Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Speedily Deleted independently of this AFD. - SoM 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doodleprints

Non-notable created term. Jake 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can make it an encyclopedic article, which it currently isn't.--MONGO 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity neologism. --Clay Collier 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oh c'mon I use doodleprints all the time. Well, actually I never do. Delete Croat Canuck 01:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doodelete - article itself claims that the term is a neologism. BD2412 T 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. ERcheck 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Speedily As per all of the above... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a work of fiction. / Ezeu 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteTheRingess 05:46, 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The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn).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 ] 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West End Girls (band)

Band does not meet WP:MUSIC no albums etc. There is even a group with the same name [1]. feydey 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC). Hmmm looks like I missed the "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country" -- as their single reached a number 3 in Swedish single chart. Damn these late nights. Keep feydey 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep one of the very few notable cover bands. By the way, I've heard their take on Domino Dancing and it's actually pretty good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep minor notability.--MONGO 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 16:22, 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 (nothing to merge). --bainer (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] String manipulation

dicdef. —R. Koot 00:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to String (computer science). Gazpacho 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Makes sense... Redirect to String (computer science). —R. Koot 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above.--MONGO 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect per above. Jtmichcock 02:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Bmdavll _talk 03:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think an article just about string manipulation is warranted as it is a varied and complex topic. An article that covers the basics of string manipulation as well as the type of tools that exists and specific issues that are applicable to various programming languages can be a resourceful addition. This is a notable enough topic to have its own article. I don't think it should be included in the existing article on strings because of article size limits and because there is precedence for this kind of sub-topic to have it's own article. Maybe a rename with (computers) is in order though. The only explanation given for a redirect is that another article about strings exist, none of the issues I have raised have been addressed. I'd like the other voters to describe their computer programming language experience before their vote is considered. The article that people want to redirect to doesn't cover string manipulation. Perhaps we should also redirect regular expressions too then yes? Also the article in question is a stub and should have a stub tag. (Bjorn Tipling 20:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
  • I respectfully disagree. String manipulation falls into two broad categories. First you have the high-level approaches: these are already discussed in their own articles, and those are linked from the "String algorithms" section of String (computer science). Second, you have the very low-level approaches. And those are very language-specific, or even implementation-specific. What middle ground can you identify that can actually support an entire article?

    Even if there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the subject, this isn't it. Anyone who can write one is welcome to - and will remain welcome to, and trivially able to, even if it is redirected. So nothing is lost by redirecting, while nothing is gained by keeping. — Haeleth

    • Redirecting an article because it's not up to a standard of quality is not warranted. What is warranted is that the article be improved. Ironically, in your argument to redirect you have given an example of the complexity of string manipulation. Had the information you have just provided been in the article from the beginning I doubt it would have ever been nominated for deletion. Perhaps instead of voting to delete or redirect you should vote to keep and improve the article. (Bjorn Tipling 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC))Talk 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have programming experience in Assembler, BASIC, C, C++, Haskell, Java and PHP. I listed this article on AfD, because I did not believe it could be expanded beyond a dicdef. If it can be, I believe it should be in the string (computer science) article, until if the treatment of string manipulation becomes too large, it can be split at that time. —R. Koot 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It sounds as if some here would welcome this page if it had more information. That is why there is a stub tag. What this article needs is a stub tag, and not a redirect. Just so everyone knows, I am not the author of this article and only stumbled upon it while browsing the VFD page. (Bjorn Tipling 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Redirect per Gazpacho. — Haeleth Talk 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep if updated. Stringology (which would be better name for the article) is quite established term and area of study: see stringology groups in Prague or Haifa or Helsinky. The article should cover basics of stringology and be named so (and no, I unfortunately don't have time to write it down). Redirect to String (computer science) would be misleading, the area is much bigger and more sophisticated than regex or what is described in String (computer science), better to delete the text if no one updates it and wait until relevant content gets created. Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Gazpacho Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Gazpacho. Does not deserve its own article, I think. Stifle 22:43, 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 both articles. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GadiArchive, G-Radio

Weird vanity hoaxes about implausible inventions related to the recent Gadi Lifshitz afd - Bobet 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. As the inventor was deleted it seems his inventions should go as well. Movementarian 06:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if it's not a hoax, it isn't notable enough yet to warrent an article -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Malo --Mecanismo 11:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable self-promotion. (Bjorn Tipling 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete - for both. GadiArchive: self promotion. G-Radio: no evidence that this 'invention' exists or even that it has been published, so non-notable and unencyclopedic. ++Lar 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Malo. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:19, 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 Delete, as a hoax that reaches the level of vandalism. --Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Hoskinson

Doing very little research on this article will show that it is obviously fake. Doing a little more research will show that Charles Hoskinson created this entry as a joke, so that he could tell people to look him up in Wikipedia. Usage of Wikipedia in this way is very much against the aim of the project. It's essentially a fictional vanity. Nonforma 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I'll take your word for it. It doesn't seem notable to me. Croat Canuck 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be completely farcical. Relevent talk pages with article clearly demostrate that the article is a hoax.--MONGO 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. m --Clay Collier 01:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roguesci

Comment: Completing an AFD nomination by 165.189.91.148. feydey 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam and not encyclopedic anyway.--MONGO 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Croat Canuck 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Jtmichcock 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Spam. Mat334 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (Bjorn Tipling 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)).

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Take a look at [2]. Apparently the site is being accused of harboring a terrorist network. That may make a good article with some sort of actual information, and give it some importance. --Aleron235 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hardly, given that the information is given on the site itself (and a couple of posts on mailing lists that they have written themselves). Delete / Ezeu 03:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delay judgement The article is clearly not finished and the site is seen by many (not least its members) as a test of what accurate, yet use unspecific, information the public should be allowed to know in these post 9/11 days.
  • Yes, I am slightly bothered by the AfD vote occuring one day after the start of the article, 80.229.21.128. In the future, please make an account if you wish to vote/comment on AfDs.--Aleron235 02:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thankyou. Have added an aspect of the forum not currently included by the original author. I hope and think the entry will turn quite quickly into a balenced look at the site and that given the content and history this cannot be considered either spam or not notable. Furthurmore since names and faces can be attached to some of the casualties this makes it a much tougher test of free speech than merely theoretical, and that neither side of the argument can be easily dismissed, nor should be overlooked.--Ambix 15:11, 11 December 2005 (GMT)
• Keep Please don't be so quick to dismiss this as spam, as just like The Wikipedia, the aim of RogueSci is the free spread of information, it is not the aim of this article's creator, myself, or any other RogueSci member to generate traffic for us or further any commercial gain, we seek merely to regain contact with people who beleive that RogueSci no longer exists due to censorship of the site by some ISPs, governments, e.t.c. Ezeu, if you'd actually took some time to read the article you'd have learned that the site itself is being blocked by several major ISPs, and that's why this article was started, it is by no means finished... I ask all of you to allow this article to remain for now, so that RogueSci can get in touch with its missing members and begin to do some serious work on this Wiki entry. We have a lot of good information to contribute, and are not seeking to simply spam this site or generate traffic for RogueSci. Sorry for not making an account (but no, I'm not the same person as 80.229.21.128), I'll get to that later, but it does say that anyone can contribute to an AfD discussion. I would also like to note as an afterthought that other such sites discussing similar information such as TOTSE.com are allowed Wiki entries, even when their content is of a lower level of intellect and more focused around the uses of such information for crime and vandalism, rather than being focused around scientific discussion and the spread of information. -Xyz, RogueSci.org 202.72.172.136 09:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. This is an encyclopedia, not a link list for bomb makers. Opening the actual site doesn't give much confidence in the accuracy of this statement from their spokesman "around the uses of such information for crime and vandalism, rather than being focused around scientific discussion and the spread of information" Xyz.

A quick check of the site brings up quite the opposite, I quote:

"The device is constructed out of (preferably) non-metallic materials, with a mechanical or chemical delay, inserted in the appropriate orifice (and it's non-gender-specific, so we're being equal-opportunity!), and locked into place. The device is such that, when locked, it expands to such a diameter as to be unremovable without surgery (assuming you're not using it on a fisting fetishist), and begins the timer or chemical reaction that will result, if not removed, in someones ass being seperated from their body in a spectaculary lethal manner." Nbk

"Hey, the hostages are expendable, so why does it have to be removable?" Xyz

I dont trust that legitamacy of this wiki entry, and its promotion of illegal, immoral activities.(waspt 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).

• The thread you have quoted above was an attempt to see things from the perspective of terrorists, to get inside their minds so to speak, and through that gain a deeper understanding of methods they may use. As such, it is totally out of context in the way you have used it. Think about it, if we really had terrorist intentions, would we post them on the internet for the whole world to see? I don't know about you Waspt, but I wouldn't. We don't promote illegal or immoral activity, we merely seek to discuss it and draw attention to it. Call it investigative journalism turned up a notch. Information should be free for everyone to know, because an informed population is one less susceptible to terror. RogueSci is also hardly a site "for bomb makers" as you put it, in fact, I challenge you to go and start a thread at RogueSci even so much as hinting at intentions of really making a bomb, just see how long it takes for your account to be banned and the thread closed. I am also by no means RogueSci's spokesperson, so please do not label me as such - I'm just someone who chooses to stand up for what I beleive is a worthy cause. -Xyz 202.72.172.136 07:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • If your not the "spokesman" then I'm not sure why you care. This entry seems to have ulterier motives as evidenced by the very thread generated in that forum to discuss creating a wiki entry. I pull a quote from the thread, which discusses the wiki:

"It'd be great for keeping track of 'recipes' as, try as I might, it's damn near impossible to do so here. How many variations on the AP process alone? Christ...dozens, if not a hundred. Then sources for the process, testing for purity, VoD and expansion values, videos and pictures, etc., etc. All this is scattered over dozens of threads over the years. If it was all consolidated into just one Wiki entry, it'd be huge! Instead of telling a newbie to UTFSE (which isn't always helpful), you point them to a Wiki entry and let them learn on their own. If they follow the 'recipes' without killing themselves (which they shouldn't because our info is CORRECT), they'll be flush with success and want to tell someone about it. Where would they then go to?" Nbk

Its said within that very forum that this wiki entry is to be used to post "recipes" for people to follow, which I can only assume to be bomb recipes. I mean REALLY if you are going to abuse wiki to post bomb making recipes, you dont discuss it openly then link into it from here. Thats just dumb.waspt 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).

• • • You have either not read the thread from the start waspt, or not understood it. The thread starts,

"Has anyone any thoughts about hosting an E&W wikipedia site alongside the forum"

The key words here are 'hosting' and 'alongside'. The thread is suggesting that someone use software downloaded from the internet to host their own wikipedia and discussing what that should contain. Not that they should dump information onto wikipedia.org. There is even discussion as to where the site should be hosted! Noone there has suggested that the wikipedia.org entry should contain any methods of anykind at all. --Ambix 10:30, 12 December 2005 (GMT)

• • • • Waspt, I already explained why I care, if you'd taken the time to read what I'd said. I don't have to be a spokesperson for something to support it. Ever heard of the phrase "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me"? For the last time, WE ARE NOT A SITE FOR BOMB RECIPES, even though TOTSE.com is, and yet you allow them a Wiki entry. As I said, I challenge you to go to RogueSci and ask about "bombmaking" without getting your account deleted and your IP range banned for good. Likewise, feel free to delete any "bombmaking recipes", whatever that means, that appear in our Wiki entry. If any do appear then they certainly won't have been added by any member of RogueSci. If this is about censorship, you will find larger quantities of far more detailed information about the manufacture and deployment of conventional explosives, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, e.t.c. at the US Patent Office website than anywhere else on the web. Go censor them. -Xyz 07:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Comment Censoring RogueSci would be stupid, and the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. Let the article develop. As for the complaints that bomb recipes might be posted, well, search for any common term for pretty much any explosive on wikipedia, and you get a result. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Explosive_chemicals ) Try "nitroglycerin", and skip down to the "Preperation" section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerine#Preparation ) If someone posts a recipe here, it should be moved to the right place, rather than causing this rather interesting thread to be killed. '

• • • • • • ^ Words of wisdom in the post above, thankyou anonymous ^ -Xyz 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per MONGO-Mat334 inclusive. Stifle 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Stifle for appropriate name. Delete

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ova Prima

• del Nonnotable joke. Despite being named "web hoax" is sits in the web largely unnoticed for quite some time, with about 150 unique google hits. mikka (t) 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the edit history for this article goes back for 4 years, but it appears to lack much notability today so I would concur with a vote to delete.--MONGO 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for an nn joke (It's listed at [3], and its mission statement is "to provide funding for research efforts that build a body of scientific evidence showing the egg came first.") —Bmdavll _talk 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Let's be serious now...this doesn't sound like its trying to be a serious article. Delete, please.-MegamanZero 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It was a weekly ha-ha mass forwarded through e-mail. Well, the thing about the weekly ha-ha is that it's gone by the time it's noticed. I'm sure people said/thought, at the time, "Well, if no one remembers it in a year, we can remove it." It has been four years. No one remembers it. (And, incidentally, there was a "ova prima" theory for a while that said that humans come from a woman's egg alone, that the sperm is merely a sort of activator to the egg, and that the person is fully formed inside the egg, needing only the food or spark of the sperm to grow. Inside the female persons inside the eggs are eggs that contain within them fully formed people, and some are female, who have within them eggs with.... The idea was that Eve had the entire run of humanity in her, and that is how original sin could be passed on. It was a minority theory, but Laurence Sterne satirized it in Tristram Shandy.) Geogre 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. (Bjorn Tipling 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete as non-notable. Turnstep 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per mikka. Stifle 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable Sethie 18:48, 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 merge and redirect (keep and merge votes were equal, but seeing as many keeps were changed to merge as the debate progressed, I saw no problems with merging straight away). bainer (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Life Alliance

Lacks notability, however, switching this from a speedy delete tag to bring it to a vote.--MONGO 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note - this is a duplicate article. There are two articles about the same party, one at Pro-Life Alliance and one at ProLife Party. The actual name of the party, according to their website is ProLife Alliance, which is currently a redirect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• If this is a duplicate of an existing article, isn't that actually a pretty good reason to delete/redirect?--Aolanonawanabe 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I brought this here for a vote only because I saw it was speedy tagged...but I vote to Keep and expand tag it to bring it up speed.--MONGO 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree not very notable. Croat Canuck 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It deserves just as much attention as the Labour party. Chooserr
• Delete, there is no content here, essentially an excuse for the article creator to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:It's not to preach about abortion, but to give information on a political party. Also Aolanonawanabe has opposed me on every level...and I believe it's been nominated only out of spite. Chooserr

• Comment: I didn't even nominate it--Aolanonawanabe 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: You did for speedy deletion or Mongo wouldn't have changed it to a regular delete. [4] Chooserr

• Comment This is not a blog, you can't just go around creating POV forks that serve as an excuse for you to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but an article about a political party that actually exists simply isn't a POV fork. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Groups lawsuit here invalidated much of Britain's reproduction law. Jtmichcock 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Merge with ProLife Party per below. Jtmichcock 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, improve, and be vigilant against POV. Very small politcal party, but 20,000+ votes in 2004 election per BBC, and we have decent articles on parties that got fewer votes (Forward Wales, The Common Good). Bikeable 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle_G. Bikeable 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve. A magazine only needs about 5000 subscribers to be notable. If this party garnered 20,000 votes, I'd say it's notable enough for an article. --Elliskev 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has at least one more BBC article (past the above): [5]. Do the people who argue lack of notability really think that's consistent with some of the points in the last few Keep votes? I urge you to reconsider. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle G below. -- SCZenz 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Less notable figures/ideas/etc remain without any threat of deletion. This is supposed to be a resource for information. GreatGatsby 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: What information does the article contain? Seeing as how the only content is a single unsourced quote?--Aolanonawanabe 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

    It's a stub, with one NPOV sentence about what the party believes. I agree the quote needs to be reformatted and sourced (it's from their website), and it needs to be tagged as a stub. None of these are reasons to delete. -- SCZenz 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I say, but with the following changes:

1. Get rid of that unsourced quote.
2. Put a political party stub on the page.
3. Add some content that assures notability.

Done, done and done! But as per Uncle G, I change my vote to merge now. --ParkerHiggins 09:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable, but needs improvement JG of Borg 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Could definitely use improvement, but I see absolutely no point in deleting it. --Jakes18 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 34,000+ Google hits and a BBC article make it notable enough for me. If it is in fact the first "pro-life" party in Europe then definitely notable. —Bmdavll _talk 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SCZenz. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I see this as a stub and not a vfd page. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the current version which includes stub info and both BBC sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. This is certainly notable enough for an article. AnnH ^(talk) 09:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It just needs more information, without forgetting NPOV. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable. Could those who say that this party is not notable please defend their position, as those who think it is notable have? Logophile 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Corse it's notable, and they've actually been quite controversial at times! XYaAsehShalomX 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to ProLife Party, where we have covered this political party for almost two years. Uncle G 15:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as Uncle G says.. -max rspct 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge ditto --Petros471 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious KEEP! Dwain 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. (Bjorn Tipling 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Obvious MERGE! per Uncle G. — Haeleth Talk 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A political party that has any base of support is worth having in Wikipedia. --Aleron235 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • On second thought, after reading the comments and rest of the votes more thoroughly, Merge with the existing article.--Aleron235 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep This article is about an appearantly up-and-coming party. --Shanedidona 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Why is this here? -- JJay 03:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Keep voters: this is a duplicate article. It already exists at ProLife Party. That might not have been why it was nominated here, but it turns out... there's no point having two articles about the same party, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  I promise you it will be merged after this AfD in any case. A merge and redirect requires no AfD or other vote, at least not in such an obvious case. So while voting "keep" over "merge" is silly, it's not binding. -- SCZenz 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge - Uncle G is spot on as ever. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  ??? per nominator?? on an AfD? Keep? --Elliskev 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  MONGO has written at the top that he votes keep, apparently based on all the new evidence, and stated that he brought it here because it was speedy-delete tagged. -- SCZenz 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  Got it. Missed that. --Elliskev 14:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and merge' the articles together. Stifle 22:50, 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT. FCYTravis 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Group 5 motorsport

Clear advertisement, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as it is advertising and appears to be at least partially a copyvio [6]--MONGO 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse us.. the intent is to build a HISTORY on our company. Feel free to purchase your products elsewhere. We have a LONG history in car shows, drag racing and track racing. We have edited the page. We do not feel as if this is advertising simply because we are attempting to build a history on the achievements that we have made and the contributions we've made to the industry. We have plenty of advertising so we did not intend this to be advertising. We have been a corner stone in the automotive performance and racing industry from it's inception in 1990. Many years PRIOR to the creatation of the store. We have a heavy back ground in RECORD BREAKING race cars and SHOW WINNING vehicles. It was not our intention to make this about advertising, rather to inform other enthusiasts of who we are and where we came from. Thank you for listening.--Group5motorsport 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that articles meet a standard of notability, and the article did not assert such. If you wish to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic tone, describing what makes Group 5 Motorsport an encyclopedic entity, please feel free to rewrite the article, in which case I will reopen the AfD. FCYTravis 02:15, 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 speedily deleted as nonsense. FCYTravis 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beerty

Neologism. — A.M. 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete utter nonsense qualifies as a speedy.--MONGO 01:39, 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. A redirect has been created, pointing to Gratis Internet. Mindmatrix 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free iPod

Spam. — A.M. 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam advertising.--MONGO 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam it is. Gazpacho 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this as spam. However, this marketing technique has become pretty ubiquitous (at least on college campuses). I bet someone could squeeze some encyclopedia out of it. ESkog | ^Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. --King of Hearts 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam, annoying, annoying spam. Croat Canuck 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeipods.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeipod com. Kusma (討論) 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in pyramid scheme. Bmdavll _talk 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this as spam. However, something like Free iPod (scam) would probably be a good potential article, as those website have become annoyingly ubiquitous lately. (Bah, ESkog, you stole my word!) Mo0[talk] 05:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Why oh why is there no Speedy criterion for this sort of shit? Reyk
• Delete spammy pyramid scheme. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete spam. --Bachrach44 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but cross-link to "pyramid schemes" or "frauds" as a record of the scams, for the education of someone who may look here to see if it is known about --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam aside, its not even intelligently and carefully written; besides even the title gives this garbage away.-MegamanZero 17:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam and badly written. Technostalgia

• comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is spam and vandalism. (Bjorn Tipling 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete scamcruft. Dear me, some poor little souls are all upset because they didn't get a free lunch, and after they were promised one, too! A nasty mean company tricked them into falling for a blatant pyramid scheme! Oh, the humanity. — Haeleth Talk 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam and a suggestion that this particular topic be barred from recreation just because it will attract this type of spamming in the future. Jtmichcock 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but Clean Up: It's a notable trend in the world of the internet, and it is also a buisness model that other advertisers follow, I feel that this deserves an article, but it needs to be cleaned up. Deathawk 00:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: there's already a better article at Gratis Internet, and a redirect to there at Freeipods. — A.M. 02:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete (candidate for speedy deletion) and redirect to Gratis Internet. - Mike Rosoft 10:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Cynical 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, it's certainly encyclopedic but needs to be cleaned of POV and the like. Stifle 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding...right..? -MegamanZero 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I wasn't. But I don't always agree today with what I wrote yesterday. Delete, unsalvageable. Stifle 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, but possibly the scam itself should be entered in some scam article. Maybe free ipods should redirect to a scam article. Skittle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gratis Internet, which seems to cover the same ground in a more neutral fashion. -Colin Kimbrell 17:04, 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(early) karmafist 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ABATEJ

Advertisement, vanity, not encyclopedic at all. – ugen64 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ESkog | ^Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JoaoRicardo 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deserves speedy delete. --Mecanismo 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN Ad J\/\/estbrook       16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS? CENSORSHIP IS HATEFUL...

DO NOT DELETE! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ricardo Moraes-Pinto (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article.

• Weak Delete as it does assert some notability "an association founded by four great Brazilian jazz musicians" although I have no idea if they are verifiably regarded as great. I'd change to a "weak keep" if it was verifiable and cleaned up to a higher standard. CarbonCopy 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

dear UTC: is greatness the only way to be recognized?... how to verify "greatness"? is this the poin?... what if "great" was just applied as a generic qualifier for these four people?... fine! let's take "great" off... let's leave it there so that people may offer their comments on the subject! as a matter of fact, this is one of the points in having a wiki entry - to facilitate discussion on entries so that it may become a well established truth (or not) ...

on another level, what amazes me is that a fellow national (João Ricardo), who should know about ABATEJ by this time just comes in from out of the blue sentencing ABATEJ to the discredit of havis its entry DELETED! this man should be one of the many who is daily editing the entry on our president Lula da Silva, just for the fun of it... (rmp)

unsigned comment above 16:52, 9 December 2005 Ricardo Moraes-Pinto CarbonCopy 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I think you mean me, CarbonCopy, not "dear UTC" - UTC is the timezone for Wikipedia times! While "greatness" is inherently subjective, one CAN provide evidence that someone is regarded as "great". Awards, reviews, published articles about an artist, academic works, even sales figures (although those are probably better evidence of popularity than greatness). Brazilian sources or international sources are fine by me - just some kind of third-party evidence. CarbonCopy 20:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The group is merely a voluntary association that invites contributions. Advertising and an effort to communicate. Geogre 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Silly with POV. Ifnord 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Edit Conflict Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable and badly written. Technostalgia
• do not delete: this looks like a banishing court, is this a symbol of our times? that's shameful! (rmp)

Wikipedia isn't an advertising billboard, it's a free encyclopedia. This non-notable trash, the article creator should try Google Adwords to get traffic, not abuse a free information system. (Bjorn Tipling 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

• Speedy Delete Spam. (Bjorn Tipling 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, per all the above. The correct way to respond to an AfD on your article is by, first, checking that you know what Wikipedia is (it is not a place "to facilitate discussion on entries so that [they] may become a well established truth"), and second, if you still believe the article should be kept, by ensuring it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, e.g. by citing sources that show that the organisation in question is notable. — Haeleth Talk 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, to Haeleth: pls read rsv e-mail (rmp)
  • Comment, 'pls' is actually spelled 'please.' Also, you might find it helpful to sign by typing (~~~~), not (rmp). (Bjorn Tipling 21:37, 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.  Grue  18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Father's Day

Incomplete nomination by User:Diehard2k5. This appears to be about a character from One Piece. no vote — A.M. 01:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Baroque Works and redirect. JoaoRicardo 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per JoaoRicardo. Minor character. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect as per nom (Bjorn Tipling 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Merge and redirect per JoaoRicardo. Stifle 22:54, 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. Mindmatrix 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Stout

Non-notable bio of early American InvictaHOG 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. JoaoRicardo 05:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable whatsoever. Mat334 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JoaoRicardo --Mecanismo 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio and may well be a hoax. Stifle 22:57, 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. Mindmatrix 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penelope Thompson

Non-notable bio of early American InvictaHOG 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a piece of geneological research. Jtmichcock 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't really understand why this person is notable. Perhaps a {{nn-bio}} tag is in order. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Looks for all the world like your basic fiction/hoax. She lived on lichens for days after being stabbed in the abdomen and scalped? She was Dutch but named Thompson? No dates given. All over fun & goofs. Geogre 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article explains that she was born in Amsterdam of an English father. This is definitely not a hoax, but it does may be a well-intentioned mix of genealogical research and fiction (see [7]). I'm not sure how to separate the history from the fiction, or whether Thompson (or her husband Richard Stout) should count as notable. I think the article author should have a chance to make the case by adding some sources and clarifying the basis for notability. rodii 18:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment S/he has five days even if we all vote "delete"... isn't that long enough? — Haeleth Talk 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure. That was intended as a don't-bite-the-newbies hint to the author, not a plea to stop the AfD. rodii 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's non-notable. --Eeee 04:07, 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex G. Keeling

Suspect vanity. Orphan if you don't count the one page this link was added to recently, and google has never heard of him. -- Francs2000 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. Google showed one site, a free web site; a good indicator of someone who has NOT made it to the big time. Chris the speller 04:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It could be a speedy, but only if you think about it some. The article makes claims, but all in wiggle words. A nineteen year old film maker "perhaps best known" for a student showcase. A young man with a camera, and best of luck to him. Geogre 17:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as unencyclopedic as Chris Bensko. Yeltensic42.618 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, get a high-budget film and prove yourself as a notable film director than come back to Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Turnstep 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't appear to be nn-bio because of claims to notability. Too bad that they aren't very good claims. Stifle 22:59, 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los poco locos

NN, probably vanity ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Soared all the way to #637 and you don't think their notable? Are you a Freaking idiot!!!... I agree with you 100% Jossifresco. Definitely NN. Croat Canuck 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to satisfy WP:MUSIC and being unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, can't information about the band or their record. Not listed in AMG. JoaoRicardo 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bandcruft. Stifle 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity with some overtones of hoaxery: "In 2003 Lime Magazine ranked Los Poco Locos the sexiest new pseudo-Hispanic artist with a name containing the phrase “Poco Locos”. Contenders in the category included Esmeralda Fernanda Poco Locos-Rodriguez, who drove her car over Scarborough Bluffs subsequent to the announcement and remains to be found." Er, no. And, for that matter, record charts don't even compile down to 637^th place. Delete. Bearcat 19:25, 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 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Burkes

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Merovingian 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and likewise with the entire group, as a hoax. Lord Bob 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, and same with the rest. Mat334 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Chris, can you dig up some links to back up those claims you made? I'd like to believe you, but I haven't had enough dealings with you to trust you blindly on this. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment There are no links to most of these, so none to report. That is what *INDICATES* a hoax. The Mahones from the 1990s are real, as is their album, and can be easily googled. It's the *LACK* of Mahones from the 1960s that shows this to be a hoax. Chris the speller 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was of course, referring to sources about the real Mahones. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all involved in the constellation of hoaxes: I don't know about an Uppercut Records, but the rest of these are unattested anywhere else and are here as part of somoene's vision of funny. Geogre 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Yeltensic42.618 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 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. Mindmatrix 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reggie Johnson

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There does appear to be a Reggie Johnson bass player [8] but its not the guy described in the article Bill 22:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:11, Dec. 17, 2005

[edit] Uppercut Records

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:00, Dec. 17, 2005

[edit] Farley Daniels

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete with no redirect. Enochlau 02:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(Note: I wrote up the real band of this name after the hoax version was deleted. The current article is not the same as the deleted version. Bearcat 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] The Mahones

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Pogues as I believe this was their original name, and as indicated in the talk page, the hoax appears to have been based on actual information about this band. 23skidoo 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Pogues, as it was their second name. :-) (They were called the Irish equivalent of "kiss my arse" at first.) This is a pretty well known alternate name for them. Geogre 18:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. After some research I've decided that this probably is a hoax, but that really wasn't self-evident. There is no reason there couldn't have been an earlier band with the same name... but as far as I can tell, there wasn't. This group of articles seems to be about a kind of "alternate Mahones." The real Mahones really did form in Kingston, Ontario, etc. Kind of a mess, but nothing to do with The Pogues. The Pogues changed their name from Pogue Mahone, which does mean "kiss my ass," to The Pogues, but were never called The Mahones to my knowledge. rodii 18:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and then redirect the The Pogues were in fact called this. -Sean Curtin 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and don't REDIRECT. rodii is correct. The Pogues were Pogue Mahone. The Mahones[9][10] are a different celtic rock band; from Kingston, Ontario, Canada. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and don't redirect. There is a Canadian band called the Mahones, who are notable enough to have an article but are neither the Pogues nor the band described here. The Pogues, for that matter, were never called "The Mahones"; they were called Pogue Mahone...and as far as I'm concerned, a documentable, verifiable and notable band should never play second fiddle for its own article title to a rare and largely unattested nickname for a more famous band. I'll write up the real Mahones once this unverifiable version is out of the way. They were Pogues-influenced and two of the Pogues even toured with them at one point, so their article will provide a link there anyway. Bearcat 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. No redirect. Stifle 23:05, 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. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:01, Dec. 17, 2005

[edit] Teddy Mitchell

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:02, Dec. 17, 2005

[edit] Draggin the Days

• Delete Hoax. See Talk:Gary Burkes for an explanation of a group of 7 articles Chris the speller 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random hoaxes. Stifle 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxes. —Slicing (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as SPAM advert for cheap laptops. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheap Laptop

I hate to nominate a page that's been around for all of 2 minutes, but this one's going nowhere -- it's an excuse to advertise a website. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that, the page article is simply functioning as an advertisement. Speedy delete Ollien 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as advertising, and redirect to $100 laptop. Pilatus 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Even better. I probably should have let an admin speedy it; sorry if I jumped the gun. Bikeable 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nevermind, I'll take care of it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 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. Mindmatrix 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Following revolution

Not notable blog, Delete abakharev 03:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bmdavll _talk 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Deserves speedy delete --Mecanismo 11:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this appears to be just a blog about a Nintendo game. Geogre 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -^demon 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Speedy Delete. (Bjorn Tipling 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Stifle 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete non-notable. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:30, 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 redirected to Therianthropy. BD2412 T 08:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theranthropy

Nonsense. 56 google hits.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Therianthropy. Pilatus 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pilatus. Bmdavll _talk 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• I changed it to a redirect to Therianthropy, which it should have been if the contributor had spelled it properly. ◎DanMS 05:29, 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. bainer (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Varma Division

User:Robinh pointed this one out to me. Although its an interesting read, I believe it is original research. The first version of the article suggests this. I found no confirming google hits. This is especially bad, since most game theory publications are widely distributed over the internet prior to publication. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits, no Google book hits and 4 Google Scholar results all referring to Varma Divisions of Hospitals and Institutes [11] rather than Game Theory. [12] Capitalistroadster 04:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Some Googling suggests that the name may refer to Gopal Das Varma at Duke University, who has certainly published articles on similar topics. Nonetheless, while the subject is interesting, I'd have to vote delete unless sources can be provided. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete OR/unverifyable, willing to change vote if some references appear. Pete.Hurd 06:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In case of deletion, remove referring sentence from fair division also. Pete.Hurd 14:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Absolutely zilch on four search engines: Engineering Village, Science Citation Index, Google, Google Scholar. Must be OR. Robinh 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• possible redirect to split the difference or fair division procedures(?). The article does feel OR - especially in the intro/conclusion, which refer to the article as a paper, etc, as if it is in a journal. OTOH this article discusses an example of a fair-division procedure, ideas which are developing quickly in the context of experimental economics. The article needs to be encyclopedia-fyed, but the information can be presented in a WP appropriate way, and under a different title (for now). Some articles in that literature discuss things like this, but I havn't found a good reference, yet. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, very interesting and very good, but unreferenced and unverifiable. Stifle 23:08, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horse worship/Temp

This is a duplicate article. It duplicates Horse worship and is probably a sandbox for that article. Kaiserb 03:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, yes. Please read the copyvio notice at the main article carefully. Speedy keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood the /Temp designation. I wish to withdraw this request, sorry about that. --Kaiserb 05:11, 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 per CSD A6 (Attack pages -- Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emoetry

Delete - Questionable subject. Results of a Google search on "emoetry" largely link to the same person's website. Article contains little to no content, all of which disparages the subject. -- ChrisB 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Any useful information is already found on Emo (slang) or Emo (music). --Apostrophe 04:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete {{db-stupid}} Reyk 08:19, 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 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BattleWorlds

Non-notable. 110 or so google hits, only a few of which relate to what this article is referencing.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- non-notable. LordViD 04:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam --Mecanismo 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable fictioncruft, probable copyvio, and non-free. Stifle 23:16, 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 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indianworld

A webforum, about 3000 Google hits for "indianworld", most of which refer to other sites. No Alexa ranking. JoaoRicardo 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Theres a strange comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/India at the top of the list: "Nagarjuna Kommineni (currently doing for indianworld)" ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising at this point, but not spam. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Although non-English web sites will have lower Alexa ranks, this article does not argue that this is already a successful site, nor the number one site for Indians, nor does it even distinguish its subject matter clearly. Geogre 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -^demon 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete never heard of it --Raghu 07:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:16, 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 redirect (nothing to merge). bainer (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Ryan (singer)

This is a failed contestant on Australian Idol. Failed contestants don’t seem particularly notable. No other notability for this person is asserted in the article. Is there a precedent for eliminated contestants on Australian/Canadian/American/Whatever Idol? ◎DanMS 04:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First eliminated on Australian Idol in 2003. Unlike many on the first series of Australian Idol, had no subsequent recording career. All relevant information on Australian Idol article.Capitalistroadster 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• If this Peter Ryan (singer) gets deleted, then the disambig page Peter Ryan should be changed from a disambig page to a redirect to Peter Ryan (driver), as there now are only two Peter Ryans on that disambig page. ◎DanMS 05:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleting comment—no longer applies, per Malo below. ◎DanMS 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the first Australian Idol season page, since Capitalist mentioned all the pertinent information regarding him is in there. Mo0[talk] 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this person isn't notable enough IMO. However I have just added another person named Peter Ryan to that page, thus, I see no reason to move Peter Ryan (driver) anywhere. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mo0. His info is listed at the Australian Idol page, so readers should be directed there if looking for him. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect. Ambi 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the existing disambiguation page for Peter Ryan works just fine. Change the link on that page to go to the Australian Idol page. Turnstep 15:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Australian Idol. This may be notable, but it's not long enough. Stifle 23:16, 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 deleted as unverifiable hoax/nonsense - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troz

This one almost had me fooled. Almost. Looks good, reads questionably and...a myspace home page! Zero Google on the "well-publicized" lead singer. - Lucky 6.9 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under CSD A7. Harro5 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, the sweetness of it all. Gone. - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 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 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clair De AHHH

A flash animation, no google hits for its title or for their purpoted creators. JoaoRicardo 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• To quote from the website: Hello. I am one of the sitemasters and I am working on this website with my friend. Don't think these are supposed to be really awesome animations because we are only getting the hang of animations. Some of our videos may cause seizures, and if you don't know what that means, just know that they are not good. Have a good day. A bit too new for inclusion in my humble opinion. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Lucky 6.9. Movementarian 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. Bo Lindbergh 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all above rationale. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, vanity, above... take your pick. Ifnord 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Technostalgia
• Keep, as there is nothing wrong with it. Google results have been set up, Google has not crawled it yet. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. Lexington
• Delete as extraordinarily non-notable. Turnstep 15:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable flashcruft. Stifle 23:17, 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 Deleted. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Titsofdeath

Aside from the apparentlackoftheuseofaspacebar, this does get a couple of Googles. No allmusic at all. Your comments, ladies and gentlemen? - Lucky 6.9 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thisgroupdoesnotmeettherequirementsof WP:MUSIC eventhoughtheyapparentlydodoabitoftouring. Mo0[talk] 05:48, 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. bainer (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rajputs and Buddhism

A rambling stub article, seems like nonsense. Opening it up for thoughts rather than speedy deleting for lack of context and patent nonsense. Harro5 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep see [13], article just needs expansion. Ashibaka tock 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think I see where the guy is trying to go, but we're dealing with a non-native speaker and a really bizarre format job. The subject matter seems like a good idea, but I truly don't see how this can fit. Keep if improved by someone familiar with the subject. Ashibaka, you're up.  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• It looks to me like these topics could be merged into Decline of Buddhism in India, which covers the relevant time period. Bikeable 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Bikeable. --Alan Au 08:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an important subject that is not often discussed. It is directly related to India's long tradition of permitting diversity of religious thought, and India's modern secularism.

The article needs to be expanded. I will add details and references. Rajput inscriptions and copperplates are the main source of direct information on this subject.

But may I ask Harro5 why this is "patent nonsense"? Please let me know. I will address those issues.

--Malaiya 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

When I first read the article, it seemed like a rant about nothing. However, this AfD has obviously told me otherwise (like I say in the nom, I wanted input from others) and if you can write this in useful prose then I am sure I would be happy to see this article stay. Harro5 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep as the author appears to be in the process of expanding the article. It's not nonsense, just extremely lacking in content/context, particularly if you have no familiarity with Indian or Buddhist history. Suggest it may belong as a subsection of either Rajput or Decline of Buddhism in India. Let's not bite a newbie on this one. CarbonCopy 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but one hopes this goes in the direction of encyclopedic rather than original research. I wouldn't call it nonsense; it needs sources, context, and should focus on scholarly consensus rather than controversy. Looking forward to seeing the result, Malaiya. rodii 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete though I will ad a cleanup-context tag. If it's improved, I will change my vote. Ifnord 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because this sheds light on medieval history of India. Shivraj Singh 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Difficult to understand, so I can see how it could've been viewed as patent nonsense, but I think there's a good article-in-progress here once it goes through a few more revisions. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep V1^t 14:25, 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. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nmarkets

Not enough context to find it on Google. I get a lot of stuff German. I think it's some sort of software used within the electrical power industry? Delete it unless someone can figure out what it is... stillnotelf has a talk page 05:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds like spam as written, and I'm having the same verification problems as the nom. --Alan Au 08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete smells like spam --Mecanismo 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the spam. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like spam, smells like spam, I don't need to taste it to say it's spam. Ifnord 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ewww...tastes like spam too! CarbonCopy 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete Nmarkets appears to be NNmarkets. Grutness...wha? 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grutness. Stifle 23:17, 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 deleted as copyvio.' - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baselious Gevarghese II

"This article is basically unreadable. It is very difficult to tell from the context what it is about. At first glance it appears to be a biography. It also appears to be an essay copied from a website. It's very pov and has had no edits since July 2005, except to be tagged as cleanup. It seems obvious that the anonymous creator has no interest in maintaining it, let alone improving it.DeleteTheRingess 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good catch. It's a text dump/copyvio from [lightoflife.com/light_of_life_ArticlesG.htm]. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 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(early) karmafist 16:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] System wars

This entry is nothing but the extension of a console flame war that takes place at a gaming forum. Given time, forum users will take to flaming each other on this entry. Nonforma 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree... this is a vandalism magnet, waste of time --Valermos 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to allow a few people create a true Wikipedia entry and then have it locked to reflect just that?HAL

I think that kind of defeats the idea of a wiki... --Valermos 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. There is barely any objective information you could come up when the entry title is "System Wars" Nonforma 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, Systemwars is a great website.

I'm not saying it's a bad site, it's just something that doesn't belong here. This is a wiki, it is meant for objective information. If you'd like to post a history of the Systemwars, then by all means do so, but you need to refrain from choosing a side. GameFAQs, for example, has a very good article.

You want this deleted yet you have an article roming around that has links to last measure and goatse. And lets not forgot orgish.com Thats a website as well.

The difference is that the articles you mention have actual information documenting the topic, they aren't constant flame wars between people who just want to be immature and deface this website. --Valermos 06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is a valid speedy delete, as it's a substantial recreation of an article about the same forum that's been deleted over and over again. FCYTravis 10:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vandalism article --Mecanismo 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, completely non-notable forum insider joke. — JIP | Talk 13:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. JoaoRicardo 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as another piece of Internet forum navelgazing with no reference to WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 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. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rem Efficiency

This article is a hoax. Google returns no results for "Rem Efficiency" that don't pertain to sleep. One wanker spouting off in college does not encyclopedic make. Scott Ritchie 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Page vadalised by 128.237.232.118 [14] Agnte 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke. JoaoRicardo 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NNB. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 07:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, someone must be getting bored studying for finals. Mat334 08:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax or inside joke. Ifnord 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, Rubbish. Agnte 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, comes very close to patent nonsense but let's just slowly delete it. Stifle 23:21, 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. Mindmatrix 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Wagar

Non notable pagan high priest, founder of a non-notable organization. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Mat334 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable with a pinch of vanity (page was created by a user Samwagar)? Peeper 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: How have you determined that the Congregationalist Witchcraft Association is non-notable? Also, if there's a limited number of High Priests in Wicca, I'd be happy to call one of them notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

From High Priest: In Wicca, the high priest is a male who has earned the 3rd Degree level of recognition within his coven. A coven may also have a high priestess, either in addition to or instead of a high priest. How many covens are there in Canada? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. By the lack of an article on Wikipedia and few Google hits. JoaoRicardo 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:26, 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 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AirLex Animations

An animation company with no Google hits. Special:Contributions/Lexington makes it obvious that this is part of an advertising campaign.

Delete as advertising. Bo Lindbergh 06:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. See also Clair De AHHH, a stub for a cartoon by these animators which is also being considered for deletion. Movementarian 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SNTW. Bo Lindbergh 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Mat334 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising, non-notable. Technostalgia
• Save. Not trying to advertise. Site has been submitted to Google, and waiting for results. If wanted, I will delete the link! I just wanted to archive info about them, not advertise. And whats wrong with creating a stub about the animations? Are there not stubs for Web Comics and other cartoons? Fell free to edit the page delete what you feel is advertising, but please do not delete the page completly. Lexington

• Comment. It is not a notable animation group and does not warrant an entry on Wikipedia. When a webcomic they produce becomes popular, then they can be listed. Movementarian 07:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the purpose of Wikipedia was to archive information, but I guess I was wrong. I did not realize that it was a large popularity contest, meant only for people who show up in Google. I mean, of course! Anything that doesn't show up in Google must not be information, eh? Well, I guess that Technostalgia shoulden't have any info on him/herself in Wikipedia, seeing as it doesnt come up in Google. I can just see the very purpose of Wikipedia crumbling right now. Lexington

• Comment. I suggest you check out What Wikipedia is not. Some notablity should be established before entry to this encyclopaedia is allowed. As you can see Technostalgia does not have an article, but as with all Wikipedians has a user space. It is not the same thing. Please do not take this nomination as a personal attack (I am assuming by your passion for this article's inclusion you have a vested interest) and do not get discouraged from participating in Wikipedia. Movementarian 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for being very non-notable. Recreate when you come back in the top 200 Google hits for "animation" Turnstep 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable group. Stifle 23:27, 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. I'm pointing the link at the dab page Tuner to Sport compact#Tuning, where people can read more about tuners in the appropriate sense. There are no other links to Tuner (auto), and it's not a term people will type into the search box, so no redirect is necessary. --Angr (t·c) 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tuner (auto)

Sounds like nonsense to me - or at least a mode of speach particular to a very small community. jmd 06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's a legit term, but I agree that it's sure hard to tell.  :) There may in fact already be an article on the subject somewhere around here. Might wind up making it a redirect if there is. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, found something. Redirect to sport compact. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think such a redirect would be confusing. To me, "Tuner (auto)" would mean a) A person who tunes the engine of an automobile; or b) The broadcast radio receiver fitted in an automobile. Create a disambig page if necessary. jmd
• Good point. Looks like there's already a disambig at tuner and it covers the existing article. I'm going to look at this article to see if anything can be merged. - Lucky 6.9 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This may well be unsalvageable now that it's formatted into something legible. Tempted to nuke it with a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If this could be turned into a decent stub, I would vote to keep. As it is at the moment, I would vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 07:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless anybody can rewrite and merge into Tuner. Technostalgia
• Redirect per Lucky6.9. Stifle 23:28, 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Izowned

"Izowned" doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Not sure I can put it any other way.. JHMM13 08:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Pwn if verified to have any moderate currency of use, otherwise, delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see any connection to Internet usage, so why redirect to Pwn? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Movementarian 07:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary states very clearly that slang definitions are not valid content. Nonforma 07:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nonforma. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Alan Au 08:20, 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. Enochlau 02:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SNTW

Part of an advertising campaign. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations.

Delete as advertising. Bo Lindbergh 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 06:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteTheRingess 06:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Mat334 08:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: not meant as advertising. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations.Lexington 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever happens to AirLex Animations should apply here; if it is kept then this should be a redirect otherwise it should be deleted. Stifle 23:29, 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 merge and redirect to Alcohol 120%. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol 52%

"This article is basically an advertisement for the software. The only external link is commercial. The author made no attempt to show why this article is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.DeleteTheRingess 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no problem with this entry as a stub. This software is the lesser known version of Alcohol 120%, which has an article that has the same advertisment argument. Nonforma 07:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Nonforma - Forbsey 08:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• M\e/r\g/e into Alcohol 120% - they're both too short as it is, so it'll do them good. BD2412 T 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Alcohol 120%. Alcohol 52% will always but always be mentioned w.r.t. its big brother 120%, and it doesn't seem as if this article can ever be more than a stub. It would be better to include it as a subsection of the 120% article. Also, people are far more familiar with 120% and are more likely to want to read up on it than 52%. Zunaid 08:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Damn these edit conflicts! I see BD2412 T has stolen my argument ;)
• Merge per BD2412. --Alan Au 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per BD2412, and why would any sane person call their company "Alcohol Software"? — JIP | Talk 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alcohol 120%. Crotalus horridus 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Not long enough to warrant a separate page. Technostalgia
• Merge into Alcohol 120% as it is highly relevant to the development of its more ubiquitous successor, but as a stand alone article means nothing. Jtmichcock 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Alcohol 120% as a parent article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Technostalgia. Stifle 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep. I'm a very happy Alcohol 52% user, but it's a pity the way the article is currently. Enochlau 12:12, 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 speedy delete by User:FCYTravis. Mo0[talk] 08:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Food Fiesta

No verification (see WP:V), original research (see WP:NOR). Chick Bowen 06:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by User:FCYTravis. Chick Bowen 06:45, 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 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chamber of Commerce and Industry

"The article consists of one sentence and a link. There has been only 1 edit. What is the point of keeping the article? What if the building is destroyed? Is the original author going to come back and edit the article to reflect that (at least then there would be 2 lines to the article.DeleteTheRingess 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This building is already mentioned in the architect's stub (see John Madin).
• Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. If it were to be kept, should be renamed as Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever is done with the present stub, redirect title to Chamber of commerce, as the "...and Industry" version seems to be used in other places. u p p l a n d 09:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above - if for some reason the article survives, there should be a distinction between Birmingham, England and Birmington, Alabama. B.Wind 00:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above. Stifle 23:30, 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.

Page was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for handling. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Class

"The article reads like a blurb from the jacket of a book. It's a possible copyright violation, but I'm too tired to search on google for where it might have come from. It could be expanded into a better article, but it would probably be a stub at best.DeleteTheRingess 06:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The book has an Amazon (U.S.) sales rank of 227,339 [15] and is a mass market paperback. I am not too familiar with copyvio rules, but I am pretty sure this one qualifies. The content of the article is identical to the back cover of the the book [16]. Movementarian 07:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a copyvio of [17] and has been tagged accordingly. Thanks for the heads up! --Alan Au 08:07, 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 delete Mindmatrix 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel watson

I wasn't able to verify anything in this article, so it doesn't meet WP:V. Most likely a hoax. Kevin 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I can find no poet by that name. Nonforma 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. None of the information could be verified. Movementarian 07:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Found nothing on google. Forbsey 08:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No verification in Google search for "Daniel Watson" poet see [18] Two Google book results neither confirms the claim see [19]
• Delete Two Google scholar neither confirms the result see [20]. Through the Canberra library service's online service I checked the Literature Resource Centre which contains 120,000 authors. Daniel Watson was not among them. Capitalistroadster 08:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - he doesn't exist. Technostalgia
• Delete, after extensive googling, I can't find him. Besides, if he committed treason, he would have been beheaded or hung, drawn and quartered in the 17th century, not merely hung. Jtmichcock 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete this content - possibly use the article name as a redirect to Danny Watson. Grutness...wha? 04:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unverified hoax bio. I think an admin decision to close this early would be appropriate here. Turnstep 15:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Stifle 23:30, 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 delete Mindmatrix 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anal Kitties

Self promotional band vanity, no entry on All Music, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. Delete. Anal Kitties 07:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 08:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to comply with WP:MUSIC Forbsey 08:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Forbsey. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is not notworthy or otherwise qualified for listing per above-- SusanLarson 09:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Mecanismo 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (before the two-string (!) guitarist shows up on AFD to defend it). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Technostalgia
• Delete. not noteworthy, self promotional.--Dakota ^{t e} 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandcruft, usual plea for speedy category on this Stifle 23:31, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rodeo Carburettor

• Delete Appears to fail under WP:MUSIC Keep After comments from Alan Au (Not to familiar with WP:MUSIC regulations - need to brush up!) Forbsey 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No AllMusic entry, but tour would qualify them under WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 08:14, 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 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If Only If

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC.

• Delete. Gazpacho 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - its "If And Only If", which then becomes Iff, which is a term used in mathematics and computer programming. Delete these people for having an annoying band title. If they want to be taken seriously call themselves "Iff" or "If And Only If". Otherwise you are insulting geeks everywhere. :P. Oh and they don't seem notable either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no google hits, no assertion of notability.--Alhutch 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable --Mecanismo 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable band. And Zordac, the band is free to call itself what it wants to. — JIP | Talk 11:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and create fresh redirect to If and only if, just in case. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, usual complaint about needing a speedy for these. Stifle 23:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economics glossary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Specificially, Wikipedia is not a list of dictionary definitions. I know that some glossaries exist, but they are significantly more specific than "economics". A glossary on as broad a subject as economics would simply become far too big to be manageable. I believe the terms in this glossary should be moved to their own articles, then this glossary should be deleted. Mat334 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete abusive list, unworthy of encyclopedic attention --Mecanismo 11:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have merged the useful content from the list to other pages, and deleted some of the junk, such as the definition of abundance, which belongs purely in a dictionary. Now it is just a random list of a few terms. Please delete! Mat334 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JoaoRicardo 05:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a list of dicdefs. Stifle 23:33, 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, but I'm adding a brief mention of the idea to Union Jack#Other proposed versions. --Angr (t·c) 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4IM Campaign to update Union Jack

The first AFD ended with a "merge" to Union Jack. I merged it there and, not entirely surprisingly, I was reverted. Apparently, merging with that article is only clutter there, and after reviewing it I tend to agree: Merging with the Union Jack article is inferior to keeping outright or deleting. Personally, I think the article's subject is too restricted, it is about part of a campaign of a fairly small organization so I recommend delete. If merged it will need to be more of a "smerge" (abbreviated merge). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: The reason I did not merge this with 4IM is that that article looks set to be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards delete, but possibly merge to Flag of Wales. Mat334 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If a merge is decided upon I think Welsh Nationalism would be more appropriate. Movementarian 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to 4IM if it survives AfD, merge to Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism if it doesn't. Definitely don't delete. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Welsh nationalism, I don't think 4IM are the first people to suggest this. JPD (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an issue that should be raised in more depth at Union Jack, but this article should not be merged as it is not about the debate broadly but about the views of one particular non-notable organisation. (Incidentally their proposed flag alterations seem arbitrary rather than being the produce of public debate, but that's another issue). There is a link to this group on the Union Jack page, and with the inclusion of a mention about this debate, then in my opinion that would be adequate. So delete this one, and then move on to a debate on Talk:Union Jack about whether that article is comprehensive. Peeper 12:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Welsh nationalism, leave the flag pages alone. I'm slightly prejudiced by the fact that all their proposed designs are either fugly, or take up far too much of the flag implying that the UK is a colony of Wales (everyone knows it's a colony of Scotland), or both. --Last Malthusian 12:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously, has anyone followed the external link? Jesus. And they use .bmps, for God's sake. Hard to believe that anyone takes these people seriously. In fact, Google suggests that no-one does outside the wacky world of British independence movements (free Slough!), so full delete. --Last Malthusian 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (Only reason I didn't vote delete before was that the previous AfD vote had left me with the mistaken impression that 4IM had been deemed notable.) --LM
• Merge to 4IM if it survives AfD, merge to Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism if it doesn't. This is a notable topic.--Mais oui! 15:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - I'm with Mais oui!. Technostalgia
• Delete and padlock to avoid further edit wars. Anything salvageable can be inserted into Union Jack. B.Wind 00:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - probably worth having, but as part of the Union Jack article because its not worth one of its own Cynical 12:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per JPD above. Turnstep 15:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 4IM is gone, let's give its random campaign a graceful rest in peace. Stifle 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment With 4IM deleted as non-notable by consensus, mentioning their stupid controversial flag designs in the main Union Jack article would be nonsensical. --Last Malthusian 09:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in Wales, I follow news here, and whilst I can name a few campaign groups who are notable (here, at least :)) despite being small, this group and this campaign are complete news to me. A web search suggests that this is not my oversight; they are simply non-notable. If this didn't belong in Union Jack, it doesn't belong in Flag of Wales or Welsh nationalism (these would be first Welsh nationalists I ever heard of who want to continue the use of any variation of the Union Jack!) either. Delete. --Telsa 12:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction Time

A strange combination of a dicdef and an ad for a company of little note with a link to a website that does not exist (while the url with the .com.au ending is probably a typo, the site does not exist at .au and the .com location is completely unrelated). Indrian 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: .com.au is a valid TLD in Australia, just this one doesn't happen to exist. Stifle 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary definition (!) and advertisement. Mat334 08:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously a spam attempt --Mecanismo 10:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 10:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and create fresh redirect to Reaction time. Protect if needed. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. Turnstep 15:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:34, 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 since no non-copyvio version was forthcoming. --Angr (t·c) 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boba Fett: Crossfire

At present, looks like info taken straight off Amazon.com or a similar source. Basically, title, author, ISBN and a copyvio of the blurb. No importance in current form. Harro5 08:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if rewritten so it's no longer a copyvio. Plenty of series have individual book articles (see James Bond). I think being a Star Wars novel is notable enough. But the copyvio has to go. 23skidoo 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a 133-page, 3.4oz. book not even a proper work of fan fiction. These books (from Scholastic) are hawked round schools as fundraisers. Their literary content is typically low to negligible (my kids have seevral in the same series). James Bond it ain't. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Literary content and notability are not the same thing. "I hate them for being terrible" is not a valid reason for deletion. The Boba Fett books are an important part of Star Wars canon. However, the article has no original content, so delete unless fixed. -LtNOWIS 17:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I dispute that they are important, they are not "proper" fan fiction (as per the post-Asimov Robot and Foundation-based books), they are small pamphlets of not many pages with no real story. That's my experience of others in the same series, anyway. There are plenty of significant crap books (I hate the Brontës as well but would vote keep on them without hesitation), and probably lots of excellent but insignificant ones. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all, they are not fan fiction. They are legitimate parts of the official Star Wars Expanded Universe. In fact, one book was explicitly referenced in the landmark New Essential Chronology. Out of the 7 Star Wars young adult series, this is probably the third most notable, and the others do have individual book articles. Jedi Apprentice even has a category! They Fett books aren't very long, so a single article could probably cover all six books, but they do deserve inclusion. -LtNOWIS 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten. Page count isn't everything. There's enough famous books of around 100 pages and being low on page count doesn't make them any less notable. Books don't need to be literary either as long as enough people read and enjoy them. This is official canon and thus a valid topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the book should be rewritten. / Ezeu 03:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and let Wikivolution take it's course: if it is still copyvio at the end of the AfD, speedy delete it. Otherwise, seems to be a valid book stub, no need to delete. Turnstep 15:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep so long as this article is not violating any copyrights. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Send to copyvio team. Stifle 23:34, 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 article has been sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand 001

Odd title, seems like a fork of some kind. -- Curps 08:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete... and a copyright violation. Mat334 09:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant copyvio and leave the external link to the original material at Talk:Thailand for future use. No need to retain a copyvio if the owner has it available as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Removed the speedy tag as that calls for a 48-hour limit, but no qualms in calling Delete. Shimgray | talk | 13:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio tagged and bagged. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:10, 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 and move to IBM Simon. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon (phone)

If kept, could the administrator closing this AfD please also move the article to IBM Simon. Thank you. Harro5 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

A poor article about the tech aspects of an old mobile phone, written as what becomes a personal essay. Unless someone can clean this up, it should be deleted. Harro5 09:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and rename IBM Simon. I cleaned this article up, but I could only find enough information to create a stub. It is doubtful that this will evolve into a full article which may also warrant deletion. Movementarian 10:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to IBM Simon. Now it's been cleaned up, it makes a decent stub which may evolve. Technostalgia
• Keep It's notable. wikipediatrix 21:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Movementarian. Stifle 23:35, 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 keep after rewrite. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dine and dash

A personal, original research stub about not paying at dinner. Yep, someone wrote an article about that. Nothing worth keeping in an encyclopedia here. Harro5 09:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: as of 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC), all delete votes had been cast before the article was expanded with evidence of significance and reliable references. Most comments prior to Uncle G's vote do not apply to the article as it now stands. — Haeleth Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - While I think this could be a valid article, the current one contains basically nothing of value. So if it's not cleaned up very soon I suggest deletion. Bergsten 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - After good clean up by Uncle_G. Bergsten 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have a policy that Wikipedia is not a theft manual? Oh well, call it original research. Gazpacho 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• not a vote this might be worthy of wiktionary... --Dschor 10:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have an entry that explains what 'dine' means, and we have an entry that explains what 'dash' means. I don't think this is necessary. --Last Malthusian 12:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I don't know, Last Malthusian, dash can mean a couple different things - maybe this entry needs to be disambigued :) -- Taiichi «talk» 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spurious neologism, original research or unencyclopaedic. Take your pick. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• May need to be cleaned up and/or moved to Wiktionary, I'm not sure. But it is a legitimate, widely used term, anyways - delete is likely the wrong approach. WilyD 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Edit Conflict Merge to Restaurant Keep. The term is older than dirt (and in fairly common use ^{[21] [22] [23]}) and the crime itself is surely older. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Restaurant (unless there's a better place). This is as notable as shoplifting, and it's ridiculous to call it a "spurious neologism". -- 69.0.126.57 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Whoops, I wasn't logged in. That vote was me. -- Plutor 20:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not only did someone write a Wikipedia article about it, but the British Columbia government included it in its guide to its employment law. This isn't a neologism (One reference cited in the articl is dated 1992.) and it isn't original research (It is fair to presume that if the B.C. ministry has accepted it as part of employment law, it's a concept that has gained a fair amount of traction in the world at large.). Keep. Uncle G 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Uncle G's expanded version, which makes it amply clear that this is (a) not a neologism, and (b) a subject that has significant legal context in Canada. — Haeleth Talk 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after Uncle G's rewrite. Bravo! B.Wind 00:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. --Alan Au 02:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article. Tim Pierce 03:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, decent article. Rhobite 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. -Sean Curtin 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 12:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this nice rewrite. Turnstep 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now WP-worthy -- Taiichi «talk» 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new version. Stifle 23:36, 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 keep. Mindmatrix 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Business analyst

A woeful article which has been tagged for cleanup for three weeks and hasn't improved. It is written like a job fair FAQ about what a business analyst does, and won't improve unless threatened with the gun that is AfD. Hopefully someone can pull this off the scrap heap, but at present that is where it belongs. Harro5 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Not encyclopedic but contains substantial content and links. Durova 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to where? --Aucaman 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The name's been on the tip of my tongue: Wiki has a site for instructional articles. I'd be willing to keep if someone cleans it up to a more encyclopedic form. Durova 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems alright to me. Just needs to be cleaned up. --Aucaman 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No one has looked to clean it up, and at present it is only anons editing to add to its present poor form. Harro5 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yes, it's taking long to clean up, but it's not hopeless. All it needs is an edit for tone. Deleting would mean losing valid content not easily replaced. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I agree the article should be kept, it's not like the content is difficult to replace. Any systems analysis student (or, as I believe is the case here, lecturer) could reproduce the content. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's been tagged since November 2005 and we are now in erm... December 2005. Choalbaton 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the one who tagged it for cleanup. The article is important and useful, even in its current form. Needs cleanup for encyclopaedic style, but that is not sufficient for deletion, and I don't think nominating solely as a spur for cleanup is warranted or even necessarily useful. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep out the hands of those dirty immediatist scum! ;-) Kim Bruning 04:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup for encyclopedic style. Stifle 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's on my eventually-get-ropund-to-doing list ;-) The Land 16:27, 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 REDIRECT to Amyl nitrite. Owen× ☎ 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POPPERS/NITRITES

Badly named page that is poorly written. Over on Talk:Alkyl nitrites, there are suggestions that there's some information that can be merged into that article, but no one seems to have the expertise/time to do it. In light of that, delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• merge somebody, please... --Dschor 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - SoM 13:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alkyl nitrites Crotalus horridus 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wrong content, wrong title. Nothing worth keeping. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad title and redundant content. Technostalgia
• Delete but Hold on! Hold on! Poppers are actually Amyl nitrite and not Alkyl nitrites. Redirect should be to the Amyl nitrites article. Check out my profile; this stuff I know about. Jtmichcock 23:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Either is fine with me, amyl nitrite is an alkyl nitrite afterall? xaosflux

• Rename to Poppers then redirect per Jtmichcock. A bad title calls for a renaming after which it can easily be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have an article named Poppers and it is a redirect to Alkyl nitrites xaosflux ^T/_C 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and delete Smerge. The naming convention is off, if there is anything not duplicated in either Akyl Nitrites or Amyl nitrite the information should be mergedthen delete the entire article. xaosflux ^T/_C 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Finishing a merger requires a redirect to retain attribution. Merge and delete is not a allowable vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed vote from merge and delete to smerge to comply with GFDL. xaosflux ^T/_C 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect per Jtmichcock, assuming it is not a copyvio. Stifle 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete terrible text, useless redirect.--nixie 13:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE THIS MISNAMED PAGE. Oh, that's where capslock is. David | Talk 11:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Imagery. --Angr (t·c) 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remembered and imaginary

Mental image is the same topic with more content. The page in question was linked to by Dream only. No one will type in "remembered and imaginary" actually looking for what the page is about; the name is an adjective phrase! "Mental image" has nothing to gain from this article, either. As such, I recommend a delete rather than a merge/redirect. --Mgreenbe 10:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete useless title. JPD (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with imagery as the article makes a distinction between two types of imagery. B.Wind 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per B.Wind. Stifle 23:40, 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, then create a redirect to copy protection. bainer (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Software protection

Highly biased article by the creator of EXECryptor, focuses primarily on that product. With the advert removed we have a dicdef for an obvious term. If someone feels like writing a proper article right now I'll withdraw the nom, but in the mean time I don't think we should leave spam lying about. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless rewritten JPD (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article history, and then Redirect to Copy protection. Crotalus horridus 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shameless advertising as it stands. CarbonCopy 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then redirect, per Crotalus. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (deleting first if desired) to Snake oil... I mean Copy protection. — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad that infringes a Transmeta trademark, and redirect to Copy protection. Gazpacho 12:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hard to see how a trademark infringment occurs here; trademark protection is very much different from copyright protection. Trademark protection is intended to prevent someone from passsing off one product as another, and in no way prevents mention or use of the trademark in an encyclopedia article (unless Wikipedia was trying to pass itself of as another enclopedia...) Trademarks even frequently appear in advertising by competitors! I really wish "copyright violation" "trademark infrigement" "privacy violation" were not bandied around so much to justify deletes or as disguised objections to content. CarbonCopy 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Crotalus horridus. Stifle 23:41, 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. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Aguilera's third full-length English album

• Keep These are confirmed producers with facts not rumors! [[]]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the album is released it should get an article, but not before. Zunaid 10:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Probably the pet project of some impatient fan --Mecanismo 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Movementarian 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For our purposes here, there's no difference between it being already released and yet-to-come. People are always making that distinction, but it's wrong. We're talking about providing information here. Information exists regardless of whether the album is released yet or not, so we provide it. The "crystal ball" argument is completely wrong, because we should only be dealing in verifiable information—predictions other people have made, and information that has been officially confirmed. So the only question is notability. Well, I think this is a notable subject. Christina is very famous and popular and there's plenty of talk about her next album. Everyking 10:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I would agree with you, if the album had a title. Movementarian 11:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I can see that point, but then theoretically the album could generate a huge buzz and yet not get an official title until a week or two before release; I think in this case we'd still want to provide the information. The issue of the title becomes irrelevant; the question is just the notability of the topic. I would think if an upcoming album is getting a lot of attention, we'd give it an article regardless of whether it's been officially given a title. Everyking 11:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Everyking, as User:Crotalus horridus said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You admit that the article is based on speculation and the only justification that you can give for the keeping of that article is "theoretically the album could generate a huge buzz". If the only justification that the only supporter of the article is one solelly based on possible speculation, then it is obvious that there is no reason to keep the article. The deletion is not only the right thing to do, it is the obvious option to be taken. --Mecanismo 12:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it's based on speculation. See below. Everyking 16:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that there is, in fact, a very strong difference. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia. According to the definition, it's articles should bear important and relevant information on some subject. The article listed for deletion is purely speculation and rumors and I don't see how speculation and rumors can be considered important or relevant on any subject, let alone an encyclopedic article. Besides, I don't see how that article can ammount to something other than that: a source of rumors and speculation. When the album is released I don't see why it shouldn't be covered by a wikipedia article. Until then, I believe that it would be wise to leave the rumor-spreading and speculation-creation to webforums, blogs, IM chats and other related media of communication. --Mecanismo 11:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks to me like everything in the article should be verifiable. Even things that can't be verified as fact can be verified as notable rumors. Everyking 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe that it's the job of an encyclopedia to convey unaccountable information or even to spread rumors, being them "notable" or not. --Mecanismo 11:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not verifiable rumours. If people want advance information on an album in production they should look at other mediums, such as blogs. An article entitled Christina Aguilera's third full-length English album does not belong in Wikipedia. When a release date is announced and the album is titled an article could be created. Movementarian 11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Until the album has a name it shouldn't be discussed in it's own article. The mistake people make is wanting to create new articles for everything and fragment information. I'd be happy with merging into Christina's article, though. Christina's quote at the start needs sourcing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful with the main Aguilera article, otherwise let's wait till the release at least has a title before doing an article about it. Crystal ball otherwise. 23skidoo 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete When/if the album is released, it might merit an article of it's own, and this article will be redundant. --StoatBringer 14:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, then we'd just move it to the new title. Everyking 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure speculation... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crotalus horridus 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • None of it is speculation. Think for a minute. It is, in a sense, speculation to say that there will be a U.S. presidential election in 2008. Because who knows, really? But we have an article on it...why? Because it's a notable topic and information can be verifiable whether reporting past events or reporting what other people have said about future events, and past events relating to those future events. I really get tired of the "crystal ball" stuff. Everyking 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• We know that there will be a U.S. Presidential Election because it is madated in the constitution. But since you bring it up, notice that there is not an article entitled 2008 Presidential Election. That is because we don't know anything beyond the fact that it will take place. We can speculate that certain political figures will run, but not in Wikipedia as encyclopaedias are no the place for speculation. Movementarian 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• We report other people's speculation. Like, duh! And my first point was a philosophical one—you don't really know any future events will take place. And here's another point—even if Christina doesn't release a third album, the topic itself is still notable—she's been recording, people have been talking about it, it's acquired a significant degree of fame, and a significant amount could already be written about it. So really it has nothing to do with the album being released or not. You need to base it on the subject's notability, that is to say, on the importance attached to it by people. Everyking 05:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You think that because someone that is notable says they will do something it should be immediately placed into Wikipedia (I hope that I am not misintrepeting your position, if I am I apologise). I think we should wait until it has happened. Movementarian 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. It depends on whether what is said amounts to notable information. (Also, I naturally regard saying something as an action, therefore that—the act of communicating—has already happened—it is in the past, and thus can't be speculation.) And to have an independent article you need a collection of notable info that would not fit properly into another article. It makes sense to me to have this as an independent article...I think any question about this should arise from whether to merge verifiable info, or keep it here as its own article (and we know it will eventually get one anyway, of course). I see no reason not to do the latter—I feel people are making arbitrary cut-off points, such as it having an official title, or being released. To me, what matters is that you have a collection of notable, verifiable info that works as an independent subject. Everyking 10:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and I better understand your position, however I disagree that requiring an album to have a title is an arbitrary cut-off point. I think having a proper title is a key element to having an article. If a member of a royal family gets pregnant should we make an article called (using the House of Orange-Nassau as an example) Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Maxima New Baby or should we wait until it has a name? Movementarian 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speculative fancruft. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete worth at most a one-liner in the Aquilera article. I fully agree that speculation/rumour/future plans have little relevance to an encyclopedia. CarbonCopy 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, purely speculative. Andrew Levine 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with main article. Technostalgia
• Merge until the album has a name and some relevance besides this. EliF 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Mergeper EliF.--Alhutch 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Everyking - David Gerard 13:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the article contains uncited rumors or info in the Christina Aguilera article, and may be considered Original Research. We should get a solid reference and more info about the album before we create an article for it. We don't even have a name (tentive or not) which we can work with. If there's cited info, it should be in the future section of the main article --unless it contains so much info that it will warrant it's own article. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fotolia

Non-notable, spam attempt and orphan article Mecanismo 10:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Reads like an ad at the moment. I'm too lazy to check WP:WEB or Alexa, but if it can be rewritten and passes the Alexa rank test and/or otherwise proves importance then it should stay. If it can't, then delete. Zunaid 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - apparent ad. Even if it weren't an promotional, there's nothing really there in the article. B.Wind 00:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Edit and Notability I made edits to make the site description appear less like an ad. I have nothing to do with Fotolia, I just think it's an innovative concept and deserves inclusion. Also added Alexa data (it's ranked 8,628) to address the "non-notable" issue. Kanamekun 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, it appears somewhat notable now. However, if mine is the only vote to keep, then the closing admin has my permission to discount it. Stifle 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Re: Weak keep Added some more detail around Strategy, to bolster the entry and make it clear why I think the concept is interesting. --Kanamekun 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)04:13, 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. --Angr (t·c) 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prestige World Properties

Non-notable company, fails the google test, probably spam attempt Mecanismo 10:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable spam. Stifle 23:42, 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. Enochlau 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TB comics

Unverified: no Google hits. Either hoax or promo for as-yet-nonexistent comic. Compare Off-white comic by same editor. Tearlach 10:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice, per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 23:42, 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. Owen× ☎ 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Zabdai

Poorly written article, bordering nonsence. Article is orphan and untouched for more than a year. The google test on "Beth Zabdai" returns 360 results. Mecanismo 10:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Aucaman 12:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Real place (at least in a historical sense), and apparently the birthplace of Babai the Great, just as the article states. Absolutely nothing nonsensical about that. u p p l a n d 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already mentioned in Babai the Great and this article adds very little. CarbonCopy 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's an actual place, it should have an article of its own. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's cleaned up. If someone wants to write a good article later, they can. -- Kjkolb 05:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a place and can stay. Needs to be expanded, of course. Stifle 23:42, 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 and cleanup. --Angr (t·c) 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Driver's Seat

Orphan article filled with poorly written nonsence, probably copyvio Mecanismo 11:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup. It's an actual film starring Elizabeth Taylor. Durova 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Scrape clean and start anew - article reads like a promotional script... at first. Then "this film is too hard to describe." It's best to delete with a request for someone to start again from scratch. B.Wind 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• What B.Wind said. Stifle 23:42, 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 (5d; 4 do not delete, three of which were from first-time editors). Mindmatrix 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Face

Not notable. —jiy (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable and probably vanity --Mecanismo 11:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do not deleteBand is notable a good contribution.--MOina 16:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. You can call me Al 19:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE. A lot of time and effort went in to this page, and it is obvious that MF has a devoted following considering that there is a link to their Myspace which has credible songs listed for playing.--Zeegloo 10:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone can create a MySpace account, so that's no proof of notoriety. The ammount of time and efford which a user invests in a wikipedia article isn't proof of notoriety. Everything indicates that the page is pure vanity. The existence of an account in a social networking site and the fact that the article is some unlisted wikipedia user's pet project aren't at all justifications for not deleting the article. --Mecanismo | Talk 15:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment to MecanismoSweet, fag. --Nelson,P 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, more bandcruft. Meets the most important criterion for non-notability: a myspace page. Stifle 23:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Plenty of notable groups have myspace accounts, such as Sigur Rós, Hawthorne Heights...what's your point?--Zeegloo 00:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Being new to Wikipedia, I have not A) had the time to make a profile for myself and B) Do not know its benefits.--Zeegloo 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Metal Face is notable and should be left alone. Dox 2005 was a progressive leap for alternative rock and is definitely significant. --Kiomana 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
• Comment By the way, I am not a member of the band, just a loyal fan who wants to spread the love.--Zeegloo 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Give me time to make this more of a "neurtal" article.
• Don't Delete notable band with significant contributions to the music scene--LABrun 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit.—jiy (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 21:28, 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 (8d, 5 do not delete votes, some from sock- and meat-puppets). Mindmatrix 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] El Fhat

6 Google hits. —jiy (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet criteria set forth in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 11:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and it looks like a vanity article --Mecanismo 11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete! Useful article about notable music group.--Chuck555 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please tell us more as to why this band is notable, and moreover details of its albums/tours/etc. Stifle 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Movementarian. Andrew Levine 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I have at least 20 google hits, and I'm only one person. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more non-notable bandcruft. And it meets the main criterion for non-notability: a myspace page. Stifle 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete The fact that the band has a myspace profile doesn't take away from it's notability at all. Neil Diamond has a myspace profile; does that make him not notable? (Unsigned by Apollu, the user's first edit.—jiy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
  • But Neil Diamond's myspace profile is supplementary to the 120 million records he has sold, his presence in the mass media, the critical reception he has recieved, etc. El Fhat's myspace profile is the only claim to fame El Fhat has, and that alone is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia.—jiy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • El Fhat's myspace profile is supplementary to the successful northwest tour they had, the following they have built, and the successful album they have released. Just because they have not gained world-wide reception does not prove their non-notability.--Tuscon6 04:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Like I said, many notable bands have myspace accounts. I personally found this article to be very insightful and the fact of the matter is that if were to go undeleted, it would literally make no difference to you guys. Let it stay up for those who enjoy it and for those who have a decent taste in music.--Zeegloo 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The point isn't whether they have a myspace account or not, it's whether that's the extent of their web presence. Unless evidence is given that they qualify under WP:MUSIC, I say delete. Confusing Manifestation 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete What evidence is given that the band does not meet the WP:MUSIC standards?--Tuscon6 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I myself am a fan of the band's music and would appreciate it if the page was left intact. El Fhat is one of the most influential and loved underground acts of the northern U.S.--Tuscon6 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (The only edits this user has made is to this AfD request.—jiy (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
• Do not delete. This band has a vast underground following. By the way stifel, who the hell are you? Wouldn't you meet the criteria for non-notability as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.197.148 (talk • contribs) 17:35, December 14, 2005 24.72.197.148
  • Comment Vandalizing user pages will not help your case. Jasmol 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Nor will trying to hide the evidence of meatpuppetry. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and provide us with the evidence that this band is notable for Wikipedia's purposes.—jiy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jasmol 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 17:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Cano

This article is in a foreign language (Spanish I believe) and seems to have no encyclopaedic content anyway. Ben W Bell 11:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete as per nominator and it is pure vanity --Mecanismo 11:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't speak spanish, so I am not voting. I added the translation tag to the article per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Movementarian 11:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment it is a small biography on some mexican man who graduated from civil engineering in 2003 and married in 2005. It's obviously a vanity page. You can check it out on babelfish, if you like --Mecanismo 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Upon further review this article should be deleted as a vanity page. I have removed the translation tag. Movementarian 11:54, 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 (2k/6d). Mindmatrix 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa L. Miller

Does not appear verifiably notable. The article claims she is nationally famous but fails to back this up. Weak delete. Stifle 11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, classic schoolchild vanity. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, vanity --Mecanismo 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a nn-bio. Joyous | Talk 12:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• KeepLOL She was my old debate coach from my HS days 9-10 years ago! Hysterical! She's (statewide) well known debate coach and teacher for MANY years, past president of th Florida Forensic League, her teams always do well in EVERY event, which lends to her reputation. Every active HS debate coach in the state and, possibly, in the region has heard and, likely, has come in contact with her or her teams. She's loved by her students (past and present). I'm bias, but I'd say she's notable enough (barely) to say in.Gator (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Around 4p CST Friday, Evinem put up a couple vanity bios. He was removing db tags and being a total ass. This article is a continuation of those two articles, which focused on the debate team et cetera. Mecanismo is dead on; this is vanity. Especially since there's a _notable_ person by that name. (I know the "don't bite the newbies" policy; however, this guy was asking to be bitten.) AND ON TOP OF THAT, Evinem has AGAIN attempted to remove vfd tags! D.valued 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the fact that a wikipedia's user knows the said person and admires her doesn't justify an encyclopedia article on that said person. We all know people we admire but that doesn't earn them the right to be listed in an encyclopedia --Mecanismo | Talk 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Now now, I never said keep her because I admitred her, I said keep (barely) because I blieve she is notably apart from my own biases. I didn't like your implication. I know what notable is and I would never vote keep just because "a wikipedia's user knows the said person and admires her." Please re-read my comments. Delete or don't, it's no skin off my back.Gator (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Gator as Miller seems notable. If not merge somewhere. -- JJay 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be WP:V verified. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:38, 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. --Angr (t·c) 22:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mineva Loa Zabi

Not notable and I can barely make sense of it. Stifle 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's about some obscure character seen on some Gundam anime series. Why does Wikipedia have to include every minor detail on Gundam? Will every screw on every Gundam robot get its own article? They're not real, people! Delete post-haste. — JIP | Talk 11:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This should probably Merge to List of minor characters from Gundam ZZ or something similar, but I can't follow the text well enough to really know for sure. Given the quality of the writing, a Delete wouldn't break my heart, either. -Colin Kimbrell 17:20, 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 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Blood (Band)

It was tagged as a speedy as "lack of relevancy", but claiming to have three albums out meets band inclusion guidelines. Can anyone verify they're not just a garage band with self-released stuff? Abstain - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless more evidence turns up. They are not listed at Allmusic.com or Amazon.com and I could not find any reference to them on Google. Movementarian 12:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I also tried to find them on Google and could not find anything at all. They're evidently not well known. --Eeee 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything on them either. PJM 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Three albums" is likely a calculated claim, for the purpose of circumventing speedy deletion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have searched, and can find a movie, a book and more about menstration than anyone wants to know. Nothing on the band. Unless someone can add more to this article (a band home page? name of members? ANYTHING?). EliF 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, off you go, where's our band speedy category yet? Stifle 23:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It would certainly make a nice stocking stuffer. PJM 00:48, 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 article was Speedily Deleted independently of this AFD. - SoM 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faux-elitism

Tagged as NPOV, actually I think very close to speediable as nonsense. I can't think of anything properly encyclopaedic which could exist under this title. Current content is POV and original "research" (in the loosest sense of the word). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Definitely appears to be nonsense, but at the very least it is a neologism. Movementarian 12:02, 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 with Julius Vogel. The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so copyright is not an issue. I have added the {{JewishEncyclopedia}} tag to Julius Vogel. --Angr (t·c) 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Julius Vogel K.C.M.G

Duplicate of Julius Vogel , just content from the Jewish Encyclopedia - SimonLyall 11:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete - As per my nom. Duplicates existing article and is just stuff copied from PD source. NAme not worth keeping as redirect. SimonLyall 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Julius Vogel. There is useful information in the article notably the references. Capitalistroadster 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.

Capitalistroadster 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Capitalistroadster. No need to lose the reference. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Cap. It would be a shame not to keep the extra information (given that I work part time for a company co-founded by Vogel and am a former winner of the Sir Julius Vogel Award I should be able to add some more there, too!). If I'm not mistaken the article name is incorrect anyway - surely it isn't both "Sir" and KCMG"? Grutness...wha? 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - the title is a variant someone may actually search on - David Gerard 13:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment Sir Julius Vogel already redirects to the main page. I've added KCMG to the main page. I really don't think people are going to search on the exact title of this artcle and if they do they will get the main one anyway, hench I didn't go for redirect. SimonLyall 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Capitalistroadster, but check copyright status first. Stifle 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - especially keep references to Otago Daily Times. --LesleyW 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ] 17:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inside In/Inside Out

An album that should have been released last January? No thanks. Stifle 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's next January (2006). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Kinks have been notable for 40 years, definite album title and lineup, firm anticipated release time from a major label. It's a keeper with the appropriate tag that will be removed upon release next month. B.Wind 00:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, bearing in mind that the 2005 was a typo, I'm happy to close this as a speedy keep. Stifle 23:46, 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. --Angr (t·c) 22:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tea Leaf Green

Appears to be a review rather than an article, Their site seems to indicate multiple albums. Do these meet WP:MUSIC enough to be rewritten? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Article is promotional in nature, rather than encyclopedic. Band tours primarily the western US and seems to have a following west of the Rocky Mountains. Their albums are on independent labels (or home grown) and sold through their web site. Unless there's more to them, they seem to just miss the notability threshold, but the right piece of verifiable information can convince me to change my vote (after all, the Grateful Dead were notable before they sold records). But for now, very weak delete. B.Wind 01:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 23:49, 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 kept per WP:IAR. No sense wasting more bandwidth on this well-intentioned but unnecessary AfD. This does *not* imply anything about the nominator, only that the subject is notable and no more time need be spent here. FCYTravis 08:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Welsh Hemingway

bio, notable only for being Ernest Hemingway's wife. Eligible for merge but recommend delete. Stifle 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject had a career as a national journalist, wrote an autobiography regarding her life with Hemingway and was maried to Hemingway. I would argue these points make her notable enough. If we delete articles like this, which are created by new users, what message are we sending to those users? Your contribution is not welcome? Hiding talk 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Hiding, I can imagine readers being interested in the wife of Ernest Hemingway during his bouts of depression and suicide. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is a speedy keep. She covered the war for the Daily Express and Time, well before she married Hemingway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  This is not a speedy keep. Speedy keeps only happen either if the nomination is vandalism or is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, or if the nominator withdraws and the only votes have been to keep. You may wish to vote "strong keep" instead. Stifle 15:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  Or you could withdraw your nom. Hiding talk 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  This doesn't appear to be a bad faith nomination. A speedy keep implies that the nominator is a vandal, newbie or just plain stupid. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  Or just jawdroppingly wrong. It happens - David Gerard 13:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but "speedy keep" is a loaded term and should not be used lightly. -- Kjkolb 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keeps happen, as far as I'm concerned, when a grossly inappropriate nomination is made. I know this wasn't an attempt to disrupt wikipedia, but the chance of it prevailing are zero. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As well as being married to Hemingway, she was a notable journalist and wrote an autobiography of her life. Capitalistroadster 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in her own right as reasoned above. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- JJay 03:59, 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 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talize

Delete. Blatant advert. Business with 2 stores in Canada. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. -Colin Kimbrell 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per those above. --maclean25 01:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kieran hurley

Was tagged as speedy, but lecturers can be notable. This appears to be a resume, so I'll vote delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as advertisement of oneself, i.e. a résumé. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I tagged it originally and stand by my original call. Stifle 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since this is basically just a resume. In general, I think borderline speedies like this one are a better fit on AFD, since the greater transparency and community feedback lessen the chance of accidental newbie-biting. -Colin Kimbrell 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --Computerjoe 17:27, 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 article has been speedily redirected. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedestrian Street

Essentially a dictionary definition, but there may be some famous streets by the name Pedestrian Street. x42bn6 Talk 12:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as redirect to Car-free zone, which is where Pedestrian street already redirects. u p p l a n d 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as redirect, per Uppland. --Mgreenbe 14:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect in place. Closing AfD... howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:29, 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 merge with Vestavia Hills, Alabama Louis Pizitz Middle School. --Angr (t·c) 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pizitz

Article is nearly empty, has nothing linking to it, and is for a non-notable US middle school StuffOfInterest 13:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. Real place (per website which notes some achievements) - if kept, should be moved to Pizitz Middle School. BD2412 T 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Achievements like "Classroom access to a Pentium computer on the school network"? Neat, it's some kind of archaeology school then?  :P

    More seriously, it seems to be more notable than the average schoolcruft (highest SAT scores in Alabama in 2003, apparently), so if some of that stuff can be verified from sources other than the school's own website, it would easily score a keep according to the growing consensus at WP:SCH. This is doubtless going to be kept in some form. But someone who cares about school articles will need to clean up the current article pretty radically and move it to the proper place. — Haeleth Talk 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Relisted for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep, Cleanup and Rename. Well, WP:SCH will have a fit if they find out we deleted a school, heh. -^demon 14:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. If the school is utterly without redeeming merit, and the article sucks, is there any reason for keeping it? Note that this is not a vote, but I have some real issues about schools that would not be kept if they were people. Denni ☯ 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry to rant, but I expect anyone voting keep or delete to provide a decent *reason* for their vote. Quoting from WP:SCH's list of arguments isn't good enough. AfD is a debate, not a vote. That's why it was renamed. Quoting from both sides of the arguments subpage in WP:SCH does not constitute a debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, no references or verifiability. They can recreate it once these are covered. Stifle 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:17, 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 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wheelers

Not notable as far as I can see - nothing found on Google. First seven words says it all. A bit iffy 12:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's more like the second sentence is a giveaway. Does not meet WP:MUSIC - delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is quite funny, the article starts off by writing its own suicide note ;) Delete. Zunaid 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the first two sentences. Fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours. Stifle 23:56, 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 keep. I, the nominator of the article, withdraw my nomination, and there are no delete votes in evidence. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landshark

This is an unusual nomination. I am the original creator of this page, but I am not (repeat, not) saying it should be deleted. Nor am I saying it should be kept. I am abstaining from voting on this page. I am submitting it to AfD because it is the only page I have created where I feel a slight twinge of guilt for having done so. Some days I think it's a perfectly valid article that needs a little cleanup. Other days I suspect it probably should be deleted altogether. Since I can't objectively decide, I submit it to AfD's tender mercies. Debate on it as ye will. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Even if you are the article creator, the reason you're nominating it would be nice. It seems like a perfectly good article to me, the only problem being the lack of sources. Leaning towards Keep at the moment. --Last Malthusian 13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Apparently we have an entire category of SNL sketches. —Cryptic (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, I withdraw my nomination. Sorry for the bother. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:39, 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 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The injustice

Highly POV, bad article title. Not encyclopedic. --^demon 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for obvious reasons. See also KART SABZ and Fayli Kurds - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV Article title. Agnte 14:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Unencyclopedic. Bhumiya/[[User_talk:Bhumiya|Talk]] 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Crotalus horridus 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unsalvagable essay. But the subtitle "What a miserable fate this people suffer from!".... Punkmorten 16:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Clearly this is a essay by an middle-schooler saved in the wrong location :)-MegamanZero 17:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite POV. The Kurdish people article is quite thorough as it is. However, I encourage anyone who can find salvageable information to put it in that article.--Aleron235 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Freakofnurture. Stifle 23:56, 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 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KART SABZ

Obviously has no place on WP but I can't think of the appropriate speedy criterion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• See also The injustice and Fayli Kurds - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is NOT the dead letter office. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Freakofnurture, and possible copyvio. Stifle 23:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lostcast

A list, a neologism, and a whole collection of non-notable podcasts, all rolled up into "reality" TV fancruft. An abomination unto Nuggan. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• should wiki be used as a portal for blogs - a lostcast could be defined in general terms such as "fans of tv programmes etc often have podcasts dedicated to their fanaticism eg lostcast for the ABC series lost" under podcast
• At the moment, the article is a simple, Yahoo!-style, web directory, containing a list of external hyperlinks to podcasts and short accompanying blurbs from their authors written in the first person. The place to write this sort of thing is Yahoo! Directory or the Open Directory Project. Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete podcruft. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia articles are not lists of external links. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Freakofnurture. Stifle 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a podcast directory. Gamaliel 00:00, 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 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Padron

This page is very close to being a CSD, but I've decided to go the slow route. At first it looks like a NN-bio (collector of pop music and culture), but the last sentence seems to indicate that he's a writer. If that's the case though, I can't find a work he's published or a periodical that employs him. This page is going to either need a serious rewrite (starting with some context in which to place this person), or be deleted. Bachrach44 14:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN-bio. I found a reference to him at [24] which seems to fit the description of the Oscar Padron in the article, but there's a few people with that name involved in baseball. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• If its the same person mentioned by Howcheng, he is self-published and therefore doesn't meet WP:BIO. DeleteCapitalistroadster 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Stifle 23:58, 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. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiles

A nice story of an ordinary family living in the UK. Doesn't assert the notability of the family in question. Doesn't exactly fall under A7 either, I think, because it is about a bunch of people, not just a person. Mysid 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this completely remade article. –Mysid 14:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - NN. It's just that, an ordinary family, nobody of real importance. -^demon 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• nn - either delete or, perhaps, redirect to the extremely notable Andrew Wiles. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I do hope Paul Wiles is over his accident but this is really blog stuff. Keresaspa 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy if the user wants it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep UncleG's New! IMPROVED! version. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• RobertG was on the right track, but hadn't gone far enough. Deletion wasn't the way to fix the problem with this article, which was an unsourced firsthand personal history of a person who failed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies by a wide margin. Turning it into a family name disambiguation article, like the many other such articles we have, was. Keep. Uncle G 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the disambig. Brilliant work. BD2412 T 17:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it is now a dab page. / Ezeu 03:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Uncle G's new page. All credit to Uncle G for being bold. Stifle 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Change my vote to keep. Great work. Keresaspa 14:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic world and the Western world

POV and unencyclopaedic in concept and execution. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. -^demon 14:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• LOL, delete it. It's not only pov, it makes no sense at all. A worthy achievement indeed. XYaAsehShalomX 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with a capital D for POV. Croat Canuck 02:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV and probably original research too. Stifle 00:01, 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. Enochlau 02:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blog Design

Obvious and trivial neologism. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Stifle 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Blog. --RayaruB 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -^demon 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and put the suggested redirect at Blog design with a non-capital 'd'. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 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 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Civilian

This has been previously deleted as a copyvio, but I don't know for sure if it can be speedied now. Stifle 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I typed this page in my own words with the info I gathered this page shouldn't be deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dude57 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC and also for crystal balling wrt the album. Eddie.willers 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No listing on allmusic.com or amazon.com and fails to meet any guideline in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 01:01, 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. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max Cantor

Non-notable. Delete. Google searches [[25]] [[26]] return under 1000 results. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 15:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a relevant article for an encyclopaedia. His is an interesting story. Carrowheel 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Why delete it? Good thing about Wikipedia is its huge repository of information. -carrowheel

• Keep - I see no reason to delete, this guy did exist, he was in films, and the article seems to portray him accurately. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep and move to correct capitalisation. Two major parts in decent-selling movies and one fairly high billing, seems to pass [{WP:BIO]] Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Guy. I have moved it myself. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: By performing this move, I fixed a red link at List of famous opiate addicts that had been there for almost a year and a half. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability asserted. Hiding talk 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability indeed asserted. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:24, 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 keep and disambiguate. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rockets

Non-notable band, my fourth such nomination today and comes with my usual request for a speedy category. Stifle 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. NN. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Per above.
• Keep but turn into a disambig page. There have been at least two notable bands called the Rockets. One, as Neil Young's backing band, was later known as Crazy Horse. The other, a well-known Detroit band of the 19780s and 80s, had several albums out on major labels, backed Lou Reed, and and members do various stints with Mitch Ryder, Bob Seger, Buddy Miles, and Cactus. The Rockville band described on this page doesn't seem notable, but the others are. rodii 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then disambiguate per rodii. -Sean Curtin 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no need to delete to make it into a disambig; the point of doing so is not clear - David Gerard 13:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Make dab. I can think of three more Rockets - David Gerard 13:53, 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 as google searches for any of the keywords [27] [28] [29] [30] yields no related results at all.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saela

Non-notable musicians. Stifle 15:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raiuk Tapartah Myth

NN & nonsense. Delete. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See duplicate nomination just below. jni 16:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteSpeedy Delete. What is it with dumb articles today? -^demon 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Its friday, I suspect bourbon is involved. / Ezeu 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this fictional material is not notable since the band that permforms it is not notable. -Meegs 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. / Ezeu 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense. Stifle 00:06, 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. Enochlau 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Godofe keios

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google's got 18 hits, only one or two are this band.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. NN and fails WP:MUSIC -^demon 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

DONT DELETE GODOFE KEIOS AND ITS MYTHOLOGY !!!! THEY ARE GREAT !!!!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 217.129.81.122 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable band. Stifle 00:06, 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 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raiuk Tapartah Mythology

Made up by the guys from Godofe keios. Not notable. Exactly one google hit.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, it DID exist until a few minutes ago. Now it's a redirect to a blank page containing the nocontent tag.

• Delete like with duplicate Raiuk Tapartah Myth. jni 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , sounds like pure chat-room material, but some of the information is supported by fact.-MegamanZero 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable bandcruft. Stifle 00:07, 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. Enochlau 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catboxer

Self-promotion (created by User:Perry Normal which is the alias of one of the band members. Wikipedia is not self-promotion). At any rate, 2-self released albums... not on AMG... no evidence they meet WP:MUSIC's guidelines for notability --W.marsh 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I helped clean up the article a little and decided to let it sit for a while to see if any kind of notability might be established. Unfortunately, it has not, and I'm voting to delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-09 19:53:32Z
• Delete non-notable. I strongly wish these were speediable. Stifle 00:08, 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 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Pakingan

Probably a hoax. Google has not heard of the name, which seems unlikely for someone who would, if this were true, have been the first non-European immigrant to become a British MP. The article was blanked by its creator a couple of days ago, which makes it difficult for me to assume good faith... — Haeleth Talk 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unverified, seems to be a hoax. Blanking by the author can be considiered a request for deletion, so let's grant him the wish. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of Google's this was before computers were even invented. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Let's bow to the will of the author on this one - Speedy Delete, despite after-blanking reversion. B.Wind 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 00:08, 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. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Howard Taff

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, non-notable. Delete. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as not meeting WP:NMG. BJAODN for the comparison: "William Howard Taff is a band similar to: "Weird Al" Yankovic, Stephen Lynch, Iron Maiden, and Van Halen." Unfortunately, unlike those acts, this band is not yet notable. Capitalistroadster 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 00:08, 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 Speedy Deleted by User:RoyBoy. Pilatus 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious views of evolution

User:Ed Poor has made a POV fork of content already included in Wikipedia at other articles. In particular, the "religious views of evolution" are found at theistic evolution and creationism for example. More than this, much of this content is simply recreation from his other forks such as Definitions of evolution, Evolution poll, etc. --ScienceApologist 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Creation-evolution controversy - POV fork --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect seems appropriate, yes. Alternately, move Creation-evolution controversy to Religious views of evolution and expand treatment of non-Christian religions ... it may actually be a better title, but we don't need both and we don't need POV forking. --FOo 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto no reason not to, it seems. karmafist 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the current article at Creation-evolution controversy describes a particular aspect of religious views of evolution, while theistic evolution (the article is at evolutionary creationism) mostly explains and explores how religions support evolution. Although I'm concerned about such an article being a breeding ground for non-neutrality, I don't think that's reason enough to delete, and it has the potential of covering material not covered in either article. If it never does, we can redirect it later. Demi ^T/_C 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Evolutionary creationism, which deals with Jewish, Islamic and Hindu traditions as well as Christian. The Creation-evolution controversy page is too specifically Christian, and is about a debate which is only a big issue in the US (AFAIK). --Squiddy 17:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Have to disagree with you there. Evolutionary creationism deals specifically with religious views that express compatibility with evolution. --FOo 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I take your point. I still don't think it ought to redirect to a page which is so specific to one religion and one country - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Maybe make it a disambig page? --Squiddy 18:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Creation-evolution controversy - POV fork -- WAS 4.250 17:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Speedy Delete per above Pilatus. Yet one more POV fork from Ed on AFD. How many is that now? FeloniousMonk 18:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. This is material from the Evolution poll page. Pilatus 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Cydeweys. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the controversy. Gazpacho 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This POV fork barrage that is getting quite disruptive. Vsmith 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as this covers a specific area of the debate that deserves its subtopic.Trilemma 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too restrictive in its present formulation (if someone can come up with a sensible draft then it could be a reasonable topic). A neutral article would mention the non-overlapping magisteria between religion and science and the fact that most mainline churches and do not reject science and only fundamentalists and certain religious cults do. — Dunc|☺ 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antireality

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is a neologism. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete either a dicdef or a neologism, either way nothign encyclopaedic in the article as written. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - one sentence does not an encyclopedia entry make, especially when the text itself doesn't use the term. B.Wind 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete neologism/dicdef. Stifle 00:08, 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. Mo0[talk] 07:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asfyxia

This page does not deserve to be deleted. There needs to be a page about this band on Wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Xclandestinex (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Prove this is a notable band, see WP:MUSIC. I cannot find anything to prove it is, but I wont say definately delete it without knowing all the facts, because theres actually some reasonable content there. StealthFox 06:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not on allmusic, not on Amazon. No sales data provided, no evidence of meeting WP:NMG. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Asphyxia. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

http://myspace.com/asfyxiatheband and http://www.purevolume.com/asfyxia

• OK, thanks - a myspace page is a good litmus test for insignificance in music. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, Delete. StealthFox 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please read WP:MUSIC next time. Thanks. -^demon 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Asphyxia. Zero albums released. -Meegs 00:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Just zis Guy and the myspace test. Stifle 00:09, 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 keep. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bahamian American

There's not enough information here to warrant an article. This should be a wiktionary entry, and maybe also split it into a list of famous Bahamia Americans. Please share your vote below. CrypticBacon 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, agreed. This is clearly a stub (or wikidictonary material), but seems written in good faith; merge in to some nationalities page, etc.-MegamanZero 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems to be a reasonable stub with potential for growth. - SimonP 00:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this could turn into a reasonable article, a-la Greek American (which seens to be constructed along a similar template). -Colin Kimbrell 17:30, 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 (20/1). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concept album

Reason why the page should be deleted The word "concept" can be applied to any invention in history. All music has an underriding concept, even if the concept is to please the audience. The list of concept albums will always be ridiculous. Is Bob Dylan a concept? What about Jimi Hendrix? Or Britney Spears? Don't get me wrong, this article is very cool, but it seems that's what everybody thinks a concept album is, cool. The devision is just far two subjective. I nominate for immediate deletion. -ShadowyCabal

Strong keep on the grounds that it is the first Google hit for "concept album". —BenFrantzDale 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The reason it's the first hit is because Wikipedia has made-up the concept of a concept album. There is no objective way to explain the difference between a concept album and a non-concept album. If so, I'd like to see this list of non-concept albums. -ShadowyCabal 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The idea of a concept album exists outside of Wikipedia. Any album that does not have a story running from one song to the next across the entire album is not a concept album. For example, Back in Black by AC/DC is not; it's just a collection of songs. On the other hand Operation: Mindcrime is, as AllMusic says; it tells a story from start to finish. —BenFrantzDale 21:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment The first paragraph pretty much explains that a concept album is an album in which the songs are tied together with an overall concept. It also says rightly that there isn't a precise definition. There are a lot of albums that aren't concept albums, because although the artist may have 'conceived' of the album and the individual songs, the songs deal with unrelated concepts. Asking for a list of non-concept albums is like asking for a list of all non-christmas oriented albums. This specific term has been around since at least the 1970's. It's a great article and a real category of music/albums. -Cranialhotfudge 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep this term has been in use for quite some time, and the article looks to be properly representing the usage of the term. Now the list may be another issue... CarbonCopy 17:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as widely-used term with at least 30 years of currency. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as User:Just zis Guy, you know? The JPS 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Surely you're joking? This term has been in use for musical albums for decades. :) — RJH 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable term in use for decades with a lot of historical equity. 23skidoo 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This article covers a well-known subject in a familiar way. The only thing it needs is better citations. Nomination seems highly POV. Durova 18:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 659,000 Google references for concept album [31].

Plenty of Google book entries [32]. 139 Google news references indicate that the term gets plenty of exposure in the general media [33]. 106 Google Scholar results [34]. Capitalistroadster 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Guy and others. rodii 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Have added some references. Could do with some more.Capitalistroadster 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable term, well written article, over 7 million 6 hundred thousand Google hits, FCOL. Why was this AfD'd at all? — JIP | Talk 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with strength and speed. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable concept. Hiding talk 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep - term has been in use since the Pretty Things released the first concept album (S.F. Sorrow) just before Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The Kinks made a second career out of concept albums. B.Wind 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Concept albums were commonly known as such decades before Wikipedia was founded. --Metropolitan90 01:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep. Smerdis of Tlön 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. ShadowyCaballero's claims that Wikipedia invented this term are blatantly false and their claim that the definition is too subjective to be meaningful applies only to their own incorrect definition, not to the one given by the article. In combination with the username "ShadowyCabal", I am strongly tempted to suspect that this is a bad-faith nomination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I have to assume there is either some element of bad faith to this nom, or a strange detachment from reality. In both cases, this article has no place on AfD. -- JJay 19:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.—thegreentrilby 22:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It goes without saying that every album has some type of underlying theme, even if it is that the songs happen to be on the same album together. This is simply common sense. The idea of a concept album has been widely used since Sgt. Pepper's, and although I think some albums on the list are somewhat of a stretch to qualify as a true concept album, that does not mean that it should be deleted.
• Strong Keep. I'm trying to avoid an ad hominem attack by finding any reason why the deletion idea has merit. I can't. I can only suggest that "the lunatic is on the grass". :-) Geno Z Heinlein 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The lunatic is most certainly in the hall. —BenFrantzDale 00:47, 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 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Connect direct

Advertising. Jackk 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advert, nn product. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promospam. CarbonCopy 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete adcruft. Stifle 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)