" Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with nominator, but maybe redirect to Disk image? Or is there a more appropriate destination, based on what "hdimage" does? CDC (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One can apply the WP:CORP criteria for products and services to softwares. grep, awk, and sed satisfy the notability criteria because, for starters, there are entire published books that deal with those individual utilities specifically. In contrast, no-one has published a book about hdimage. Furthermore, searching turns up no third-party guides, FAQs, courses, tutorials, press coverage, or papers in computing journals about this tool. The criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and useful utility. Stifle 23:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the website on Sourceforge doesn't explain much of anything about the program, and its primary competitors (dd and rawrite) are so entrenched that it's unlikely it will find itself in the same league as either, much less eclipse one. Haikupoet 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (10 deletes, 16 keeps, a whole lot of comments and I'm not too sure about Herostratus's comment...) – Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Beckjord

  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}}

Vanity page created by disruptive editor. Delete as quickly as possible. --Nlu (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete actually Speedy Delete unless claims to have taken spirit photographs such famous deceased persons as Nicole Brown Simpson counts as notability. Nuff said. Eusebeus 10:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest Delete. Vanity. Can this not be db-bio'ed? Main contributor seems to be User:Beckjord. This user has been pretty veciferous (which is ok) and uncivil (which is not) about defending his contributions to various articles (see User_talk:Beckjord and this article's own talk page). Zunaid 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to a keep following DanielCD's rewrite. Article is now much more NPOV, balanced and well referenced. Zunaid 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought about speedy deleting it, but it does seem to assert notability. If I get a bit more of a consensus that it should go, I may speedy delete it. --Nlu (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy it if you like. — mark ✎ 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or transwiki to Crankopedia. There isn't one? Shame. --Squiddy 12:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article isn't originally written by Beckjord, but by a user called Zagalejo and there is no reason to assume that Zagalejo is identical with Beckjord - the original version doesn't look anything like what one would have expected him to post here, judging from his latest prose and autobiographical claims. See also Zagalejo's comment here. u p p l a n d 12:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Another comment: As an anon. pointed out yesterday in the article (since removed), this Beckjord is encouraging vandalism of Wikipedia on his own bigfoot forum. His heading (in reference to Wikipedia) probably says it all, "NEW FORUM TO TRASH!!!!!!!"[28]. u p p l a n d 13:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain and Comment A few TV appearances is not enough to really be notable. Neither is being wild and obnoxious on Internet sites or making bizarre claims. I'd like to hear from Zagalejo about where he has heard of Beckjorn. --DanielCD 14:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have looked about, and I think the man is worth a mention. There are resources out there that can be used to write an objective article, and I think by keeping it, it should be totally re-written and only use material from refs. I will volunteer to write the new article if no one else is interested. But please don't vote to delete because he pissed you off. I'm not saying any of you are, but the man doesn't exactly make you gleam with his grace. --DanielCD 14:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete / reduce to rubble / and then burn the rubble / and then scatter the ashes. On his web site, this person has urged his readers: "Got to http://www.en.wikipedia.org. Search for Erik Beckjord, Bigfoot, Cryptozoology and Nessie, and edit/cut/delete them 100%. Then return once a week and do it again." Herostratus 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please be objective. Just because someone hates Wikipedia does not mean we should censor their bio. If we cut him out for that reason, then all the crap being said in the editorials about Wikipedia is being vindicated. I'd to hear some more objective reasons. I don't see this as a vanity page; Zagalejo created the page, and...there's no way he's a sock puppet. I think we'd be able to tell. --DanielCD 14:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep - keep it if DanielCD can make a decent, verified rewrite. u p p l a n d 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In its current state it seems this article is losing the battle to stay alive. I suggest that between Zagalejo and DanielCD the article be rewritten so that we have an opportunity to reassess our votes before it gets consigned to the bin. Zunaid 15:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Gah. Whoever decided that making yourself a nuisance on the internet is a claim to fame needs to be flogged. Still, there's no reason to delete the article out of dislike for it's subject. I don't see that he meets WP:BIO, so I say delete on those grounds. Friday (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    If the article is accurate, he looks like a sufficiently "notable" crackpot. Sources should be used, but I don't see a reason to delete. Friday (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow... Yes, I'm the one who started the page. Beckjord is a very well-known figure among people interested in paranormal phenomena, so I still think we should keep this article. As far as my sources go, his museum was actually mentioned by CNN, and you can find some more information about him on Coast to Coast AM's page. I've also participated on some of the message boards where he trumpted his claims. (For example, you can find a reference to his activity on cryptozoology.com - though most of his posts were under false names, or have been deleted.)
If possible, I think we should try to make an objective rewrite before deleting the page entirely (just leave me a message). Zagalejo 15:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to Zagalejo et all.
  1. Even if he is notable, he's not very notable. So adding his bio only adds a tiny amount to Wikipedia's value as a reference tool.
  2. Keeping this article means that it will have to be NPOV.
  3. This will likely enrage the subject, causing him to try to get more people to vandalize Wikipedia.
  4. If successful, this will force the diversion of resources to preventing that -- resources that could be be spent creating and improving useful articles.
  5. Therefore, retaining this article is likely to result in a net loss to Wikipedia's value as a research tool. And that's the bottom line, I think.
Yes the diversion of resources and general headache is bearable, but why? Who needs it?. I had a very similar comment a couple days ago to to someone who created (re-created I guess) an article for hyper-disruptive editor Marc Perkel. It adds up, and how, exactly, does this help to build an encylopedia? And this guy is worse than a disruptive editor. He's recruiting disruptive editors. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.Herostratus 16:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually your argument indicates why we should not delete on the basis of disruption. If we do, we encourge people to disrupt other articles because they don't want an NPOV article to exist for a controversial topic. Whether to keep or delete should be decided purely on other factors. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have attempted a rewrite, using the resources I have at have (this is not my comp and many pages were...blocked somehow. But take it or leave it. I've voted and attempted to do it right, though it was speedily written and is very rough. Anyhow, I've said my piece and will now back off. If someone thinks the re-write is not an improvement, just revert it. With this I rest my case and am going to find something actually useful to do. --DanielCD 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a kook, but he is a notable kook who has managed to get multiple mentions in national media. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have to agree with DanielCD (and not because we have the same name) and Caerwine. The subject of the article may be a crank, but we don’t delete articles because the subject is a crank. He seems to be making a name for himself, mostly because he is a crank. (We should have a Category:Cranks.) ◎DanMS 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think DanielCD's rewrite is pretty good. I do understand the concern, though. We should wait and see how EB reacts to the new edits. If he's still disruptive, then maybe we have to delete the page. However, I still think he is notable enough to deserve a place in Wikipedia, so I hope we can work something out. Zagalejo 18:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He may be a nutcase and a potentially disruptive editor, but that doesn't make him non-notable. I don't think it would be too difficult to make the article conform to NPOV standards. Issues with the guy as a user should be treated seperately.--Cuchullain 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't be too afraid of him. Each time he comes on site it only takes him a few minutes to break enough rules to be blocked. Eventually he'll get bored and move on. As for his site asking people to trash Wikipedia...does anyone really think that anyone who takes this guy seriously is going to have the IQ to be able to find the site and figure out how to edit? --DanielCD 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that, and I think DanielCD has done a great job with the page so far.--Cuchullain 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment He's having a fit actually... Here's what he's telling people:

"Tell them that it is good they edited my page or the page about me, to be more fair than before, since really nobody but a sysop or an admin can make any edits in the main page article "stick". Wikipedia has this quaint idea that non-experts can edit the work of experts. Amateurs can edit the work of pros,etc. This puts Joe Six Pack on the level of Dr. Steven Hawking. Any, try to enter that www.ufomind.com is a a trashing site and some 15 victims have tried to sue the webmaster, who thumbs his nose at them. ufomind.com is trashing me als, and many fools actually believe it is written on the internet, that it MUST be true. Bonk! Am I vitriolic? Only when unfairly attacked, first. Am I malicious? Only against hoaxers and attackers. Do I flame? Only against flamers. Wikipedia people are very naive and ignore all this. Is is "bad" to threaten a lawsuit? Only in the mind of a naive 16 yr old. Oooh, ooh, he threatened a lawsuit! WOW! Nasty! Mean! -- -well, jerks, what if a car runs down your mother and you have to sue the driver? Is this "bad"...??? Or is someone defames you unfairly, --OOH,OOH, he threatened to sue....OH DEAR! Wikipedians, get real... however, my thanks for at least some fairness. Next, how about some reality on new items on Bigfoot? The Bigfoot page is bad,bad,bad."

My own experiences with the man lead me to believe he's a complete wacko. He's been known to edit and photo shop in his efforts to legitimize himself and he has a habit of stalking people.--VilaWolf

To Whom it May Concern I think it should be noted that VilaWolf is a very new user. How new? The above is the very first edit in his record, not even 24 hours. Material was added to both user and talk page...perhaps to make them show up blue? This might be of interest to anyone considering the above info. --DanielCD 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

:Psychosis is a word that comes to mind. --DanielCD 03:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no encyclopedic value.--nixie 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- he's certainly notable in the field. The arguments being used to try to justify a delete vote (threat of disruption, being a kook, etc.) are not encyclopedic reasons to delete something, and if they were we'd have to remove articles on SOLLOG, Scientology, Creationism and so forth. Come on people, think before you vote. DreamGuy 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, this field is just now getting the scientific attention it deserves.Octavious 15:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Octavious
    • Note The above vote will not count unless the author returns and signs it himself. --DanielCD 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • and is a registered user. Anons don't count. --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • User has returned and signed it. However, these are his/her first edits. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Beckjord made some requests at Talk:Erik Beckjord that sound somewhat reasonable and he might be tryting to throw a bone. However, I am rather exhausted at this endeavor. I was hoping someone might try to accomodate some of his suggestions, referencing his statements as "According to..." or something. I think an effort should definitely be made when a user shows improvement, even if it's only a little: it's showing effort and calls for a reasonable reply. I might do it later, but now I'm just not up to it and was hoping someone else could pick up the ball a bit. Perhaps Zagalejo ? --DanielCD 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can do. Zagalejo 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentI am not Zalago --- says Beckjord. Why must my critics assume nobody might support me in any way? That I would be a sock puppet? Zalago is not me. I assure you. beckjordBeckjord 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Vila Wolf is a user on my forum. She got mad at me recently when I asked her to stop her habit of writing "boo" on ALL her subject lines. [29]. Personal anger should not enter into this. Vila can still post with me. beckjordBeckjord 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sorry for exhausting you. But the basic problem here is a battle between Internet Soccer Yobs and intelligent people. There is an Internet False Equality Syndrome where users with a username feel empowered and equal to credentialled scientists and/or field workers with exerience. Guess what -- they are NOT equal. And for this, legions of yobbos go after me.(Soccer yobs tear up train coaches on way to games and fight in the streets using carpet knives.)
Well, interdimensional theories, and possible travel by entities between such is a valid topic for the Wikipedia. Dr Micho Saku of CUNY is now gettng into this. I have evidence this is happening. The yobbos want to muzzle me and delete me.
If users think I am arrogant, I am sorry, but I have done a great deal using my time at the expense of a wealthy career. I'm not rich, but I have many events to relate. Here.[30] Vote to NOT delete. I buy a pitcher of beer when we meet someday, for all supporters, each. :-) Also, I love my dog and cat. Toby and Twinkie.... BecjordBeckjord 20:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity article. Nandesuka 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved Beckjord's comments to the discussion page. Please refer there if you are interested. Beckjord, I'm going to keep moving them there until you format them properly. --DanielCD 20:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article states that he is a crank who has done some Stuff. However, there is no indication that people actually care. Pilatus 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Seeing that Beckjorn didn't write this article and everthing that has transpired, I'd like to challenge all these users calling this a "vanity" post. Find another reason, because I just don't think that's valid.
Also, "no indication that people actually care". Um, what?? Leno, Letterman...ppl don't get on there if people don't care.
I respect your votes. But please give reasons with more substance. People have put in a lot of time and effort here. That means nothing in regards to deleting or keeping the article, but I think it at least deserves some more detailed reasons. --DanielCD 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, before voting to delete, make sure you read the newest versions. DanielCD and Zagalejo have done a lot of work adding appropriate sources, maintaining neutrality and asserting nobility. It no longer reads as ranting or vanity.--Cuchullain 23:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, I don't get any notability here and I'm unjustifiably influenced by his attitude. Stifle 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Argh. How about making Eric Beckjord a redirect to Marc Perkel, and making Marc Perkel a redirect to Eric Beckjord? (lame joke.) I think it kind of proves my point, to see that dozens of people are caught up right here in dealing with these D-list self-promoters, while meanwhile worthwhile RfC's are going begging. I responded to a RfC for Russian Architecture, which has a difficult and fraught issue. And I am the only one so far (except for involved parties and one person who just said "I agree".) So you see what I mean? It's already happening. Sorry, that was out of line. Herostratus 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment So simply because I am new to the process completely invalidates everything I have to say? I am not allowed to have an opinion because I am new? Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I am not mad, just a little annoyed. And Smurf.. you demanded I have a subject line so I put in a subject. You seem to be angry that I prefer to speak in complete sentences and not in bits and pieces. But lets set that aside for a moment. I am not mad at you. At least not for that. It's your attitude about the troops that convinced me that my time would be better spent on another website.

This is suppose to be an objective website. And as much as I would hate to admit it, the Smurf has just barely made a name for himself as to have a place on this site. But given my experience with him, I believe that he will not be able to resist the temptation to alter or sway an article concerning him. Does that mean that it should be taken down? No, it does not. But it will certainly have to be monitored. VilaWolf

  • Vila...you havent even voted. wtf?

:And Herostratus...what are you talking about? If I'm here, it's because I want to be here. Just because a subject doesn't appeal to you doesn't put you a pedistle above the others to whom it matters. Don't pretend to tell people where they should and shouldn't be and start polishing your nuts over some Russian Architecture article. Pump your ego elsewhere please.

As a reminder: "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." --DanielCD 01:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this was a little over the edge as well. I apologise for losing my cool Herostratus. --DanielCD 03:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it's OK. I want to be a better editor and participant. Sometimes we all need a little knock on the head. Herostratus 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough to get mention on the radio. As a sidenote, we WILL NOT give in to threats of vandalism. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 09:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Got to balance real world informational value versus amount of effort it would take to keep that information factual and fair. Scientology is a pain in the ass to keep factual and fair, but it's something people CARE about. This guy has a couple of talk show appearances and has called for an aggressive vandalism campaign. The balance isn't there, gang. Tom Lillis 09:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just wanted to reiterate that Beckjord is a very well-known personality among those who are interested in paranormal phenomena. It's simply not fair to say that no one cares about him. They may not admire him, but they are interested in him. Just mention his name on any cryptozoology message board; you'll get all kinds of responses. I mean, I won't lose any sleep if we have to delete the page, but just keep it in mind that he is very notable in some circles.
Oh, and I'm willing to monitor the page periodically for vandalism. It seems to have died down lately, though. Zagalejo 23:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Frankley, I think Beckjord's already lost interest. It's on my watchlist as well. Takes about ten second to revert any vandal. --DanielCD 04:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough and I don't see any grounds for speedy. -- JJay 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In defense 1)Beckjord has removed 6 days ago, maybe 7, from his forum, any suggestion to trash Wikipedia. There is no such threat of vandalism. Repeated reference to this non-event are irrelevant from the guy with the Russian letters name.Evidence: visit http://www.bigfootforums.net

2) Who is interested in Beckjord? 20 Million People on the Letterman show, 15 million on the Jay Leno show, nine million people on the Coast to Coast AM show. Other millions from NBC,CBS, CNN,BBC and others. Unpopular (as science pioneers often are) as he may be to some, he has come to represent Bigfoot research and CZ research. His work is cutting edge and is evennow influencing writers as Chris Murphy, "Meet the Sasquatch" who previously held to older ideas. Reference? Evidence? visit http://www.hancockhouse.com and click on the Murphy Files forum. You will see a sea change in this man.

3) Beckjord does no "vandalism". He offers his expertise in the topics. He does edits and critics jump in and declare, unfairly, that these edits are vandalism, when they in fact are not. Evidence: common sense.

Merry Wikipedia to all, and a Happy New article. If I offer multiple comments, it is in order to refute false info. beckjord205.208.227.49 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: And this my friends, is standard behavior of Beckjord, man of a thousand IP addresses. He's also failed to bring up the fact that he's repeatedly made false claims such as his 9/11 "consulting services" that were nothing more that his boosting his own ego and trying to profit from disaster. "Calls not from media are returned collect." as he is fond of saying. Can we say Egoism? VilaWolf
  • Weak keep. As he's been featured on national print and television media he's at least as notable as many other people who have Wikipedia articles. If I saw him on Letterman or some other TV show, my first thought would be to turn to Wikipedia for NPOV information. —Psychonaut 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Note re Vila Wolf: this a lady who is unhappy I banned her from my discussion forum for her refusal to stop sending in all her posts with the subject line "boo", which made it hard for other readers to decide what her issue in each case was. She now does not like me. Soon, she will accuse me of stealing candy from children.

beckjord205.208.227.49 20:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In further defense: I have just web-published ( http://www.beckjord.com/originoflife ) my Multidensional Theory of the Origin of Life , which ties in with alleged interdimensional travel by alleged strange beings as often discussed in cryptozoology. (Kangamoto,Bigfoot,Nessie,etc) In time, I will submit this theory for an article in Wikipedia. I do not have to be Einstein to follow up on his ideas, nor do I need to be Kant or Hegel to suggest a theory. BTW, somemone accused me of extreme arrogance to suggest I had "done" a Jane Goodall-type experiment with Bigfoot. First, I know Dr. G in person, and second, I merely *attempted* such an experiment. Bigfoot creatures ate my food, appeared once, but they never sat down in my lap. They did, however, show up on film, even if not seen. http://www.bigfoot.org

Have a good one. The world changes all the time.

Beckjord205.208.227.49 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Reason: There is independent matter that exists that supports the position that Bigfoot may be both a simple animal and be a Interdimensional Creature. The reason there are no bodies is that predators and scavengers destroy them, (which also frustrates law enforcement looking for evidence in murder cases), in the case of the animal bigfoot, while a alien(to us) has abilities that are considered bizarre, and this thing may be from another plane of existance. Personally,I believe that Bigfoot is BOTH a simple animal native to Earth AND I've seen independent evidence that indicates that a alien "Bigfoot" is also visiting this planet. The Interdimensional Bigfoot has known bizarre abilities such as glowing eyes, superstrength, teleports, is telepathic/empathic,and if fired on, weapons have no effect. There are as stated two creatures, one is a animal native to Earth, the other one is a alien from another dimension. As for "vanity", one should dump all of the celebrity articles such as Jay Lenno, David Letterman, Howard Stern, since they personally promote them. The reason I'm investigating Bigfoot myself is that I'm monitoring the Fouke,AR situation, and have heard that one was seen in a nearby county I was living in. As to the "nuts" references, read the Robertson Panel. This states that the CIA had initiated this to "reduce" interest in UFOs, and one facet is to have people who has had encounters w/ UFOs/Aliens to be declared mentally unfit, since psychiatrists are also employed to do this. Should there be alien contact, some of these people may revolt out of vengeance and/or for religious reasons. While travelling the US, I've been told about this matter as well. I travel the US as, among other things, as a prospector and as a paranormal investigator, and I've seen things that are beyond belief. The reason people are shooting @ Bigfoot is to provide the "Skeptics" a BODY for their examination.Martial Law 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That would appear to be a reason to keep Bigfoot. How does that make it an argument to keep Erik Beckjord? --Nlu (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen his personal website, this is'nt his personal website,thus the "keep vote".Martial Law 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no "vanity",etc. on here, thus the keep vote,otherwise we'd have to throw out the celebrity articles, since this promotes the celebrities themselves.Martial Law 04:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Has anyone seen the man's user page? It inspired something of a heated exchange between him and myself on his talk page. The highlights: he compares himself to Albert Einstein and Fred Alan Wolf and declares his intention to flout policy when he believes that it needs flouting. The talk page discussion is similarly rich; he trots out the old claim that Wikipedia is flawed because the common editor has as much clout as "experts" and he reiterates his belief that since we're all wrong and he knows better, he can do whatever he feels necessary to fix it. Hell, look above: he's already planning to submit material which is unequivocably original research.

Maybe we should keep the article and include all of this stuff. Mm. Tom Lillis 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Wikipedia.org paranoid dungeon-keeper Nlu freaks out: they are paranoid if you use language in any way they feel threatened by. Well, "Nlu", ALL of my contributions are valuable, you fu*king freak. You must be some type of moron. Go downstairs and torture some prisoners. Comb your matted hair on the way, and brush your single tooth. (Think of a video games dungeon-keeper out of the Hobbit movies.)

Wikipedia is the place where losers edit the articles of winners, novices edit the articles of pros. The NY Times warns its staff to avoid it for fact-checking.

Sneaky Beckjord"

  • Keep. Notable weirdo. A User to watch, as well, though. The Land 10:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Disliking the editor isn't a reason for doing things about the article. Number of media appearances quoted in the article appear to verify notability, if not sanity.--Fangz 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Paranormal research? Ooookay .... I was going to say delete but people in here are attesting to his notability, and who am I to argue with that? Just because I haven't heard of the whacko ... --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, clearly topical David D. (Talk) 17:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bigfort is an urban legend and very well known whereas this fellow isn't.--Skip Flea 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: this edit is the user's fourth. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Queens

No claim to notability being made. Arguably spam. Ben Aveling 11:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I consider the major Las Vegas casinos to be notable, for much the same reasoning that theme parks are notable. Both "Four Queens" +Vegas and "Four Queens" +Casino bring Google hits in the 400,000+ range. Though there's always room for debate, I suppose, certainly there's more to be written about even minor casinos than any given garage band, forum troll, MMORPG player, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per google hits. Kappa 16:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-reservervation -reservations brings google hits down to about 122,000. Still a lot. And yet, the article is empty, it's barely more than a link to the official site, and it doesn't explain why this casino is anyway notable. Could we merge to somewhere and redirect without prejudice? Ben Aveling 20:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and expand. Stifle 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added some additional information, still need to find out a lot more. Vegaswikian 06:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Four Queens is a well established and well known Las Vegas landmark. Misterrick 14:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tooltoys

Non-notable protologism. -- RHaworth 11:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delee - If this is real, much more context is needed. Samw 13:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BAO1984

A lesser-known group in the gaming community in the Philippines. -- RHaworth 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 102 google hits for BAO1984, no apparent authoritative support for their claim to notability. The article is also very POV and poorly written, provided that the group is notable, the article should be given a thorough cleaning.
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jose of the Future

Vanity article about a vanity-published book, plus synopses of future books. -- RHaworth 11:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, smells like vanity or a hoax. Googling "Jose of the Future" gets 5 results, none of them about this book. - Bobet 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is true. I bought this book a while back. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.131.238.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The man in front is right. FE411 1:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This book is real. I bought it at Fairfield at a trip to my uncle's house. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.131.245.67 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
OK so give us its ISBN or some other external reference to prove it exists. -- RHaworth 09:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: FE411 is the original author of the article and also removed the AfD notice from it. -- RHaworth 09:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverified. If we get an ISBN for it I'm willing to change to keep. Stifle 23:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per aboce.  Grue  16:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When FE411 actually publishes his "book", then Jose of the Future would get a page. For the time being, though, he should concentrate on making it into high school. -- JJay 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but severely clean up. Gateman1997 00:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vandalism and sock puppetry as well. Ifnord 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. With ten people saying "keep" and nobody supporting the nomination, it's clear where this is heading. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boolean logic

This page is self-admittantly "an intro to [... various loosely-related topics]", in other words: a textbook, not an encyclopiedia article. There is no clear definition of what "Boolean logic" actually is, only attempts to teach it. It duplicates content from Set Theory, Boolean Algebra, and Truth Table. In my opinion, the only section of this article that doesn't either duplicate an existing article or belong in a text-book is 'Applications', which could easily be re-worded to fit into Boolean algebra. Also, it is my understanding that this article was created because of edit wars over accessibility and accuracy concerns in Boolean algebra - in which case, the optimal solution would be to fix that article (which is already a lot better thanks to the work of KSmrq and others), rather than fork it into a non-article on a poorly-defined topic. LVC 12:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding?? AfD is certainly not the place to work out internal differences on a page. Extensive work has gone into the article and if the editors (you the nominator perchance?) are locked into some kind of impasse, there is mediation. As a mere formality, I will note also that Boolean Logic absolutely deserves an entry. This is bad faith and I assume the nom is a pretty obvious sockpuppet for one of the principals on the talk page. Speedy Keep. Eusebeus 13:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This looks to be a complex and fraught issue. There is also Algebra of sets and other articles. I'm not really qualified in either the subject or the history of the articles, but I looked them over, and if I may make a few comments?
  1. On such an important and technical subject, my personal inclination is to have information that is accesable to people at various levels of baseline knowledge.
  2. The article "Boolean algebra" looks to be a good, technical article. I couldn't understand it.
  3. The article "Boolean logic" looks to be a good article with good diagrams. I was able to understand it. The sections "English language use of Boolean terms" and "Applications" seemed to me to be useful information well presented, on much more layman level than the other articles have. This info doesn't seem to exist anywhere else. I'm not sure where you'd merge it to, and it would seem a shame to just delete it.
  4. The article "Set Theory" is a short article that is almost a kind of disambig page pointing to various places for more info.
  5. The article "Truth tables" shows many different kinds of truth tables, while "Boolean logic" only has a short section on truth tables.
I don't see what's broken here. True, the article "Boolean logic" is didactic and needs a minor rewrite for tone; that doesn't look to be too hard to do. And perhaps the articles should have different titles, I don't know.
I also note that the article "Boolean algebra" contains a note at the top that says basically "Go look at 'Boolean logic' for a more basic intro to this stuff". That works for me. "Boolean logic" could have a similar note placed at the top pointing to "Boolean Algebra"
You COULD Merge the first five sections -- "Algebra of sets and Venn diagrams", "Terms", "Example", "Chaining operations together", and "Use of parenthesis" -- FROM Boolean algebra TO Algebra of sets and delete all or most of the rest of the article. I don't see how that would be an improvement, though. My inlincation would to make sure all the articles were peppered with links to the other articles and leave it at that. Herostratus 14:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I'm convinced there need to be separate articles for the algebraic structure (currently at Boolean algebra) and the kinds of manipulations taught to many as "Boolean algebra" in which algebraic structures are never mentioned (currently at Boolean logic). I'm not sure what the content of the latter article should actually be; I do think that needs to be clarified and the article should be reworked to have less duplication (part of the problem is that the author of Boolean logic was convinced he was writing a simple version of Boolean algebra, so he may have intentionally written a parallel article to the latter's "simpler" content). BTW I don't think LVC is a sockpuppet. For whom? --Trovatore 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. I also don't think the nom is bad faith. There is a serious problem figuring out what the article is really supposed to be about; I personally don't really know, beyond that it's about a subject taught in school as "Boolean algebra" that never defines a Boolean algebra. But given the number of people looking for exactly that, I don't see how we can avoid having an article about it. --Trovatore 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 437,000 Google results for Boolean lgoc with first page full of references from University sites, Howstuffworks so it is both notable and with a wide variety of verifiable sources. see [31]

Article seems in reasonable shape. Plenty of results in Google Books [32] and over 87000 Google Scholar results see [33] convinces me that this is a notable field with plenty of verifiable material to base an article on. Capitalistroadster 16:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. In the long run, transwikiing this to wikibooks may be the best thing, but there is no editor consensus for this. I'm against using AfD to force decisions better achieved on the talk pages. --- Charles Stewart 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep a notable math/computer science topic. Bring your cleanup battles to WP:3O or WP:RFC/MATH, not here. ESkog | Talk 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — Important mathematical topic. — RJH 17:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as important topic that should be addressed. 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic keep - important concepts taught to college and university students. Boolean logic crosses the boundaries between traditional Greek logic and algebra. This article does quite a bit in its relative brevity. B.Wind 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acid Hats

Delete: The page is nonsensical, has no significance and is likely mostly fiction. Hu 12:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 32 English Google hits, none appear to be about this company. No hits on Acid Headwear either. If they have a web site, I can't find it. Article states "Began in 2005 as a small custom hat company". Unless they have some impact in couture and are coming in under the radar, I can't figure out what they are. If they have a couture presence the article creator should have indicated that. Herostratus 13:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly not significant or a joke Wezzo 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably hoax. Stifle 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Mix (Digital radio)

Unverifiable page, looks suspicious to me. Chainlinking2005 12:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Ad --Ryan Delaney talk 12:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. Lots of red where the promotional pictures used to be. B.Wind 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Changed to a very basic stub that gives the station some context. It needs some more work, but I don't listen to much UK radio so someone else is going to have to do it. Haikupoet 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sumela Monastrey

This page is incorrectly spelt. There is an existing page, correctly spelt, that refers to the same topic. I have merged the content into the correctly spelt page (Sumela Monastery). A redirect is pointless because of the spelling mistake. Rob cowie 13:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • redirect, likely spelling mistake + content has been merged. Kappa 16:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The process of dealing with duplicate articles does not involve deletion at any stage. As per Kappa, redirect. Uncle G 01:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • With respect, no encyclopaedia should include articles that are incorrectly spelt. This is not a case of an 'alternative' spelling, it is wrong in any dialect of English. Its deletion will not cause any information to be lost and will improve the quality of wikipedia. Rob cowie 08:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Its deletion will mean that the next time that an editor comes along, makes the mistake (a mistake that has already been made once, and will thus very probably be made again), we'll end up back at AFD again, with your nominating the next duplicate article that is created. There's no need to keep treading this same path through AFD over and over, each time that yet another editor makes this same mistake, when a redirect prevents the problem from actually happening in the future.

      There's also the fact that your own merger of the article's content now prevents the article from being deleted. Article merger does not involve deletion as its final step. Uncle G 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I suspect the error was made prior to the correctly spelt article was created; it seems likely that a user searched for 'Sumela Monastery', did not find a page and thus created it (albeit with a spelling error). I don't follow the logic that the mistake is likely to be made again... this time, a correct article exists. Following this course of action will inevitably lead to vast numbers of redirect pages with incorrect spellings - surely unsustainable? Further, I fail to understand why an article merge (which is essentially an edit by a user) then prevents the article from being deleted. Why is this the case? Is that for ever?Rob cowie 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect is in place. Closing AfD. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Internet Guide

Looks like quite a bit of work has been expended on this, but it seems to fall firmly within Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Delete. Rasmus (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a web guide, collection of links, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't consist entirely of links. Kappa 16:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "The purpose of this page is to create awareness of useful websites with information of Indian interest." is its self-stated purpose, which is clearly what WP:NOT proscribes against. The extra filler would be more appropriate in a section of the India article about technology penetration or somesuch. 24.17.48.241 19:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the anon has it. This is how-to and soapboxery. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of links or a guide. Wikibooks has told us they don't want this type either, so be gone. Stifle 23:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per everyone above. --Pamri • Talk 07:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per WP:NOT. Nandesuka 18:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 01:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Curry

I felt this should be speedily deleted as nn-bio, but the tag has been removed twice so I guess there's some disputes. Stifle 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as victims of Munich '58 are surely notable? And this page is linked there. Budgiekiller 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been turned into a decent stub about a notable sports person who also died in a famous air crash. Kusma (討論) 14:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Week Keep is clearly verifiable, appears notable. --Bachrach44 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand and keep - notable athlete, notable tragedy, verifiable. B.Wind 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Patricio Aylwin. – Robert 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patricio Ailwyn

First, the article is written entirely in Spanish and second, there already exists an extensive article on the subject at the correctly spelt Patricio Aylwin article. delete. GringoInChile 14:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect, likely misspelling. Kappa 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect due to spelling error. It looks like one for es.wikipedia.org B.Wind 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to foreign-language Wikipedia. Stifle 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Caldwell

Delete Hoax article. Claimed that Caldwell is a "prolific novelist, poet and short story writer, Caldwell has been described as one of the most original writers and thinkers of the 21st century.", yet "Alex Caldwell"+"Original Writers" gives no hits on google, "Alex Caldwell"+Poetry gives 163 hits (most of the words nowhere near each other), and there are no sources quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Vimes (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is the real name of a writer who uses a psuedonym...can't remember who at this moment. And I'm sure the birthdate is wrong at least.

Isn't this the real name of JT Leroy? I got here from the Morrissey page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.228.47 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable vanity & possible hoax. No meaningful Google or Incywincy hits for search strings as described above. No entries at Amazon or British Library. Eddie.willers 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page being disputed? I just finished his latest poetry book. He's a new writer and I need some more info for my coursework if anyone can expand the page, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.232.61 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems like vanity, the name doesn't really turn up anything on google. One would think that a prolific and influential thinker would be able to have a few third party references, but Alex doesn't even get a listing on Amazon for his great work (unless he's writing about Forensics and Malaria and then being the 2.5 millionth best seller really doesn't amount to a hill of beans in our wiki world). DeathThoreau 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio/vanity. Stifle 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a hoax. He comes from a long line of writers/poets/political thinkers. His father R Caldwell has realesed one the most influential books of poems of his time, 'This Being Eden', Alex himself has published much much more. I recently met him at a book signing for his new book John Smitham. He is an English Dandy. Denying his brilliance would be criminal! More proof http://www.peterloopoets.com/html/stocklist_27.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.111.133 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that his father was a notable poet does not make any info on the son automatically true without a source. Please read WP:V Sam Vimes 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This page may be a little vain, but it's not a hoax. This guy has a volume of poetry called 'Silent Nightlife' out which is actually on my bookshelf right now and he's had various pieces in the Times Lit Supplement. I met him at an Ottakars evening in Norwich a few months ago where he read a story. His father is Roger Caldwell as somebody said above. This isn't a hoax, even if he isn't cross referenced on google yet. (YET is the opperative word!) MisterMike

If you've got the book handy, then reach over and look up the ISBN for us then, will you? That would help immensely. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You'd think a 21-year-old writer brilliant enough to deserve an article might leave some trace of himself, wouldn't you? Delete as hoax/vanity unless otherwise proven. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of jealousy on your part. This man is brilliant and yet only 21. He has not embraced the internet despite making his political views forth right on certain pages at the tender age of 15. Showing a greater understanding of the world than anyone after an international book code. Watch TV in Britain and you will see him. Only last may was he on Newsnight review. Do not delete, do not deny his brilliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.111.133 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Only last may was he on Newsnight review. No, he wasn't. 27 May edition, 20 May edition 13 May edition. None of these pages mention Caldwell... Sam Vimes 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He was on Newsnight Review? Wow, I've only ever seen him on the Daily Politics a few times. I'm pretty sure I saw Caldwell at a signing. His father is Roger Caldwell who signed with Peterloo Poets earlier this year. His grandfather was W. Alex Caldwell who did indeed reesearch malaria and help find a cure. I just did a quick search for you lazy people and found a highly insightful article written for the Social Review in 1999 regarding the Kosovo conflict - http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr233/letters.htm It just came to mind that at the signing he declared himself an 'internet sceptic' but I assure my fellow Wikipedians he does exist and the profile is accurate, although I can't confirm the Baltic or bass guitar items. Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.232.43 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Written for"? He wrote a letter to the Social Review, more like. Which, still, appears to be the only verifiable information at hand here on the person himself (his father is not up for deletion), and is not even mentioned in the article. Oh, and please sign your posts using ~~~~ Sam Vimes 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell me did you even know what the social review was at the age of 15. How many novels, volumes of poetry, beautiful short stories had you churned out by the age of 21. Wikipedia is just the start for this internet sceptic. It is important he is recognised on the internet not just amongst book worms and the political academics of the world over. −Signed MysÊlf

Comment. ROGER Caldwell's work 'This Being Eden' is listed in the British Library catalogue. I would accept this as irrefutable proof of its commercial publication. However, ALEX Caldwell's work is not listed - which means it either doesn't exist or it is a vanity publication. Hence, caldwell junior cannot be said to be notable for his literary output. Eddie.willers 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Regency logos

More unencyclopedic logocruft by Logoboy95. Nothing worth keeping or merging here, as this information is already duplicated at New Regency in an edit by the same user. Delete.
(Before anyone gets the chance to ask, I did in fact consider co-nominating the latter article with this, as it was created by the same user in the same misguided fashion, but decided to give the {{cleanup}} tag a little time).
— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Logoboy has created a bunch of nonsense and hoax articles, so I'm suspicious of anything he creates now. In this case it's too trivial to have its own article. 23skidoo 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Mushroom 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added Nelvana Polar Bear since it is a similar article created by the same vandal. Mushroom 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete New Regency logos per nom, but Nelvana Polar Bear is a copyvio from [34]. --Wcquidditch | Talk 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have speedied it since it was created less than 48 hours ago. Mushroom 12:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Murphy

Only claim to notability is his company Chapel communications, which is also up for deletion. Stifle 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Eddie.willers 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. I can hardly wait to see the promised changes listed here come to life ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Brewer

Is this article relevant? Nothing links here bar two articles which mention a completely different 'Billy Brewer'; the Burton Albion F.C. mascot. Coaches of university and college sides are hardly worthy of articles. delete Grunners 14:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Depends which Universities you are talking about. College football and basketball in the US are significant sports which receive considerable media coverage. However, the Billy Brewer that gets the most Google hits is a baseball player see [35] Perhaps should be a disambiguation page providing the biographical data on this Billy Brewer is verifiable. Capitalistroadster 16:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I second Roadster's suggestion as there are a handful of Billy Brewers having frequent Google hits. This Billy Brewer might be notable as a head coach for the University of Mississippi, but his notability relies upon the accomplishments of his teams (his stint as head coach of Louisiana Tech will not help in this issue). The Billy Brewer baseball player certainly is more notable, and Major League Baseball players' biographies can usually be found on the official sites of their most recent team. B.Wind 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and/or disambig. Stifle 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and disambig - there is also this Billy Brewer, for instance. --Idont Havaname 21:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If you would like me to add information on Billy Brewer, I'll be more than glad to. He was the head football coach for a decade in the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the most prominent football conference in college football. He was SEC Coach of the Year twice, and defeated teams with coaches such as Steve Spurrier, who have Wikipedia entries. --Wahoo Pundit 5:30, 13 December 2005 (EST)
  • Keep. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iut

dictionary def. --Bachrach44 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Expand and keep the article as it deals with a process of testing in computer science ("Implementation Under Test" generates 32,000 Google hits). The article is not informative as written, but the topic deserves an article in Wikipedia. B.Wind 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand I don't know what this is, but a quick Google search for "implementation under test" brings up a number of results that look like they might form the basis of a good article. Move to IUT, however. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Wikipedia still isn't a dictionary. Stifle 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If all that could be written about the topic was something like, "IUT stands for 'implentation under test,'" I would agree with you, but it seems to be that it's far more expandable beyond that. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unglish

Made-up word? Doesn't google. RobertG ♬ talk 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete pfctdayelise 15:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. jni 16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Bkwillwm 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Coinage, no references or verifiability. B.Wind 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Jni. Stifle 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep redirect. – Robert 01:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KeePass Password Safe

Blank page, unlinked to. Deletable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palfrey (talk • contribs)

  • Someone has already redirected it to KeePass. B.Wind 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Eh? This is a redirect and a seemingly useful one to boot. If you want it deleted, take it to WP:RFD instead. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I should have checked the history. The redirect is good. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. Stifle 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this redirect. Mo0[talk] 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Glendale Community College (CA). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sid Kolpas

Non notable mathematics professor. Depressing when you find he uses the same quotes/jokes every year. MeltBanana 15:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Glendale Community College. The man is not of sufficient note to warrant a separate article but does seem to play a significant role at his place of emplyment. Eddie.willers 16:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't depressing or relevant that he might use the same quotes or jokes every year. Regardless, his role in the mathematical community may not be a large one, but he is of enough importance to warrant an article. He has published over 42 articles in mathematical papers, and I believe that at least that is enough to say that he deserves an article of his own. ArgentiumOutlaw 19:22, 8 December 2005
    • Response. So, perhaps, you may care to author such an article or rewrite and expand the existing one? Eddie.willers 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Would a list of his more major publications be sufficient to keep the article up? ArgentiumOutlaw 19:45, 9 December 2005
  • Just misses on the notability count - Merge with Glendale Community College (CA). B.Wind 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per B.Wind. Stifle 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I highly disagree with a deletion of this. If it is merged, please do not remove any information. A more detailed and built up account of what Kolpas has achieved will be important to people that require that information in the future. ArgentiumOutlaw 19:46, 9 December 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R&s Sports Collectibles

Let me count the ways. No attempt made to demonstrate any notability. Garbled. Created by an anon and it is their only edit. I think it just slipped past RC patrol. Category and link orphan. Try as I might, I couldn't find an applicable CSD rule, thus I reluctantly drag it to AfD. pfctdayelise 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete spam. --Bachrach44 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For all the reasons above, destroy it in target practice. Pull! B.Wind 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. There's no way in hell this is any sort of real article. As the nominator said, obvious vandalism. — JIP | Talk 21:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fish junky

Neologism, obvious vandalism, but still not CSD. I'm too busy to research this further. Kill it with fire and stone. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • i know wat you are talking about momen but if u walk down the street on the 18th december at 2 pm on young road you will find the fish junky so just do that to find a monme with his bosen fished junky
  • Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks and send to BJAODN. Eddie.willers 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 05:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CB3ROB

Vanity, advertising. -- Mark Bergsma 15:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Although we do now insist on this article to BE REMOVED (together with all other articles and posts that refer to our trademarks including this one), we do not agree with Mark Bergsma on the reasons why.

There is no vanity or advertising whatsoever, only facts.

You (Mark) should learn about the difference.

We are not interested in the kind of customers that would be attracted by claiming we are so much better, faster or cheaper than the competition.

Our Wikipedia pages have been set up strictly to inform people, like most other countries and/or companies maintain one too.

As for mark's problems with the existance of our souvereign state, which has by the way been informally acknowledged as such by the netherlands as well as several other countries, and fellow microstates (note: not micro-nation as we DO have a physical territory),

If mark thinks we're not a real country then his objections certainly also do apply to both Luxembourgh and Belgium, both of which are (partly) former dutch territory, the latter even had a war about it. (At least we've paid for it..)

Mark Bergsma is advised not to interfere with other people's business, as it is likely to fire back at him and make people terminate their participation in projects like Wikipedia.

We hereby declare our participation in the Wikipedia project to be terminated, and revoke any rights to the use of any material or trademarks therefore granted to the Wikipedia project.

The following articles, as well as all other references and uses of the trademarks CyberBunker and CB3ROB within Wikipedia are to be removed: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB3ROB - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberBunker

An e-mail confirming this has been sent to Wikipedia.


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

The result of the debate was delete, already transwikied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arisa

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • TransWiki to WikiBooks Cookbook. Looks really tasty, but doesn't belong here. Denni ☯ 01:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The article had, and still has, a shiny interwiki hyperlink to where this is already in the Cookbook. That is not a valid choice. Please make a different one. Uncle G 04:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoa, Mr. Prickley - so sorry that I did not take this to the Ultima Thule level of inquiry, but lifeslikethat. Delete. Denni ☯ 04:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already transwikied. Stifle 23:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese IP Blocks

This article is not linked anywhere nor does it link to anything. It only contains lists of address ranges that are subject to change anytime; if anything, this should link to external sources where one can find the current assignments. Request deletion. --QEDquid 11:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We're WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Bmdavll talk 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just a list of numbers, not an article StealthFox 06:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not any of these things. Stifle 23:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bmdavll. Not enough context is provided for why this article was written. --Idont Havaname 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 01:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ciudad

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, two albums released meets WP:MUSIC. Both are mentioned at [36] - Bobet 00:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikify and keep - two albums, one on a major label merits notability [37]. Unlike startups on money-starved independent labels, acts on majors generally get their fair share of notoriety. Of course, we may have to revisit this in a year or two. B.Wind 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per B.Wind. Stifle 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles about little-known music groups are welcome here. (However, the first line should be amended to tell readers that it is a band.) – B.Bryant 13:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Killingstone

The article claims that he was a pulp writer who failed to find much fame before his death, or after. That's an understatement, since Google finds no evidence of his existence or the existence of his listed writings; neither does Amazon list him as an author. It is still possible that he's simply that obscure (rather than that this is a hoax), but that raises the obvious question of why we'd have an article for an author that obscure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You hit the nail on the head, the reason you can't find him on anything is because he is just that bad and obscure. The only reason I was able to find anythign on him was because for some reason my grandfather took a liking to him and collected all his books. I tried to find more on him and nothing was listed on wikipedia, so I made the page from what I knew. I'm going to argue that just because hes obscure the page should be deleted, I still think he's worth entering. There are alot of wikipedia articles with a lot less revelance than this. --Beefybot 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, unfortunately, that's one of the woes of Wikipedia; everyone has their favorite obscure authors/poets/musicians they'd love to write articles about, but if the subject really is that obscure then it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. This is why I have not created articles for Blue Vinyl Lounge, Daikaiju (band), Kim Justice, Joy Machine... Is the music awesome? Damn straight. Is that enough to make it appropriate for Wikipedia? Sadly, no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless they're a different band than the one I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure Joy Machine means WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Really? The last time I checked, they had had no releases on major labels or significant indie labels before they lost a member and became "Brand New Idol". Is this the same band? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Now I'm confused. I thought you may have been referring to Joy Division (who, coincidentially, also lost a band member before becoming New Order.) -- Taiichi «talk» 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty new to wikipedia, so if you could I'd like to see the actual policy information pertaining to this subject for this example and my own future use. The only thing I can find on this in what wikipedia is not, is that wikipedia is not a memorial and that people must have some claim to fame outside family and friends. I know, as the article specifically states, that he acheived little to no fame, but, he did write a fair amount of books which I think should warrant the article to stay. Now, I have nothing against you, but it would be nice to get a second opinion on this matter, preferably one neither of us is connected to. --Beefybot 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. No offense taken; I think it's smart and good of you to want to go to the policies themselves and see what they say. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Beefybot, the relevant criteria in this case is WP:BIO. The three most important policies are Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No original research. Capitalistroadster 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. No entries at British Library or Library Of Congress. No hits on Google or Incywincy. No returns from Abebooks. Eddie.willers 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the unverifiable and the original research part, because I did have to go the books themselves and what little my grandfather had written about the dude to get my stuff and theres no online articles on this dude, although I don't know why there not in the libraries. Thanks for pointing out the policies. --Beefybot 20:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Helpful Suggestion. If you have copies of the books then can you not, at least, quote the publisher and/or the ISBN? This would verify, wrt wiki standards, that these works exist - despite what the Library Of Congress says! Alternatively, how about scanning the front covers or the whole work? It's now more than 50 years since his death so the books should be in the public domain. Eddie.willers 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I won't be able to get the ISBN because if I remember correctly that wasn't really adopted until 1970, quite a while after the books were published. I don't have the books with me at the moment (My Grandfather has them) but as soon as I get at them I'll get a publisher and a scan or two if I can. --Beefybot 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Simply having written a number of books doesn't make one notable. It is the impact that those books have that makes them notable (or at the very least their sales). I would prefer to see evidence, not of these books, but of Edward Killingstone's notability. DeathThoreau 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I couldn't find this author in WorldCat either (a catalog of library catalogs). Perhaps if you could include a bit more about the publishers of these books? Actually, if they are in the public domain now you might find it worthwhile to add them to Project Gutenburg. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Antaeus Feldspar. Stifle 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If this page is deleted because Killingstone is NN or unverifiable, what should be done with the articles Wander The Earth and 10,000 Days of Misery? Both are works written by him. -- Taiichi «talk» 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have a soft spot for authors and I really don't think it's appopriate to delete someone almost from existence because they're not already on the internet. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't someone who's just under-represented on the Internet, though. This is someone who's so obscure that not a single page indexed by Google mentions him. Not to mention the Library of Congress, either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff

  • Vanity. Burgundavia 08:06, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under nn-bio -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh? Not a bio of any sort. Burgundavia's comment presumably refers to a much earlier and probably unrelated article of this name, but I can't find a record of it. Flapdragon 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not a dictionary of first names. (As opposed to a proper disambiguation page which this page isn't.) Flapdragon 04:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Check Over the article once more —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMoney (talk • contribs) , at 07:43, 8 December 2
    • Comment It's now a list of "famous" people called Geoff or Jeff, taken from IMDB.com, which is linked to three times although its relevance to the name Geoff is hard to see. One example of a "famous" person called Jeff is simply "Jeff", and I don't know if any of them are famous enough to have an article of their own in Wikipedia. What's the point of this list (which should really be called "List of people called Geoffrey or Jeffrey or Geoff or Jeff who have worked in the movies") and how has it been "majorly fixed"? Flapdragon 15:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a disambiguation article. Unlike Madonna, there aren't people commonly known solely by their given name Geoff. Disambiguations are for actual ambiguities, where articles (or redirects) have titles that conflict. This isn't the case for any of these people. And the dictionary of first names is over there. Delete. Uncle G 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For reasons state above by Flapdragon. I fail to see what this article contributes. Are we going to come up with lists of randomly assorted people from IMDB for the iterations of Sean or Catherine? DeathThoreau 02:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Flapdragon. Stifle 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable name, shared by thousands of people.  Grue  16:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Grue -- JJay 18:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Those of you wishing to merge are, of course, still free to do so without AfD's help ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Law of Peace

POV, unsourced, if important should be merged with article on Iriquois. Hydriotaphia 02:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this important aspect of Native American heritage. For reference, read this and this. Karol 18:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I removed some of the POV statements and spruced the text up a bit. Karol 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge While this treaty is important for the Iriquois there is simply not enough there to merit an encyclopedia article. While user Karol Langner cleaned it up, it would stand better to be merged as Hydriopathia suggests. Could we get an article about the Iriquois to merge it with? DeathThoreau 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete Unless there's more than a sentence about it, merge with the Iroquois article? (Where it isn't even mentioned) --Ajdz 08:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Stifle 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary DePiano

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn bio, possible vanity. She may be noteworthy within the eBay community, but there's nothing establishing notability outside it. B.Wind 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio, vanity. Stifle 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN bio. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Melaen 22:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible tattoo

Google returns no results for "Invisible tattoo" used in the sense here. Not to mention no context. --Bltpdx 10:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete / Merge This is actually a mistake from the part of the creator of the article. What the creator describes is commonly known as UV Tattoos, and they are not invisible because of the common scarring that occurs when the blacklight ink is incerted to the skin (please forgive my bad English). I will create a new entry for UV tattoos, if that is ok. This article is pretty useless, as it contains few facts and litte information misinformation. (previous unsigned comment by EliF, 12:48 9 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Comment Please note that the author of the article writes that the tattoos are "temporary." I believe the author is referring to nightclub handstamps done in UV ink, and not the permanent tattoos as found at UV tattoo.--Bltpdx 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this one and try again. There's precious little in this article, but the topic needs to be covered... somewhere. B.Wind 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I have done a bit of online research on the subject and gathered what I've found in UV tattoo since invisible tattoo is the wrong name for the tattoo. I don't know much, but hope someone with more knowledge will expand later. EliF 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nomination. Stifle 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge into Gwen Stefani. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Stefani

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to Gwen Stefani. — RJH 17:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. My fault about the incomplete nom. I marked it, then thought that it'd make more sense if I simply merged it. Unfortunately I then got a surprise visitor at the door, and forgot about the article. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Wikipedia:Merge. Conscious 10:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable bio, merge the comment about her appearance into No Doubt. Stifle 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no need to delete the article if she warrants a mention elsewhere. We can keep it as a redirect; in cases where a merge is significant enough to require attribution, leaving the original article extant (but as a redirect) also satisfies (we hope) the GFDL. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Boyz

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this article about this nn street gang and replace it with an article about the Lost Boyz rap act [38][39] (link removed)

B.Wind 22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per B.Wind. Stifle 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luxurious (song)

Delete: Without unnecessarily dismissing the positive points of including pop-songs, may I draw your attention to the initial question of longevity for this article, as per the wiki guidelines for inclusion? Do you honestly believe that in the year 2105 that a Wikipaedia user is going to type in the words “luxurious” expecting to find this ephemeral, predominantly MTV-specific pop song?

Has it made such an impact on the collective imagination e.g. “Happy Birthday”, “New York, New York”, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be singing it?

Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project?

This sort of grass roots advertising is often effectively undetectable, what with zombie e-teamers running all over the web. We really should be on the look out for it beofre the project becomes a giant press release. --HasBeen 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hit song by notable artist. If not kept, should be merged with Love. Angel. Music. Baby. but enough here to warrant stand alone article, Needs referencing. Capitalistroadster 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete As per nom. Songs in and of themselves are not notable, and there is no indication in the article about this particular song's impact on music in general. There isn't much that would merge well into the article on the album, and there are several other songs from the album which have articles that should be considered for deletion. Perhaps 'Rich Girl' might stay by being briefly mentioned in If I Were a Rich Man (song) as it already is. DeathThoreau 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies so far. I don't want to seem pushy, but I don't think my question is being addressed: who will type the word "luxurious" into our search engine expecting to find this thinly-veiled advert for a pop-song, even next year, let alone in 2105? --HasBeen 08:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question: Anybody interested in reading about that particular song or Gwen Stefani's discography has a good chance that they'll expect this entry when they search for the keyword. Simple as that. Anyways, there's no grounds for deletion. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 14:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge. Verified single within Gwen Stefani's discography and definitely encyclopedic. Compare this to Madonna's "Hung Up" and Gorillaz' "Dirty Harry". See WikiProject Songs. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 14:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The user who proposed this deletion has also placed a comment on the talk page at Hollaback Girl, leading me to believe that numerous sockpuppets are being materialised to help remove modern music articles. If "Luxurious" should not be kept, the songs written by The Beatles should not be kept. It is as simple as one, two, three. —Hollow Wilerding 21:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to note that I am convinced that User:Death Thoreau is a sockpuppet, judging by the edits listed at his/her contributions. This also appears to be the case with the nominator, as all of their edits are based on the longevity of Stefani's music-singles articles. Evidence. —Hollow Wilerding 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course keep it. This battle has been fought too many times (the argument over single inclusion) and it has been very decisively determined that the community favors these articles. Unless some evidence arises that the community is moving back towards deletionism on this issue (the general tendency seems to be strongly towards inclusionism), I think nominations like this should simply be removed. Maybe we can still have the vote if a stubborn deletionist insists, but it's absurd to have that template stuck at the top of the article. We are trying to do serious work here. Everyking 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I bolded your "keep" so that it's easier to locate, Everyking. —Hollow Wilerding 14:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I am no sock puppet, although the crushing, gang-related mentality of certain rabid Gwen Stefanni fans really does indicate that this project has been infiltrated by e-teamers at the very least, and professional marketing people at worst.

My reasons for pursuing this question was that on the day that Gwen got her free commercial on the front page of Wiki, an article that I was adding to was deleted on very flimsy grounds, in fact the same flimsy grounds that you e-teamers are knocking the system with here and now.

It seems there is one rule for major record labels and quite another (terminal) one for local press.

Two questions: (1) why don't any of "you" address my original question directly, i.e. is it correct to assign words of the English Language to minor historical events in an encyclopaedia, especially pop songs that don't even get much of a UK release? (2) why is this information not included in the pop-stars bio, where it clearly belongs; why must it have its own entry?--HasBeen 09:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noodle soup

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to soup? Joyous | Talk 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure there's enough to redirect to soup - but chicken noodle soup has its own article. For the time being, delete or redirect to chicken noodle soup. B.Wind 22:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as almost-empty. No redirect or merge, there's nothing to move. Stifle 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, all food is notable for a truly great encyclopædia.  Grue  16:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I tried to fix the grammatical errors, but it still sounds unorganized, and lacks logic. Gilliamjf 07:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Grue -- JJay 18:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete super sub stub on a non notable topic.Gateman1997 00:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Off-white comic

Google search for "Off-white comic" or "Cole Stanley" return no relevant results. I think this may be an effort at self-promotion.Sparky 17:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. See also TB comics by the same author. Tearlach 10:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn comic. Stifle 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN The JPS 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Girl

Delete: Without unnecessarily dismissing the positive points of including pop-songs, may I draw your attention to the initial question of longevity for this article, as per the wiki guidelines for inclusion? Do you honestly believe that in the year 2105 that a Wikipaedia user is going to type in the words “rich girl” expecting to find this ephemeral, predominantly MTV-specific pop song?

Has it made such an impact on the collective imagination e.g. “Happy Birthday”, “New York, New York”, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be singing it?

Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project?

This sort of grass roots advertising is often effectively undetectable, what with zombie e-teamers running all over the web. We really should be on the look out for it beofre the project becomes a giant press release. --HasBeen 11:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The points the nominator bring up are not listed under the policy WP:DP. However, this article badly needs cleaning up. It makes many assertions that are not verifiable (WP:V). It does not cite its sources (WP:CITE). Some problematic passages are:

The song has caused a highly split reaction among listeners, as although it is very popular, it is either hugely loved or hugely disliked.

Not only is this sentence awkward and needs a copy edit, it is not backed up by any references. If there was such a strong split in public opinion about this song, it should be verifiable in a reputable published source. I would expect more than just a link to an MTV News article on the web.

Following the failure of her previous single, "What You Waiting For?", critics had dismissed Stefani's album as a failed solo vanity project...

What critics say this? The article doesn't say. Again, this should be verifiable by a reputable music industry published source.

The editors of this article want to push for it to be a WP:FA. It has a long way to go before it gets there. However, for the time being, I feel the article should be kept. It is notable, it meets at least one of the criteria of the proposed policy Wikipedia:Importance, was popular in its time, and is an interpretation of another culturally relevant song. Who are we to say what will be researched in 100 years time? Rock 'n' Roll of the 1950s was once dismissed as disposable. Now there are college courses on the subject. --malber 13:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hit record by notable artist. Article needs referencing but looks solid otherwise. Capitalistroadster 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Have provided references and performed cleanup work. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies so far. I don't want to seem pushy, but I don't think my question is being addressed: who will type the words "rich girl" into our search engine expecting to find this thinly-veiled advert for a pop-song, even next year, let alone in 2105?

I'm not doubting that the words "gwen stefanni" will be a popular choice for many browsers, and should details of her songs go there?

This is a question of associating words of the English language with ephemeral pop ditties that frankly do not deserve such attention. Here in the UK, this pop-star is minor, and certainly not worthy of note any more than the long line of Madonna-clones that churn out from over the Atlantic.

I find it highly suspicious that such a quick response was made to my request for deletion, further confirming my suspicions that Wiki is being used by mass-marketers to flog goods.

That the Wiki policy seems to revolve primarily around verification of information makes this advertising easier.

Being easy to validate does not make a thing worthy of attention. Should we have a page "It rained in Newcastle on xx/xx/xxxx" every time it rains in Newcastle?(Ps it always rains in Newcastle...)--HasBeen 09:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Encyclopedic, no grounds for deletion. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The user who proposed this deletion has also placed a comment on the talk page at Hollaback Girl, leading me to believe that numerous sockpuppets are being materialised to help remove modern music articles. If other Stefani singles should not be kept, the songs written by The Beatles should not be kept. It is as simple as one, two, three. —Hollow Wilerding 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to note that I am convinced that User:Death Thoreau is a sockpuppet, judging by the edits listed at his/her contributions. This also appears to be the case with the nominator, as all of their edits are based on the longevity of Stefani's music-singles articles. Evidence. —Hollow Wilerding 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - A similarly-named recording by Hall and Oates is itself a noteworthy recording on several fronts; for example sales, #1 record on the singles chart of Billboard magazine, and the first major hit by Hall and Oates (which Billboard has declared to be the "#1 duo in the rock era"). If Gwen Stefani's "Rich Girl" deserves an article, so does Hall and Oates'. B.Wind 23:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course keep it. This battle has been fought too many times (the argument over single inclusion) and it has been very decisively determined that the community favors these articles. Unless some evidence arises that the community is moving back towards deletionism on this issue (the general tendency seems to be strongly towards inclusionism), I think nominations like this should simply be removed. Maybe we can still have the vote if a stubborn deletionist insists, but it's absurd to have that template stuck at the top of the article. We are trying to do serious work here. Everyking 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I bolded your "keep" so that it's easier to locate, Everyking. —Hollow Wilerding 14:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am no sock puppet, although the crushing, gang-related mentality of certain rabid Gwen Stefanni fans really does indicate that this project has been infiltrated by e-teamers at the very least, and professional marketing people at worst.

My reasons for pursuing this question was that on the day that Gwen got her free commercial on the front page of Wiki, an article that I was adding to was deleted on very flimsy grounds, in fact the same flimsy grounds that you e-teamers are knocking the system with here and now.

It seems there is one rule for major record labels and quite another (terminal) one for local press.

Two questions: (1) why don't any of "you" address my original question directly, i.e. is it correct to assign words of the English Language to minor historical events in an encyclopaedia, especially pop songs that don't even get much of a UK release? (2) why is this information not included in the pop-stars bio, where it clearly belongs; why must it have its own entry? --HasBeen 09:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contributions convince me that you are a sockpuppet. Let's make something clear: if the Beatles are worthy enough of possessing articles for their songs, then so is Gwen Stefani. The quantity of the song's performance, or the quantity of the musical arist's presence and popularity is irrelevant. In this case, Gwen Stefani will never be as popular as the Beatles were — however that's quantity and overlooks the quality of the actual song inspiration, composition, chart performance, etc. If Stefani should not be allowed to have articles on her single releases, then all of the Beatles singles are going to be removed. —Hollow Wilerding 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, you agree with me! I think Gwen, The Beatles and even Clockface should all be included in this project, I just don't see why we have to endure a free commercial masquerading as a new article every time a new single gets released. The place for this article's content is in the bio. That's where people are going to want to find this information. If I were looking for rare Gwen Steffani b-sides, I'd type in her name, not guess at a half-remembered song title. Please explain to me why including this information in her bio is unacceptable. Move information to bio, then Delete --HasBeen 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline on notability of songs usually draws the line at singles. B-sides would most likely be merged into the single or album if it were on AfD. Singles released by a notable musician are acceptable in Wikipedia. Simple as that. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but this particular single drew a blank in the UK, as does this pop-star. I also imagine this is the case in the rest of Europe, Africa, Asia, China etc, etc... Again, please supply one good reason as to why this information should not be copied to her bio; that's where people are going to look for this sort of thing. By all means let's do the same with the Beatles if it makes you feel less "victimised". What this stand-alone article represents is an abuse of the Wiki system to advertise products, and that cannot be a good thing. Delete --HasBeen 11:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete and recreate as redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sky marshalls

This page is utter nonsense for such a pertinent subject, should be eliminated immediately Adjuvat 05:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Federal Air Marshal Service. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Zoe. Joyous | Talk 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a hoax/nonsense. Since the name of the program is air marshall and not sky marshall, I don't feel that a redirect is needed. --Bachrach44 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a “PRANK”. Did you catch that? Right in the article, practically begging you to notice. ◎DanMS 18:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh for crying out loud.... how on earth did I miss that? Thanks for being more observant than any of us - I've upgraded my vote to speedy. --Bachrach44 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Ifnord 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Many thanks to those of you who took the time to help! I have been a heavy user of Wikipedia but haven't taken action or editted, am glad to see that there are many out there to rely upon! --Adjuvat 13:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note the spelling: Marshall is a person's surname. The correct spelling for the security officials is marshal. Redirect to Federal Air Marshal Service. The redirect is appropriate as "sky marshal" is sometimes misspoken when one means to say "air marshal." B.Wind 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as junk, and then create a new redirect per B.Wind. Stifle 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What You Waiting For?

Delete: Without unnecessarily dismissing the positive points of including pop-songs, may I draw your attention to the initial question of longevity for this article, as per the wiki guidelines for inclusion? Do you honestly believe that in the year 2105 that a Wikipaedia user is going to type in the words “what you waiting for” expecting to find this ephemeral, predominantly MTV-specific pop song?

Has it made such an impact on the collective imagination e.g. “Happy Birthday”, “New York, New York”, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be singing it?

Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project?

This sort of grass roots advertising is often effectively undetectable, what with zombie e-teamers running all over the web. We really should be on the look out for it beofre the project becomes a giant press release. --HasBeen 11:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable hit song reaching #1 in Australia. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, the so-called 100 year rule is not official policy but considered by a very small number of people when voting. WP:NOT is official policy including Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculating on what will be notable in 100 years time is inevitably crystal ball material. We simply have no way of knowing. Lets look at some figures around in 1905. Who would have thought in 1905 that an Austrian vagabond would have been one of the more notable figures of the twentieth century? Or a Georgian agitator? An obscure clerk at the Swiss patents office would have seemed an unlikely candidate to be the twentieth century's leading physicist at the beginning of 1905. As we have no way of knowing what will be notable in 100 years time, we must judge by what is notable and verifiable now.Capitalistroadster 17:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP'. Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project? Yes.

Thank you for your replies so far. I don't want to seem pushy, but I don't think my question is being addressed: who will type the words "what you waiting for" into our search engine expecting to find this thinly-veiled advert for a pop-song, even next year, let alone in 2105?

I'm not doubting that the words "gwen stefanni" will be a popular choice for many browsers, and should details of her songs go there?

This is a question of associating words of the English language with ephemeral pop ditties that frankly do not deserve such attention. Here in the UK, this pop-star is minor, and certainly not worthy of note any more than the long line of Madonna-clones that churn out from over the Atlantic. I am not picking on Gwen: indeed I will be cleaning up a great deal many other articles of the same nature over the next year.

I agree with the poster above: copy/paste to her bio, where this sort of thing belongs.

Being easy to validate does not make a thing worthy of attention. Should we have a page "It rained in Newcastle on xx/xx/xxxx" every time it rains in Newcastle?(Ps it always rains in Newcastle...)--HasBeen 08:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Encyclopedic topic, there's no ground for deletion. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The user who proposed this deletion has also placed a comment on the talk page at Hollaback Girl, leading me to believe that numerous sockpuppets are being materialised to help remove modern music articles. If "Luxurious" should not be kept, the songs written by The Beatles should not be kept. It is as simple as one, two, three. —Hollow Wilerding 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know about that last part, HW -- at least the Beatles' songs have withstood the test of some four decades' time... as opposed to a few months for Stefani's recordings. We're venturing into subjectivity here - and possibility a bit of hero worshiping, too. Are Gwen Stefani's songs more notable than, say, the Rolling Stones, the Little River Band, or ABBA's? It gets back to subjectivity, I suppose. B.Wind 23:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This is an encyclopedia; an encyclopedia, in this case Wikipedia, documents anything and everything that exists — Gwen Stefani and The Beatles are both human, so if one cannot have their music displayed on Wikipedia, neither can the other. End of discussion. —Hollow Wilerding 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to note that I am convinced that User:Death Thoreau is a sockpuppet, judging by the edits listed at his/her contributions. This also appears to be the case with the nominator, as all of their edits are based on the longevity of Stefani's music-singles articles. Evidence. —Hollow Wilerding 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting - we're having a run on Gwen Stefani singles articles for consideration here. While it's a matter a personal choice to decide who significant they are, I must point out that older, very significant singles don't have stand-alone articles... and should. But for this one, keep as notable, verifiable... and hoping that someone will come around and give the Gwen Stefani treatment to Hall and Oates or Bob Seger. B.Wind 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course keep it. This battle has been fought too many times (the argument over single inclusion) and it has been very decisively determined that the community favors these articles. Unless some evidence arises that the community is moving back towards deletionism on this issue (the general tendency seems to be strongly towards inclusionism), I think nominations like this should simply be removed. Maybe we can still have the vote if a stubborn deletionist insists, but it's absurd to have that template stuck at the top of the article. We are trying to do serious work here. Everyking 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I bolded your "keep" so that it's easier to locate, Everyking. —Hollow Wilerding 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I am no sock puppet, although the crushing, gang-related mentality of certain rabid Gwen Stefanni fans really does indicate that this project has been infiltrated by e-teamers at the very least, and professional marketing people at worst.

My reasons for pursuing this question was that on the day that Gwen got her free commercial on the front page of Wiki, an article that I was adding to was deleted on very flimsy grounds, in fact the same flimsy grounds that you e-teamers are knocking the system with here and now.

It seems there is one rule for major record labels and quite another (terminal) one for local press.

Two questions: (1) why don't any of "you" address my original question directly, i.e. is it correct to assign words of the English Language to minor historical events in an encyclopaedia, especially pop songs that don't even get much of a UK release? (2) why is this information not included in the pop-stars bio, where it clearly belongs; why must it have its own entry? --HasBeen 09:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contributions convince me that you are a sockpuppet. Let's make something clear: if the Beatles are worthy enough of possessing articles for their songs, then so is Gwen Stefani. The quantity of the song's performance, or the quantity of the musical arist's presence and popularity is irrelevant. In this case, Gwen Stefani will never be as popular as the Beatles were — however that's quantity and overlooks the quality of the actual song inspiration, composition, chart performance, etc. If Stefani should not be allowed to have articles on her single releases, then all of the Beatles singles are going to be removed. —Hollow Wilerding 21:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, you agree with me! I think Gwen, The Beatles and even Clockface should all be included in this project, I just don't see why we have to endure a free commercial masquerading every time a new single gets released. The place for this article's content is in the bio. That's where people are going to want to find this information. If I were looking for rare Gwen Steffani b-sides, I'd type in her name, not guess at a half-rmemebered song title. Please explain to me why including this information in her bio is unacceptable. Move information to bio, then Delete --HasBeen 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We're going to include the many chart tables in Stefani's article? Uh... —Hollow Wilerding 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Why not? Clearly if all the information is excessive for her bio, then perhaps it should be included in a fan-site, or perhaps her own official webpage? So far the only argument against including this information where it most likely should be placed is one of editing: join the club. All of Wiki's articles are editted in one way or another... Your reply does nothing to assuage my fears that this article is little better than commercial advertisment; is that what wiki is for? Move the information and Delete--HasBeen 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - very notable, and IMO definitely worthy of inclusion Barneyboo (Talk) 09:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Connors

  • Delete - User has created an article about his company/website and has added links to his site and stock trading software products on various other article pages. -Tεxτurε 16:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    11:33, 8 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Foreign exchange market
    11:30, 8 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Xetra (trading system)
    11:20, 8 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Moving average
    11:19, 8 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Stop order
    11:15, 8 December 2005 (hist) (diff) January effect
    11:12, 8 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Santa Claus rally
    16:24, 16 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Larry Connors (top)
    16:03, 16 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Larry Connors
    15:59, 16 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Larry Connors
    15:34, 16 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Implied volatility (→Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index)
    14:01, 15 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Technical analysis (→Books)
    13:55, 15 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Day trading (→External links)
  • Delete User is attempting to use wikipedia as an advertising medium see e.g. completely inappropriate link added to Moving average. Dlyons493 Talk 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an advertizing board, among other things. Stifle 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - a padlock may be in order, too. B.Wind 23:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keiths Comics

Web site vanity (creator is User:Keithscomics). Counter on web site shows 486 (when I visisted) hits, so fails WP:WEB. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have relisted this page on the December 8 log after low voter turnout on the 2 December AfD.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jag-stang.com

Website vanity. Fails the WP:WEB proposal: Alexa rank is over 1,500,000; Google only knows of 25 incoming links; forum only has 1,045 members. WP:NOT a web directory; the appropriate place for this site is as an external link in Fender Jag-Stang, and - lo and behold! - it's there already. — Haeleth Talk 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination Lars T. 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Stifle 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Osteria Del Figo

Non notable. Also a complete mess. Harvestdancer 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — per nom. — RJH 17:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Possible transwiki to Wikitravel. Stifle 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - reasons almost too many to list. I'll settle for "nn restaurant article with a POV problem." B.Wind 23:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben sisto

A music promoter based in Boston. Nothing about the article sets him apart from any other music promoter. Joyous | Talk 16:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: not notable, vanity. CDThieme 18:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. No Account 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

the b.hp.n entity is worthwhile and it is hard to discuss that without discussing ben sisto.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Steel Knuckle Company

NN film produced for $100. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No discussion whatsoever on this AfD debate. Relisting in hopes of generating some. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There's one google hit that isn't wikipedia, and it's a myspace site. Their trailer says "experience the movie no one is talking about". If they release this on DVD, or it gains an internet following, then perhaps it should have a page...right now I fear it's just advertising. I've participated in movie projects like this, they aren't really notable. Weak delete. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. --Bachrach44 18:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom DeathThoreau 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lillian Stiles

Sad story, but WP:ISNOT a memorial. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I remember this story, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this debate in hopes of generating a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — per nom. Yeesh, poor woman. — RJH 17:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom; horrible thing to happen. Sliggy 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Idont Havaname 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Hall

Non-notable band (limited distribution, no entry at AllMusicGuide). Jasmol 22:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 16:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this AfD debate in hopes of generating a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The band has done little to merit inclusion, but their former member Eric Cutler is notable. WP:NMG says the following: A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (...) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Merge to Eric Cutler? Punkmorten 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Eric Cutler is sorta notable for his work w/ Autopsy (band). But Steve DiGiorgio is definitively notable and this is certainly a wellknown side project, despite that they have not recorded any official albums. No merge to Eric Cutler Spearhead 20:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Mine

Non-notable invention. Google of "ghost mine" and "pyrotechnic" has whopping 8 hits, not all related to this. ? vanity, ? ad... Either way, delete. Ifnord 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: It is an informative little article which explains What, Who, Where, Why, and How. Hu 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • ... but omits the all-important whence. Uncle G 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I actutally did find one site [40] that mentions "ghost mine" in what might be this sense, but that doesn't establish its notability. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting debate in hopes of generating some form of consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete.Gateman1997 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, eh? Needs to be verified though. Stifle 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Have you tried to? It does no good to say keep something and then leave it to others to try to find credible sources. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G Hu. -- JJay 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am fairly certain that Uncle G isn't voting "keep", since he points out that the article in question lacks verifiability. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per nom └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 08:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect without merging to Titan (Warhammer 40,000). Near-gibberish? Hmph! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warlord titan

A fancruft in an unwikified info-dump, which has all of its pertinent information (the rest is just obscure WH40k trivia) already covered better in Titan (Warhammer 40,000). I'm going to have to say Delete on this one, although a Merge with the aforementioned article is relatively plausible. Agamemnon2 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect, do not merge. This is a fancruft infodump indeed, and while Titan (Warhammer 40,000) isn't that great, adding this lump of near-gibberish for those who are not steeped in GW lore will not benefit that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. I also cannot find if the infodump is actually valid or just some fanficmonger's gibbergabber. --194.215.208.5 06:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The above is me on my work computer, for the record. I still do concur, however. --Agamemnon2 15:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with removing it. It is a load of unfluffy nonsense.Socaddict 15:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Stifle 23:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Control Monger

The developers admit it's not really a MMO FPS. The game is "coming soon" and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is non-notable; for instance, gamespot.com, gamespy.com, mmorpg.com have never heard of it. The article is more like an ad for the game. You can call me Al 17:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Mikemsd 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete, even taking the more erudite unsigned comments into account (it is not common practice to keep an article over a couple of decades to see if he becomes Governor of Ohio). Naturally, the silly unsigned comments ("President-for-life!") were ignored. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Unger

If you're here because of a request from an external website:

Please understand that this is not a vote; it is a discussion. Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this article from being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

Probably a nice man and a great coach, but he does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Joyous | Talk 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia appears to allow entries for high-school coaches -- see, for example, Frank_Barger, Morgan_Wootten, Lisa_L._Miller, Russell_Blunt. Mr. Unger has been coaching for a substantial time period, approx. 10 years, and has numerous state championships. Also Ohio coach-of-the-year and achievements recognized in local newspapers. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 168.98.32.50 (talk • contribs)
  • As I understand it, Jonathan Unger is a fairly substantial figure in his community. And his potential for future prominence seems very great. He is a gifted diarist and has compiled records of his teams' extraordinary championship runs that are the stuff of a good novel or a great movie. Mr. Unger may lack the stature of a professional coach, but if Wikipedia is capable of supporting 850,000+ entries, surely this entry is one that ought to be kept. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 168.98.32.51 (talk • contribs)
  • But, he is President for Life. You can't delete him! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 131.107.0.107 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pilatus 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The coaching might almost border on notability -- give it another couple decades -- but most of the article is in-jokes. Bikeable 02:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Vanity. DeathThoreau 02:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Give this guy "another couple decades," and he'll be governor of Ohio or head coach of a top college program. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 168.98.32.51 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The man is a figure of not just local but regional prominence. He is well-known throughout the Ohio high school sports community -- his undefeated seasons, back-to-back championships, and bizarre but charming habit of giving longwinded and overwrought inspirational/motivational speeches to his OPPONENTS after games have made him probably about as beloved and famous as Gerry Faust was just before he left Ohio high school football to coach Notre Dame. He clearly belongs in the Wikipedia pantheon. By the way, I am not a member of the "14th Circuit" mentioned in the article. Nor do I live in Cincinnati, where Mr. Unger coaches. I have no vested interest in this entry. But I know Ohio high school sports, and I know that this guy is the real thing. He's a coaching giant in the state. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 149.142.180.179 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and lots of unsigneds. Stifle 23:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article describes a figure of local interest in a large U.S. metropolitan area. He may not be Coach K, but neither is he some anonymous toiler. I'm puzzled by the suggestion that unsigned comments in support of the article constitute a reason for deleting the article. At worst, they are neutral. User:Charles.Morse
  • Delete unless verified. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SCUM (band)

band vanity. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC --Bachrach44 18:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as non-noteworthy. Interestingly, when I was a teen in Montreal, there was a punk band by the same name. It was on some compilation albums and I believe release a few of their own LPs. I guess I would have voted delete on them too... Ifnord 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep band with rather notable member(s): Samoth, Faust. Article needs to be renamed to Scum (band). Also "...was nominated for the Alarm Awards (Norwegian music awards) in the metal category, but lost..." Spearhead 20:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I created the article because of the notable members, as well as the fact that they have been mentioned in several international magazines (Kerrang! being the best known, the rest being metal magazines like Metal Hammer and Terrorizer). Beause of this, I believe it meets WP:MUSIC with the articles here (Kerrang!) and here (Metal Hammer's Subterranea) EliF 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. Stifle 23:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Protestant Reformation

I created this article on a book that I understood to be important, and was then going to add information to the article. However, the book is merely a compilation of important works. I will probably add information on these works, but in their respective articles. Mat334 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete (G7), since the author and only significant contributor (only other edit was a stub sort) is proposing deletion with a good reason. - Bobet 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Nothing left to talk about. - Bobet 00:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just redirect. This does not need to be on AfD. -- JJay 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I have made it redirect to Protestant Reformation. Mat334 21:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect complete, this can be closed. Stifle 23:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Agajanian

Vanity article on non-notable musician. CDThieme 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - Person who nominated this for deletion did so in bad faith. See Special:Contributions/CDThieme for CDThieme's contributions. This is a thinly veiled personal attack and his contributions represent a hostility toward my contributions, me, and even Christianity in general. --Jason Gastrich 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Allmusic.com article shows him to be notable enough for mine see [41]. Meets WP:NMG Capitalistroadster 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity, non-notable. No Account 23:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Capitalistroadster's judgement is good in these matters, and, from checking the Allmusic entry, the WP:MUSIC criteria do appear to be satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and notable person. Stifle 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - noteworthy singer/musician of Christian music. I'd like to see more in the preamble of the article to balance out the discography better. A biography would be nice. B.Wind 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Kry

Vanity article about a non-notable music group. CDThieme 18:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - Person who nominated this for deletion did so in bad faith. See Special:Contributions/CDThieme for CDThieme's contributions. This is a thinly veiled personal attack and his contributions represent a hostility toward my contributions, me, and even Christianity in general. --Jason Gastrich 19:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Got a hit on allmusic, and while they don't seem to hit notability requirements for mainstream, there is certainly notability in the subgenre per WP:MUSIC. --Syrthiss 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to be a relatively prominent current Christian group. To the above, I'd be very careful to assume good faith and deal with personal conflicts somewhere more appropriate. ESkog | Talk 21:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable, vanity. No Account 23:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I personally do not listen to them, although I have been to one of their concerts at Copps Coliseum in Hamilton, but I have heard of them and a few years ago they were on the cover of Breakaway Magazine, a magazine that has circulation in the U.S. and Canada, and is aimed for Christian Youth. I think that's notable enough. Croat Canuck 01:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep. Notable within the genra, but not notable otherwise. Gastrich, not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Harvestdancer 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:MUSIC with flying colours. Stifle 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Eduard Gherkin 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for they pass WP:MUSIC! --Idont Havaname 20:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminati Electronic Systems

I don't have any idea how important this development was, and the article doesn't help. However, the company garners only 9 google hits, which makes me think this is not very important. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - the company actually exists though, so its not WP:NOR or a hoax or anything. But doesn't seem to make any valid claims to notoriety. Oh, and you should say "9 unique google hits". It actually gets 18... Oh and read here [42] for more info about them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Stifle 22:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmare online

A non-released game that doesn't seem to be noteworthy. A non-released game about which there is substantial buzz and online discussion would of course qualify, but I'm not sure this one falls in that category. -- Curps 18:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Bachrach44 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Bachrach44 DeathThoreau 03:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies to Newton's law of gravitation

This is not controvertial, but just a misapplication. The formula only works for point masses. It happens that at least as long as you are outside a regular ball mass then the ball's gravity is the same as if all it's mass had been at a point in the center of the ball. So since one of the objects is not outside of the other the formula can not be applied in this case. Thue | talk 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inability to calculate gravitational force between objects having virtual center of masses ManoaChild 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, misunderstanding of Newtonian mechanics. Sliggy 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic - the editor purports to start a discussion rather than provide information --Bachrach44 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Newton's law isn't "controversial," it was superceded by Einstein's work nearly a century ago. It's like criticism of Zeus worshippers. Essay. Jtmichcock 02:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Agree with nom. regarding point mass vs. mass of a volume. Somebody needs a course in calculus. — RJH 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. Stifle 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the above. The article is sheer nonsense. B.Wind 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] X-net

NN web site or software application that "is currently in development stage." Note that there was a AfD for a previous incarnation but I think the content is different now. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Based on the comments on the previous one, I am agreeing this looks like different content. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and while some pre-release software is notable (ie Windows Vista)...this doesn't appear to be. --Syrthiss 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Votes: 5d/0k; the anon 1k and 2 comments are not enough to justify retaining this article. Mindmatrix 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Board.honeypump.net

Non-notable Internet forum CDThieme 18:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

do things that are locally important count? i don't think a locally important entry on wikipedia is to anyone's detriment. and barbelith has a wiki entry. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 70.19.219.215 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This article claims Jesus Christ is a frequent poster. If true, that would certainly make it notable. However, I suspect that it is unverifiable. At the moment, it doesn't make a case for meeting WP:WEB so delete. Capitalistroadster 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: remove the unverifiable stuff and this is no different from any other run of the mill local chat forum. No Account 23:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete! b.hp is a major social and cultural force in boston. not merely a messageboard. what is the benefit to deleting this?? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.91.194.173 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


the fake accounts i think are what make it culturally interesting. there's a certain amount of "fiction suit"esque identity play going on. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 70.19.219.215 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 22:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Seasons Hotel, Shanghai

No claim to notability. Two-liner article. Ifnord 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, being short isn't a reason to delete an article, it does give information besides the title and even has a reference. Googling "four seasons hotel"+shanghai gives 130,000 results. - Bobet 23:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Claim to notability is probably that it is part of the Four Seasons chain. Several luxury hotels have been built in Shanghai lately. The Grand Hyatt Shanghai is probably as notable as the Four Seasons, and it is located in Shanghai's tallest building. Probably the most notable Shanghai hotel is the Peace Hotel, which already has an article. Crypticfirefly 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Crypticfirefly. Stifle 22:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Oakland

Borderline nonsense and probably bogus, but with a (questionable) assertion of notability. CDC (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The search phrase '"Scott Oakland" postmodern OR postmodernism' gets 0 Google hits. "Scott Oakland" gets 365, all of which are appear to be unrelated. Blackcap (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, asserts notability so misses CSD:A7 but the assertion seems worthless. Stifle 22:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - one sentence does not an article make. B.Wind 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The article has been sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Kung Fu

spoof? Flapdragon 19:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyvio. Was nominated for A8 speedy, but does not really satisfy the criteria. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio as well. I didn't catch it the first time, but now that it's been pointed out it's pretty obvious. --Martin Osterman 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL - trying to argue hoax yet its a copyvio. The two are mutually exclusive, no? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How so? I'm intrigued. Flapdragon 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No copyvio material in BJAODN? Bmdavll talk 06:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If the original is a hoax and the article's a copy-paste from there, then it's a copyvio hoax. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. Can't send it to BJAODN without licensing issues :( Stifle 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the above. It really deserves the bum's rush. B.Wind 23:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Thue (misspelled: John Augur Holabird). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Auger Holabird

It is a misspelling. The article is now under the correct spelling.

  • Then a redirect should be created rather than an AFD. 23skidoo 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. This is obviously a non-notable neologism, and being on UrbanDictionary doesn't really constitute verifiability. — JIP | Talk 21:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ertard

not encyclopedic. --Bachrach44 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Beerleaders

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. You can call me Al 19:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the article tries hard to assert notability, but fails. The closest thing are an LP and an EP that are supposedly released "soon". - Bobet 23:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, off we go to the dustbin, come back when you release a couple of albums or get a record deal. Stifle 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bandity. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HitmanForum

doesn't meet WP:WEB --Bachrach44 19:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Stifle 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete At best, it's an external link in the Hitman article. Oh wait, we don't have one. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captain sensible (superhero)

In a nutshell, this is unverifiable. Claims to be " a superhero" but doesn't say where we can read about him, or even what company publishes books concerning him. The context tag was removed (apparently by the author) without addressing this problem. While there are a lot of results for "Captain sensible" on Google, none clear up this article that I can tell. The problem becomes especially evident when you try to narrow it down [43] or find specific terms from the article. [44], [45]. The author (authors?) also seems to be a very prolific vandal: User talk:144.173.6.77, User_talk:144.173.6.76. --W.marsh 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Maybe involved hoax? --Syrthiss 20:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probable hoax. Highly unlikely that anyone would create a superhero named "Captain Sensible", especially not in the UK where the real Captain Sensible was most popular. That would be like creating a comic book called "Spice Girls" and hoping nobody notices it's also the name of a band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thats kind of what I was thinking. --Syrthiss 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll be damned if this is verifiable. Delete. Capitalistroadster 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A group of university students has made up a nickname for another university student, and then written a Wikipedia article to document it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This article is unverifiable, as per Capitalistroadster. Delete. Uncle G 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Image gives source as allaboutjazz.com but no sign of this on the sight. Shoot, kill, destroy - SoM 13:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Night Stalker

Delete Non-notable band Spearhead 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no indicia of encyclopedic notability; nothing on Allmusic.com. After deleting, redirect the link to Nightstalker, which is a disambig page. BD2412 T 20:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: if this is deleted, then the articles on individual band members, Spike McKay, Rick Pepper, Joe Bailey, Mike Cummings, Keith Barr, and Jim Lundell, should go as well. All are currently nominated as speedies. BD2412 T 20:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Some of those speedy tags have been removed. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote as I'm not familiar with the subject matter. If deleted, however, should be changed to a redirect to Kolchak: The Night Stalker. 23skidoo 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is a heavy metal band Night Stalker with a couple of reviews in the heavy metal press. This isn't them. Could not find notable mentions of any musician, the former band, or their CDs any place that would count as notable and verifiable. If there are sources I'm more than willing to keep, but this link should be a disambiguation page and should point to the most likely use of the name first. Stirling Newberry 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This band is huge in Boston and has been reviewed in several publications. They have also opened for several national acts. nsfan67 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Which publications? Which acts? Stirling Newberry 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
They have opened for the national acts Mass, Believer, and Visional. Fluttr Effect (formerly Fluttr), These Green Eyes, and Crash Midnight are all national acts who have opened for them. They have been photographed for the Daily Free Press and the Mad Dog has been featured in the Boston Globe. nsfan67 11:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on Wikipedia:Notability_and_Music_Guidelines for a musical ensemble:
    • Non-notabilities:
      • No nationally charted hit.
      • No gold record.
      • No international concert.
      • No albums on a major label.
      • No feature article about the band in a major music media (photographed for a free student newspaper)
      • Does not contain a member who was part of an extremely notable band (member "Mad Dog" was featured in the Boston Globe but is not part of a notable band)
      • Not a prominent representative of a notable style
      • Has not won a major music award or major competition.
      • Has not performed music for a notable program or media.
      • Has not received airplay by a major radio network.
      • Has not been the subject of a broadcast on a national radio network.
    • Minor notabilities:
      • Allegedly an attraction of the Boston bar scene.
      • Has opened for, and been opened by, various acts (none of which have their own main articles here).
Shawnc 20:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Shawnc's excellent analysis. Stifle 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then move the Nightstalker disambiguation page to this name. -Sean Curtin 07:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all the stubby biographies of people who are not notable outside the band. Thanks for doing the hard work, Shawnc. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 08:35:56Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Get Coins or Buy Diamonds

An upcoming film with no Google hits, by a company with just one Google hit. Fails WP:V and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom and the vote on Morgan Dollar Records below. - Bobet 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Save, self preservation vote. Possefans speak up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.143.150 (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. – Robert 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Talk Show

Web talk show with a generic name, started last month and with three episodes so far.[46] Impossible to Google for, but does not appear to meet WP:WEB. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - although there is actually a TV program called "The Talk Show" that runs on SBS here in Australia, and is in to I think its 7th season now - it is a spin off of the movie show. So if this page could be rewritten to be about the way-more-famous TV show, then I think it warrants a keep. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable in any way. The show Zordrac mentioned would be fine for me if someone can write an article on that. The Movie Show exists already. - Bobet 23:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Stifle 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Save my page! Actually it is Googleable, I've tried it before. Listen to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.143.150 (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. – Robert 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Dollar Records

A "media company from Eugene, Oregon" whose releases consist of a previously deleted band and the talk show and upcoming movie nominated above. Only one Google hit. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, if it does something notable, the article can be rewritten, but until then, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. - Bobet 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, basically empty other than a few links and headings. And agree with Bobet. Stifle 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christophe Richardson

Delete. nn-bio. Google search showed the included links, but basically nothing else.-- Syrthiss 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. What harm could come from keeping this up? I put it up because I'm a big fan of CR's writing and I know he has a small fan base who will probably add to this article if it stays. c4richar 16:40, 8 December 2005 (EST)
    We have guidelines over at WP:BIO as to what qualifies a biographical article to be included on Wikipedia. If you can convince me and the other votes that he passes the bar, then it'll probably get a keep vote. Stifle 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, fails WP:BIO, but not by much. Stifle 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - article itself doesn't address basic issues such as: 1) What is his first name? (it's mentioned only in the article title); 2) what's special about the website that it would be considered notable? (most people's websites are not notable at all); and 3) what is his claim to fame? The article seems to indicate that he is primarily notable for this yet-to-be notable web site. The article said that he "dabbled in photography"; so it is not asserting notability/claim to fame in that arena. Is there something significant missing here? B.Wind 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel Segovia: Alias "el Toro"

Probaly a hoax. No unique google hits. Delete --Aranda 56 20:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verifiable sources provided. "OMG BILLIONAR DRUG MAN" is a pretty tall claim. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable source is given. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio. Stifle 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - ungrammatical attack article or hoax. B.Wind 00:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hangunder

orphaned afd page. informing nominator to visit and explain nomination. --Syrthiss 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I nominated this page for deletion because its signal-to-noise ratio is rather low and I have no sense of humour. --BJS 21:47, 9th December 2005 (UTC)

  • BJAODN Whoever wrote this doesn't know his hangunder from his knurd! --PeteBleackley 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because I am a soul without humor. I have a surfeit of wryness though. --Syrthiss 17:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this a real term from Discworld, rewrite the article to reflect it, otherwise delete. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article itself is nonsense, appearance in Discworld novels is limited to a couple of sentences at best. At the very most, a brief mention in knurd is all it deserves. Confusing Manifestation 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United States of Whatever

This post really has very little if any content of interest. Some of the information is blatently wrong or simply conjecture or rumor. LordFate 20:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This appears to be a notable single. Any factual errors can be corrected. Gamaliel 20:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gamaliel. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been featured in many pop-culture settings. ESkog | Talk 21:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Top 10 single here in Australia. Capitalistroadster 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, sadly, but please delete the single. It's 100x more annoying than crazy frog. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wrong doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Song received a fair amount of air play, if I recall correctly. — RJH 17:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I'm not a huge fan of articles on singles but I guess this passes. Stifle 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sure as hell got a lot of airplay around here. Although that has more to do with the record companies and less to do with the merits of the song. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insurance Guaranty Funds

You have got to be kidding; worse advertisement I have seen since I have been here. Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete --Walter Görlitz 21:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is an advertisement, complete with a "click here for more" hyperlink at the bottom, which I have neutered. This is on the borders of speedy deletion territory. Delete. Uncle G 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NPOV failed, advert, and a couple of other things. Stifle 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Alfredo Lugano Moreno

Article on obscure football player, article badly written and orphan --Mecanismo 21:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not obscure, not orphan anymore (moved to Diego Lugano). Punkmorten 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. 23skidoo 21:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as he is obviously notable, because he plays for São Paulo FC, the South American champion. Carioca 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, not very obscute now. Stifle 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obscure with over 25,000 google results? Rather than AfD, the nom should have just improved the text. -- JJay 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delfino v. Moore

An anon suggested deleting this, I agree. No precedent ever established. Just a superior court case.

N.B. 6 months ago, creator of article (who is the plaintiff) went on a wide vandalism spree, sneaking his non-significant case into 100+ Wikipedia legal articles.

delete

Lotsofissues 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable legal case. Durova 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a legal journal. Stifle 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete completely uninteresting and no relevance or precedent. If author did indeed vandalize 100+ articles then all of these articles should be reverted as well.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Föcking Drests

No Google hits. Bernd Föcking is hardly "well-known" with 13 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, nonsense vanity article about a made-up term with, and can't be written into a meaningful article. - Bobet 23:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom if true; otherwise, delete as joke á la Meet the Fockers. B.Wind 00:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent jock

Neologism? Google only tells about the Patent "Jock Back" G-String. Punkmorten 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I could not find any reference to "one who is skilled in the practice of patent law". Shawnc 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gents, I assure you that "Patent Jock" is not a coined term or a made up word. This term describes a type of patent attorney, and is known most frequently in the patent bar circles. Indeed, in my firm we frequently used this term to denote a patent attorney skilled in the practice of patent law. I first learned of this term several years ago while studying law. I understand Wikipedia's concerns regarding the delisting of new, coined terms, but Patent Jock does not fall in this category. Also, I am not so sure that measuring a term's worth by a google search should be the test for deletion in Wikipedia. For that matter, what is the test (or standard) that one needs to maintan an entry in Wikipedia? Do you need several entries from other folks attesting to the existense of "Patent Jock"? If so, please let me know. Additionally, please let me know what other evidence you need so that the "Patent Jock" wikipedia entry survives the current delisting onslaught. Further, I plan to further edit the "Patent Jock" entry to further define what the term means and would like to know what additional information I can provide to ensure that you do not delist this term. Many thanks.Jhyancey 11:45 PM ET, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A reputable source that asserts the existence of the term should be provided. Please refer to Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:No original research. Shawnc 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, unless verified. Stifle 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As a patent attorney, I think I can speak on this topic.

Shawnc, with all due respect, one who is skilled in the practice of patent law is a great definition of a patent jock. It builds on the standard for reviewing whether a patent is novel and non-obviousness; the government imposes this standard on patent prosecuters or pro se applicants before granting or issuing a patent. Thus, one who is skilled in the practice of patent law is capable of drafting patent applications.

A patent jock not only prosecutes patent applications before the USPTO, but has the skill to litigate patents, and review patents for potential infringement. It is often necessary for a patent jock to have a science background, as being a patent agent or patent attorney requires the same.

I believe I even have seen this term in print; it may have been in a novel having a patent agent or patent attorney as a character. I recognize the term as being used often in Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York patent circles.

After a quick google search, I found the following:

http://www.bakerbotts.com/9/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=98609148-a306-4faa-8b42-1f0e376f15d0

http://www.patentjock.com/ --Patentgeek 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Verified, Do not Delete.

Additional evidence from a US Patent Law Professor: Patent Jock: An attorney registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and practicing patent law as a vocation. Patent Jocks are an elite and tiny fragment of all United States attorneys. Patent Jocks are recognized for their rare skill and extraordinary intellect. The origin of the term is not clear but was practiced as early as 1990 by Paul S. Angello of Stoel Rives Boley Jones and Grey, Portland, Oregon. Posted by Jhyancey 12:45 PM ET, 12 December 2005 (UTC) on behalf of US Patent Law Professor.

  • Keep Although the sites referenced by User:Patentgeek are not of the standard we usually require, I think that in this case the term is so specialized that there may not be any such references. As such, I believe it's best to defer to those who know. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 123Rebates

Alexa rank - 2,871,501. Punkmorten 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as no other claims to notoriety other than web site popularity, and alexa rank is woefully insufficient. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for an obscure website. - Bobet 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. feydey 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Stifle 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete above reasons are sufficient. Cool3 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. --Computerjoe 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] André Delhaye

Article on obscure portuguese movie director. Google test shows 366 results, being the majority of the results from wikipedia and it's mirrors. --Mecanismo 21:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I am portuguese and I never heard of a André Delhaye. His obscurity is clear in the google test and also in the real life. --Mecanismo 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems pretty minor, but this is probably enough. User:Mecanismo, arguing that "I am portuguese and I never heard of him" isn't really good grounds for deletion. There are lots of notable people I've never personally heard of. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zordrac. ESkog | Talk 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Stifle 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water Taxi Beach

Orphan article on obscure commercial operation. Probably astroturf advertisement/spam. --Mecanismo 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - real place, actual location, although I would consider renaming to Water Taxi Beach, New York to avoid confusion. There may well be other Water Taxi Beaches. The idea of a "temporary beach" doesn't sound common or not. How unusual it is is actually what makes it more encyclopaedic, not less. Something being unique or revolutionary is very notable. It meets the criteria in terms of media coverage too [49], [50], [51], indeed there is a whole page full of news reviews here [52]. Its almost like trying to argue that Vienna isn't really worth an article since not many people visit there. Uniqueness guys. Sheesh. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Zordrac. Stifle 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, or at least merge with Long Island City, Queens. -- JJay 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dulaney High School

Article on a obscure high school. Void of encyclopedic value. Article is orphan and poorly written --Mecanismo 21:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, meets the criteron established by the new WP:SCH proposal. However it could use more citation.Gateman1997 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it fails all of the proposed WP:SCH tests. It is an obscure school and the article deserves a deletion. --Mecanismo 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't misrepresent the proposal. This article has more the 3-5 sentences of information that are not generic. It meets at least one of the keep criteron. Don't mistake this for me being happy about it. I'd delete this school if I thought it was constructive, but going counter to the WPSCH proposal isn't productive at this juncture.Gateman1997 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is an article which is both factual and informative about a notably distinguished Maryland high school. No valid reason to delete has been suggested. Silensor 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCH, according to which it has enough to meet the requirements for a stand-alone article (e.g. not be merged). More seems to be available through google (I haven't had time to sort through it all, to figure out exactly what's worth mentioning). --Rob 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all valid High Schools. — RJH 17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, schools are generally notable. Stifle 21:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we do not erase high schools also why do you say it is orphaned or poorly written it looks nice to me Yuckfoo 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please stop nominating high schools. -- JJay 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This high school appears to be notable and meets WP:SCH criteria. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - well-written, verifiable/NPOV, has notable alumni, is honored by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program... and it's interesting to read that so many of their students got passing AP scores. --Idont Havaname 20:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 12:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I live in a different part of Maryland and I sure as hell know of this school ... when I first saw the AfD title I thought, "Hey, isn't that in Maryland?" Yep! If it's notable to Marylanders, it's gotta be notable worldwide. So keep. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Churchkey

the term fails the google test. It is probably made up crap. On top of that, it is badly written, it is an orphan article and has almost none information --Mecanismo 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You're kidding me, right? You've never heard of a churchkey? Some people call them bottle openers. While it's a real term, it's hardly a topic for an encyclopedia article. So I'll vote delete. You can call me Al 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • FYE, here's one I found from WWII http://mpmuseum.org/ww2equipment/ww2personal/churchkey.jpg . I also direct the nominator to Bottle opener which has a redirect from Church key. I'll change my vote to redirect to Bottle opener. You can call me Al 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That picture is not of the type of device described in this article. Uncle G 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't believe that a spelling mistake is a candidate for a redirection. Therefore I believe that a delete is the best action to be taken --Mecanismo 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • You should, because it is, especially if an editor has been so sure of the spelling that xe has created an entire article at the title. Uncle G 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Commonly spelled as one word, User:Mecanismo. Besides, our rules on redirects explicitly say that redirects from common spelling mistakes are a good idea in any case. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Regionalism. Durova 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The device described in this article is not a bottle opener. A bottle opener opens bottles. Although a "church key" is one particular type of bottle opener, this church key is a device that opens tin cans, and is nothing to do with bottles. Take a look at the picture that the article links to. It is even distinct from a can opener, as a church key is used for opening tin cans in an entirely different way to the way that a can opener opens cans, and is generally used on rectangular cans, where can openers are usually unwieldy. Keep. Uncle G 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crypticfirefly 06:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect --Elliskev 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is quite okay. Stifle 21:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with can opener, bottle opener, or both. B.Wind 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki to Wiktionary. The term churchkey (space or no) is near-universal in some parts of the United States. Haikupoet 04:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect will do. Scoo 07:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please give some thought before calling something made-up crap and resorting to AfD. -- JJay 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is the real deal. Used in various militaries as it's cheaper to manufacture, much smaller to carry around, and if you know how to use it right, it's faster than a regular can opener ... better for eating sardines while taking incoming fire. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivoirity

Nonsence article about a obscure term which fails the google test. Article is orphan, badly written and lacking content. --Mecanismo 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, events in Côte d'Ivoire don't show up that often in the news, but this term's been used by U.S. Department of State, which sounds like a reputable enough source for me. If anyone knows a French translation of the term, it could help in showing how far it has spread. And I don't get where the claim that it was poorly written came from, I wikified it now, and didn't have much to fix. And remember that systemic bias is bad. - Bobet 23:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, the same article exists on the French wikipedia (Ivoirité, i interwikied it). Googling that gives over 40,000 results. Something leading in part to a civil war is pretty notable. - Bobet 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The French article on the Côte d'Ivoire civil war discusses the topic in depth. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, I don't think it is salvageable. Stifle 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, it was also mentioned in the Ivorian Civil War article here. I added a wikilink so it's not even an orphan anymore. - Bobet 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- important article that should be expanded. -- JJay 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. This (or its French version Ivoirité) is the term that is being thrown around in the immigration debate in the Ivory Coast. Pilatus 02:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ivoirité (Ivoirity) is related to the precursors to apartheid in South Africa, as such it is an important element in the history of the Civil War in Cote d'Ivoire. I hope and pray that peace and harmony soon make Ivoirité less of a current issue and more of an historical one, in which case I might support it being merged into the Civil War in Cote d'Ivoire article. Alan J Shea 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Diana Cavendish

This article makes no claim to notability, other than the title "Lady" and, arguably, the surname Cavendish. The article merely lists her parents and who she was married to. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of genealogical entries. Delete. Sliggy 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. She is linked to Robert Boothby, but with only 78 google hits for "Diana Cavendish", she is not notable enough. --Fang Aili 16:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fang Aili. Stifle 21:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on current definition of notability. Though if wikipedia were British she would be allowed. Noble birth is enough - gets you straight into "Who's Who" with the statesmen and Nobel Prize winners. Jameswilson 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khaitan and Co

"This article reads like an advertisement. It cites no sources and has never been edited since its creation. Because of poor formatting I believe it is spam.DeleteTheRingess 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Spam. Get it out of here. It's probably a copywrite vio in any case. (Oops, forgot to sign. --Fang Aili 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

  • Delete. Obnoxious spam. Jtmichcock 02:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, advertizement. Strongly suspect a copyvio, I'll have a check. Stifle 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup, it's a copyvio from here. Tagged. Stifle 20:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted (nn-bio) by User:RHaworth . Jamie 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dory Schultz

What the hell is this crap? Honestly. If someone can make an argument that this guy is actually notable, then fine. Otherwise, delete. Fang Aili 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't even know what to say? (missed to sign my post, sorry Bergsten)
  • Delete agreed --Mecanismo 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Obviously. --Clay Collier 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed it's just crap. Sliggy 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is either a joke or a mild personal attack -Meegs 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — vanity hoax. — RJH 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tulip Advertising

"This article cites no sources. The author does not assert why a failed venture is of encyclopedic importance. I guess the author figured that anyone interested would google them, to try to figure out what was so important about the business that it merited an entry in Wikipedia.DeleteTheRingess 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, being a failed business venture isn't notable. No mention in any major media, I couldn't find mentions to this outside the creators' blogs. - Bobet 23:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, failed. Stifle 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the author's writing cited above. B.Wind 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 without merging. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crash of the Barberi

Article on obscure film which fails the google test miserably (49 search results) --Mecanismo 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Andrew J. Barberi. The only mention of the supposed film that google finds is on one message board. The rest of the results only mention the incident. - Bobet 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect per Bobet. Stifle 20:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonlance continuity issues

Wholly unencyclopedic. This is a list of random continuity errors in the Dragonlance series, and doesn't even bother to pretend to not be a list of indiscriminate trivia. This belongs on a DL fanpage, not Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as patent nonsense) --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Sean

Seems completely untrue. A search for the supposed inventor of this unit of measurement turns up merely one hit on Google. --Spring Rubber 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not only is this pointless from my point of view (as a physicist and mathematician), the author of the article changed the vote of the above user to say it was true... thus the article loses all credibility. See The sean equation. Deskana 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - By the way, I didn't think we preformed a lot of measurements in the mathematical world? Bergsten 23:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right... and the natural unit for angles is radians, this article says "Of course the standard measurement for angles is degrees"... sounds like a big hoax to me! Deskana 23:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unverifiable, probably a hoax. ManoaChild 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - and stop vandalizing this afd. Rhobite 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've seen Afds vandalized before, but never have I seen someone so persistent as to create multiple sockpuppet accounts, even ones similar in name to the original (no suspicion raised there!), just to vandalize an Afd nomination for his or her own joke article. I guess I'll just take that as an honor in a strange sort of way. --Spring Rubber 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - They're even adding new prose to the original article. However, both the original author and the other author signed the end of their article... it's obvious that its the same author trying to get their lies kept on Wikipedia. Deskana 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Is a Sean supposed to be the 2nd degree? Hoax. — RJH 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a hoax, I am guessing. Stifle 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as rubbish. Jasmol 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Cool3 00:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Mushroom 01:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as part of a pattern of "Sean" hoaxes: cf [53]. -- JimR 06:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious hoax; not even very funny alas. Bill 17:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax and vandalized Afd.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evilswitch

Delete. 56 google hits, is a webportal to RuneScape notable enough to merit its own article?-- Syrthiss 15:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - anon creator of article 69.14.84.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed afd notices from page as well as removed the main link on the log to this page. --Syrthiss 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no it isn't. ESkog | Talk 00:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per ESkog. Stifle 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I challenge anyone to find a reason to keep this. This is a blatent advert of a useless scamming website which doesn't even deserve a mention on the page RuneScape. Speedy this. J.J.Sagnella 11:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inability to calculate gravitational force between objects having virtual center of masses

This is original research, based on a misapplication of Newton's Law of Gravity. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies to Newton's law of gravitation.) ManoaChild 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Duplicate of Controversies to Newton's law of gravitation, patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, misunderstanding of Newtonian mechanics. Sliggy 22:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, giving false information under an unwieldy title isn't what an encyclopedia is for. - Bobet 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nearly nonsensical, clearly original research. No Account 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic - the editor purports to start a discussion rather than provide information. --Bachrach44 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original essay masquerading as authentic. Jtmichcock 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 1) Original research. 2) Factually incorrect. 3) Barely coherent nonsense. 4) Seems to be a request for discussion rather than an encyclopedia entry. 5) Stupid title that nobody would ever, ever look up. Reyk 08:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense and hopelesly unencyclopedic form. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It isn't nonsense in the Wikipedea sense (WP:CSD), but is not verifiable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Fanning

I can't verify any of the information in the article- the article doesn't provide enough basic information to do basic fact checking (like dates for the author). None of the books mentioned turn up in Amazon, or anywhere else I could find on the web. Unless the article can be NPOV'ed and some references for who this person is can be found, I'd recommend it be deleted Clay Collier 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep/delist from AfD - Looking more closely at the history, it appears that the article that I AfD'ed overwrote a previous stub on a verifiable writer. I've reverted to the previous version, and everything seems to be fine now. --Clay Collier 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was clearly keep (8/1, discounting the unsigned vote). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KMD

Article on obscure band from the 90s. Google test fails miserably (244 hits) --Mecanismo 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable." Very important group to serious hip-hop fans and historians. Sleepypanda 23:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's precisely the reason this wiki should be maintained. This "BAND" (hiphop group) should stay because of the lack of Google hits. There is a following (if cult) that would like to see some sort of article maintained with relevancy, as KMD's founder, Zev Love X (who is now gaining popularity as MF DOOM) will look for some sort of info on his earlier work. Nothing in the wiki is inaccurate. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.184.206 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. They've got an allmusic.com entry and they've put out more than two albums, including one from a major label (Elektra). Gamaliel 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. allmusic entry shows them to be reasonably important. First album was on Elektra; one member died early; second album controversial; close ties to very important group 3rd Bass. Easily notable enough for me. Bikeable 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ""Keep"" I agree with sleepypanda. Very notable to hip hop fans and historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.157.71 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as per Gamaliel. --Merovingian 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"KEEP" This is an influential group that may not be prominent, but they are influential and one of their members has gone on to revcieve a large cult following. 67.170.58.103 04:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC) very notable. group has a cult-like following. MF DOOM is now highly notable (Dangerdoom, Madvillainy, etc.

  • Strong Keep. Notable and verifiable band, meets WP:MUSIC. Users should thoroughly check notablility criteria before listing articles for deletion, so as not to waste everyone's time. This is only one of many articles on very well-known hip-hop acts that have been listed for deletion by users who apparently don't know any better. --FuriousFreddy 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per FuriousFreddy. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as patent nonsense). --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The sean equation

I have difficultly believing this, as both a physicist and a mathematician. I see no practical use at all. Googling "the sean equation" gives no results, googling "sean equation" gives 8 which don't seem to be relevant. Deskana 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Please also delete Sean Moffit along with this. - Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Syrthiss 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Ifnord 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above Barneyboo (Talk) 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and as probable hoax. ManoaChild 23:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- appears to be a hoax. Reyk 08:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax Bergsten 16:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Simplfy angles by dividing by two? Hoax. — RJH 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete rubbish. Stifle 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete joke. B.Wind 00:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Mushroom 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: yet another A Sean hoax. -- JimR 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.iranfootballceter.com

Blatant spam and vanity (for a website with an Alexa rank of 1,822,399). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete For some reason I can't seem to access alexa right now, but I'll take Mike Rosoft's word on it. The forum only has 614 users, falling well short of the 5000 needed to meet WP:WEB. --Bachrach44 23:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly written vanity. StealthFox 06:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ad. Stifle 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate relations during the Spring and Autumn period

What is this? Very short, not making sense, but one step short of patent nonsense. Unless someone can interpret... DJ Clayworth 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands now, but I added a cleanup tag hoping someone who knows more about what this is can write some context. Ifnord 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC) The article has been fleshed out. Vote changed to keep. Ifnord 18:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is not very short and it makes a lot of sense.--Jiang 20:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Simply idiotic nomination, do not nominate articles that are one minute old. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has improved and makes sense. --Hurricane111 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mallory Lienberger

I don't think this actress is notable enough to warrant a page. 43 hits on google but none appear to be about her Bill 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN bio. For all we know, those are local community productions. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there seems to be a series of similar stubs on similarly non-notable folks. Stifle 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mantalk

Non-notable sex chat line. Advertising. Ifnord 23:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This sounds like plenty of other phone sex services, and sounds like an advertisement for this particular one. Mo0[talk] 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Stifle 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tory Green

This actor doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a page Bill 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN bio. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Howcheng. Stifle 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Lauren

an article about a non-notable actor. A tag was placed on the article asking for an explanation of importance but the author removed the tag Bill 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete zero notability and event the alledged "movie" she was supposedly in has zero hits.--MONGO 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above Avalon 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — a couple of bit roles in movies. Nothing notable. — RJH 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. Stifle 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maresy

"Maresy has been used as a name after the popular folk, nursery rhyme "Mares Eat Oats"...." Then an etymological "study" of the word roots. I don't think this name is particularly notable, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Joyous | Talk 23:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per nom. --Valermos 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete poem from which name is derived is even a redlined link...no notability.--MONGO 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Step Behind

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC; looks very promotional. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the lack of notability is obvious and each "member" name is just a redlined link.--MONGO 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — The page is almost entirely promotional in tone. None of their accomplishments appear to be particularly notable. If they ever make it big, a new page can be built then. :) — RJH 16:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable band, with the usual request for a speedy category on the subject. Stifle 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sadness

The bulk of this short article is personal musing on literary ideas and traditions of sadness. Very POV. Poetic, but not very useful or appropriate. pomegranate 23:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete it's not an encyclopedia article. Steve.
  • Delete somewhat purple-proseish essay. Denni ☯ 01:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not performance art. Jtmichcock 02:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Depression (mood) (which is what the article was after the third edit, after having been redirects to Suffering and Grief) —Bmdavll talk 06:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly the product of a madman. -Naif 12:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Depression (mood), previously it was a redirect to Suffering. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Depression (mood). Makes sense. --Aucaman 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, somewhat notable thesis statements and seems intelligentlly written, could find some use in the Blues article, or some other articles related to depression art.-MegamanZero 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Depression (mood) as above. Shawnc 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Depression (mood), I think the style of the content would negate any reason for a merge; note that user Naif above seems to be the principal creator of the article.
  • keep alive Maybe it's not right for an encyclopedia, but it is, I believe, a just way of describing sadness. Is it possible to make a sort of feeling directory which holds these sorts of thoughts? I think it would be a shame to delete it all togheter. Demian Sat Dec. 10th 2005.

I agree with Demian. I found this info useful. 13-DEC-2005

  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Turbulence modeling. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turbulence Modeling

exact duplicate of Turbulence modeling, which has the better name Salsb 23:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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