Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 29 December 1 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] November 30

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). Ral315 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 30gigs

Non-notable email provider. Nearly-speediable article originally contained a contact request. Delete (see below). -- SCZenz 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, the article is crappy, but I think I can fix it into a nice stub. An Alexa rank of 48,246 and I found 1220 sites linking to it with Google. Appears to be sufficiently notable to me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • At that level, it probably satisfies WP:WEB, but I would urge (not require) that the external link be to a site that discusses the group, rather than to the provider itself, just to limit the possibilities of page rank boosting. In particular, Google hits are inherently high for any e-mail provider, as anyone who puts in href mailto will generate a link. Weakest keep. Geogre 11:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another website. --Ezeu 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Mgm. Solver 17:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I might've been too hasty to nominate it, as the original version of the article biased me against it. However, despite a high ranking, it's an email provider—I haven't seen much evidence there's anything interesting about it other than a fair number of people use it for email. Obviously I'm willing to change my vote again if I see more info. -- SCZenz 17:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. See GMail - the feature listing is long enough for an article all by itself, and a feature listing can certainly be made for any email provider. Solver 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Gmail was groundbreaking and extremely highly-publicized. Is this? -- SCZenz 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No, but my point is that at least a feature listing can be quite detailed even without being a groundbreaking service. Solver 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
          • And mine is that, regardless of how long an article you can write, if it's not a notable company we don't need the article. -- SCZenz 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per MacGyverMagic. The article, can be improved, and is mildy notable. Banes 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Aint mildy notable eq delete?--Ezeu 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete webspamMONGO 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no noteworthy yet. Sethie 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep not an incredibly noteworthy topic; however, the provider is gaining in popularity and is often cited as a criticism of gmail to show that gmail's storage alone are unimportant. As such, it might provide a better sidenote to the gmail article, but I believe it worthy of article. Cool3 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blake & Dylan Tuomy-Wilhoit

seems to be copy n pasted and is about relatively unknown child actors. --Phil 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, being on Full House makes them notable enough even if that's their only acting experiencem, but a lot of unverifiable fan material (and dated statements) need to be cut for this article to work. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Based on their lack of further acting, I support the merge as well. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (a summary) and redirect to Full House: Because these two infants haven't had much of a career since, their fame rests in the show alone. Therefore, there isn't really much need for a biography, and especially a corporate biography, under this extremely unlikely name. Geogre 11:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dylan & Blake Tuomy-Wilhoit --Rob 14:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepMerge per Rob. Actors in a wellknown TV show – they even have their own IMDB pages. --Ezeu 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I merged the other article into this, and got rid of all the unverified stuff (which is almost everything). --Rob 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per A1 --RoySmith 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mophie

Delete. No shown notability. Paul Cyr 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as without content or references. Not even good enough to be corporate vanity. Ifnord 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Poor advertising, but advertising. Peyna 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - article consists only of a sentence fragment. 147.70.242.21 00:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinslaughter

Neologism and original research. — A.M. 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Already covered by Patricide, Matricide, filicide, fratricide, and sororicide. If necessary, redirect to one of those. Peyna 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this well-nominated article. Ifnord 00:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, no evidence of widespread usage cited, and nor can I find any. --Stormie 01:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 01:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Clay Collier 02:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research --Phil 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We could userfy to the author, whose user page is currently a red link. Delete if author objects to it. Speedy delete any duplicates and/or re-creations of this. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --StuffOfInterest 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per all of the above. Banes 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Kinslaying at Alqualondë Dsmdgold 04:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. The word is not listed in the OED (contrary to the article's contention that it's an ancient term)--it is, quite simply, not a word. Chick Bowen 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete orig research Sethie 00:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Velvetsmog 02:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TAME

I'd like AfD to take a look at this. The topic of the article sounds alright when you read it. But when you Google it, you find baically nothing, and Google news finds absolutely nothing. It presumably exists/ed, but the article is a (sub-)stub without apparent potential for expansion. It would be virtually impossible to verify any future addition to the article based on what's on Google. On the other hand, I could just be looking in the wrong places. -Splashtalk 00:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems to be defunct, and not notable even when it existed. This article refers to TAME as "was" in a couple of places, and that "... the activities of the organisation fell into abeyance". – Ezeu 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an Irish organization. This may account in part for its paucity of web hits. Nevertheless, I can't find information that it's active; I found one mention of it some newsletter, but that's from Spring 2000. They did have a newsletter called Media Edge, but can't get any info on that either. One Martin Kieran appears to have been involved. He's co-written a couple of books. But there is no mention of TAME in the brief bio here. If the organizaton was functioning you'd think that there would be. The only marker that the organization IS active is that an editor created this article. Why now, if it's been defunct for years? Herostratus 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ireland actually has a fairly good World Wide Web presence. Uncle G 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand - The article is far too brief to be of use and needs to be expanded. The comment was made that the organization may be defunct and this would indeed account for fewer webhits. Deleting an entry because it refers to a dead organization is inappropriate, especially one that by its title would suggest it had at one time been of some significance in its area. If we delete it because it is (effectively) dead, then we need to also consider deleting entries for the Whig party, Greek Mythology, etc.--eleuthero 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • They are verifiable and expandable. How would you suggest expanding this article? I'd be pleased if you can, but it's too common for people to say "expand" on AfD and have no idea or intention how that might be done. That said, if people can find a means of expanding and verifying this, that's great. I dont see any justification for your claim that its title suggests that it may have been of significance: that is just speculation. -Splashtalk 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Eleuthero, you are missreading the comments. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted merely because the organisation is defunct. Some effort has been made (with references and all) to determine if this indeed is/was a notable organisation. The "delete" votes (wouldnt you agree) are warranted – unless you can give some evidence to the contrary. / Ezeu 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Eleuthero is wholly ignoring the requirement that everything in Wikipedia be verifiable. If the article cited sources, as its creator was asked to do when xe created the article, it would be verifiable. But, like so many articles, it cites no sources at all. Like other editors above, I've tried to find reliable sources. I haven't found any. I cannot even find a source to verify the second half of the first sentence of the article, where it describes what the purpose of this organization purportedly is. The only verifiable information about this organization is that some people say that they used to be members of it but that it doesn't exist now. There is nothing else documented about this organization that I have found. (In contrast, there are reams of published books about the Whig party and about Greek mythology.) Eleuthero, the only argument that you can make to counter this, and to change everyone else's mind (This is a discussion. Opinions are not set in stone.), is to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources that cover this subject. Arguing that we should keep stuff that we cannot verify, regardless, simply won't wash. Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It would seem my comments got people to express themselves at least... haven't seen that long of a post on AfD in quite a while--eleuthero 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep per Kleuthero. Stifle 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep assuming this is an actual orginzation :), a stub is in order, for future expansion
    • That is poor reasoning. You should make sure the information in the article is verifiable before deciding to keep it based on an assumption that has no basis. We don't hold onto things that we cannot verify. -Splashtalk 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Uncle G and my original nomination concerns. Those who are arguing we should keep it in case it may be verifiable need to go and read WP:V. This requires us to remove any unverified to the talk page until it is verified. In this case, all but the first few words would have to go. Eleuthero has no grounds to suppose they may have been significant: that is speculation pure and simple. His/her comments about Greek mythology are complete redherrings. -Splashtalk 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, lack of sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsmog (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 December 2005
  • Delete - as per above - Hahnchen 05:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was ... let me count...1, 2, 3, 4, 5......Uh... (16 keep, 4 delete, 5 merge) no consensus, leaning to keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School

Note:: Please vote based on the article itself, and not on the subject matter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2005


I don't know if this will get an entry. Being a high school and all

  • Delete non-notable school Bwithh 01:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - more or less as notable as the hundreds of schools here and elsewhere. /Ezeu 07:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear past precedent to keep high schools (middle schools and elementary schools are more controversial) and this article is as good as any of the other stubs. Being an independant school it is a bit difficult to find a suitable merge target. See discussion on this hot topic at Wikipedia:Schools and its talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with Llandaff? That's the natural place to look for it in a British context, and it's also exactly what Wikipedia:Schools actually suggests ("other higher-level article such as city [...] if private". The wording is US-centric, and in Britain a "city" is a much more specific thing, but the meaning is clearly that the town the school is in is an appropriate merge target.) — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although I think Sjakkalle is stretching things a little with "clear consensus to keep" - actually the clear consensus was to stop the endless sterile wars caused by consistent failure to achieve consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ezeu. No, I'm not misreading. Another high school like the rest - a bog-standard comprehensive, to quote Blair. --Last Malthusian 09:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, just another high school like the rest. But why is this particular school less important than the others? – that is the essence of my comment. We need some consistency, not just haphazard preference of one article over the other. If I knew any, I too would evoke a political buzzword to support my point, but precedence is (probably) the only viable "afd" argument, given that one can use almost any claim to support ones position. That there are hundreds of other high schools on wikipedia is a viable argument to keep this one. / Ezeu 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    It's certainly less important than Eton College and Llandaff Cathedral School. I'm shocked that there's no article on the latter. Chris talk back 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Llandaff. Doesn't contain enough useful information to be its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Look at this article. I am not voting on the topic (esp. since I generally think independent/private schools can be legitimate topics) but the article. Please vote this particular one. It begins with <--TEMPLATE END. It only says that it's a school and that it's co-ed and then where it is. This is not an article. If it were an article, and if it said something about the school, I'd probably vote to keep. Geogre 11:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Rhollenton 12:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hopefully some past or present students will expand on the article one day. Would make a nice project for a writing class. --StuffOfInterest 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you really want to be stuck with a horrendous substub until that happens? I'm pretty sure anyone attending the school doesn't need the info from this "article" to write up something better. We don't keep nonsense pages on legitimate subjects either with the idea it can be cleaned up. - Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely inviting (ex-)students to write about their own school because no-one else will violates WP:NOR and WP:V? NOR: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources." Relying on a school's own website for data is bad enough. Relying on someone coming here, claiming they're a student and letting them add information is much, much worse. We wouldn't let someone claiming to be an article's subject write about himself if he didn't back up his claims, or let someone claiming to be an ex-Scientologist write new claims about the "church". --Last Malthusian 13:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not (much) worse than a lot of other school articles here, though it certainly needs work done on it. Rhion 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#KeepHipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn welsh school Catchpole 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Even Welsh ones. And stop nominating them. And please have this discussion over at WP:SCH not here day after day on AfD. AndyJones 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a verifiable school that needs some expanding. Also, please sign things if you are going to add them to the top of the page (the "Note" was not from the original (unsigned) nominator). I'll assume good faith by guessing the nominator is not aware of the current school controversy. Shame to keep cluttering up AfD like this though. Turnstep 17:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Hipocrite. Banes 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand and keep - per precedent. The article is in dire need of a rewrite. 147.70.242.21 22:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Llandaff per WP:SCH; alternatively, if anyone expands the article to include sufficient verifiable content to pass the proposed bar (three full sentences, verifiable from sources not published by the school itself, and presenting information that is not "phonebook"-style location/contact details, or otherwise obvious from the article's title), then it should be kept.

    WP:SCH, WP:SCH, WP:SCH. It's a good proposal. It solves the obvious problem of school substubs while still satisfying reasonable inclusionists. Let's use it. — Haeleth Talk 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • keep and please do not nominate these any more Yuckfoo 01:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep place of education is notable.--MONGO 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please join us at Wikipedia Talk:Schools and help create a policy regarding school articles. Denni ☯ 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 23:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - why are we voting on the article itself instead of the subject matter? Given that Wiki is a collaborative project, we should be voting on the subject matter. An article can always be improved. Per Wikipedia philosophy: Eventualism :). Zordrac 01:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That makes the assumption that it will be. The reality is that it probably won't be. Denni ☯ 01:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not notable --redstucco 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per precedent for keeping high schools. Peachlette 10:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Organic growth is a property of living organisms, not something an encyclopaedia article can posess. Chris talk back 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with higher order article per WP:SCH proposal which this currently fails.Gateman1997 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verified and encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Brown

There are 435 Representatives, why record every loser, and such a non-notable one at that. Simesa 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Political candidates are not generally notable for losing unless it is for a very prominent office. There are no other indications of notability. Keep and expand per Dialup. That information makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's 297,700,000 people in the United States, and we only generate 435 losers every 2 years. Just getting the nomination of a major political party for one of those seats is a pretty significant event. There are far more trivial things and people chronicled in these pages. --RoySmith 01:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A bit more:From Society for Women's Health Researach Brown is evidently one of the authors of The Savvy Woman Patient (ISBN 193310208X )—"Melissa Brown, BSN, MSN, MD, is an adjunct assistant professor of Ophthalmology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and adjunct senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Penn. She is the director for the Center for Value-Based Medicine and co-chief Editor of Evidence-Based Eye Care. Dr. Brown has served as President of the Montgomery County (PA) Medical Society and serves on the Advisory Council for the National Institute for Aging. She has written over 120 publications on medical issues."
  • Could any of thise be actually added onto the article? Bill shannon 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline -- weak Delete. It says here that "Dr. Brown was recently appointed to serve on the Advisory Council for the National Institute for Aging by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson." I don't know if that means much, but there it is. It looks like she's a go-getter and active public citizen, but there are lots of those. But not all of them get them come to attention of the national GOP. Here's the thing: if the editor had written a longer article, stressing her publications and involvement with the Center for Value-Based medicine, and topped it off with her political campaigns, maybe it would be a keeper. But she didn't, and is anyone really ever going to back and do that? Especially considering they would have to add this: "[A]n insurance company, the Pennsylvania Physician Healthcare Plan, [was] co-founded by Brown in 1995. The company failed four years later and was taken over by the state government. In 2000, the company was sued by the state for fraud, conspiracy and illegally conveying money to its directors. The suit was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed." Yes she has published many technical articles and some books and served on boards, but does she pass the Professor Test? I think not quite. Herostratus 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if the info Dialup found is about the same person. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Undecided. If DialUp is right, and this is the same person, then that woudl probably qualify, just about, as long as the named institutions are genuine and significant (and let's not forget that every lobby group has its own tame "institute"). On the other hand, how come nobody actually bothered to put in enough information about the candidate while they were running? This is a classic example of exactly the point I made in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates - information on a failed candidate is hard to verify and unlikely to be miantained because it was created not by a consitutency interested in the candidate, but by a constituency interested in the election; once the election is underway this constituency has no further interest in keeping the candidate's article up to date. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Note that a great deal of her public service is highly partisan (i.e. "not real organizations" or, more NPOV, "head of minor, probably non-functional organizations that serve to increase partisan political position without affecting actual public health"), but that is not grounds for this vote. The article only profiles her as a bit of trivia for losing in two elections to the House. 440 losers per four years is too high a number, but the real number is higher than that, as there is no indication that this woman was the nominee of one of the two parties, and we have many more losers in the primaries. If this were a biography/profile of a Republican Party operative, it might well be a keep, but the notability established by the article is solely that she lost twice. Everybody hurts some time. Geogre 11:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • She was the Republican nominee, not some minor party where you can get on the ballot by having 25 friends willing to sign a petition. FWIW, the Library of Congress thinks it's important to chronicle failed election bids [1] --RoySmith 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that, as they are archivists. I don't believe, however, that an encyclopedia article is necessary as a biography of each failed candidate. My delete vote, though, was not actually based upon her herself but on this article, which did not include any information on her except her losing status. By itself, I don't think that triggers biography. In this particular person's case, she is being kept politically alive by some of the most harsh right wing Republican organizations. (I have heard her discussed by left wing sites and radio, as she's a bit vicious and nasty from my POV.) Thus, I do think a biography is possible, but not this article. Obviously, I would reconsider if it were rewritten. Geogre 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith and Peyna. --Interiot 13:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith. While I would not have necessarily created this page, I don't think it is worth deleting, and does no harm. Turnstep 18:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith. Major party political candidates are noteworthy in themselves, and almost by definition receive significant (if local) media coverage. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and expand if possible.--MONGO 03:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith, Expand per DialUp -Meegs 07:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Expand it, she's done some things worth noting, and it's not like her article hurts anyone or puts undue stress on the server. Needs expanding, though. -Andrew 10:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and again as said many times before, we need more of a policy for dealing with politicians. IMO this is easily notable enough. But it needs to be sorted out definitively to make such votes easier. Zordrac 01:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep once expanded, will be notable
  • Keep. At one time, the PA-13 race was one of the most hotly contested in the nation. As such, Brown deserves her article. --Alcon San Croix 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was It looks like User:Bumm13 already deleted the page, I'm just closing out the discussion --RoySmith 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neuvelt's Treasure Chest

Advertisement for a non notable webstore, it seems almost a speedy but I couldn't fit it in the criteria for speedy delete's. So here it is. Garion96 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kreydon 01:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. rodii 02:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, just another website. / Ezeu 07:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an attempt to communicate with Wikipedians or just delete as blatant advertising. The Christmas sale and phone number say everything there is to say. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Mgm. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goat (musician)

Pretty marginal claim to fame. Expand or delete? Simesa 00:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails to meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, according to allmusic.com he has 1 album released on independant label Lightyear Entertainment.[2] --Stormie 01:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He still exists, which indicates that your reason isn't good enough to vote delete. —Hollow Wilerding 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Song "Great Life" known throughout US from Kia Sportage commercial (where people toss the keys to one another). Notability criteria of WP:MUSIC not applicable here since that article does not even deal with songs made famous as part of commercials (which is a shame since some commercial music is better known than some album music that charts). Side note: about a year ago, I was humming this song and driving Google crazy trying to figure out its name - that's why Wikipedia is here. Jtmichcock 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Expansion would be preferable. rodii 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only for the Kia commercial reference --RoySmith 03:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for me. I added some more info to the article. Garion96 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Has Allmusic.com page showing two albums one on Sony and the Kia advertisement puts him over the line. [3]. Capitalistroadster 05:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for KIA ad, which they drove into our brains for months and months. I hate that song.Herostratus 05:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep having your music used in a often-repeated commercial makes someone notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not just a garage band being that they do have some wider exposure. Still doesn't say they are any good. --StuffOfInterest 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per the above(s). —Hollow Wilerding 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notablity is due to one thing and whose gonna remember that in two years.--MONGO 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sony release; Kia song is clearly well-known; Article needs incoming links to attract attention for expansion. -Meegs 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Jtmichcock. Seano1 20:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The pillowcases

Doesn't meet WP:NMG --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Like a ninja, you beat me to it. Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a couple of people trying to stake their claim on wiki. Itsthomson 01:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Josh Parris 02:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. – Ezeu 03:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Garage band. Let them come back when a label picks them up. --StuffOfInterest 13:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They mention that they're pursuing a record label. Once they get one, they'll have a chance. Mo0[talk] 23:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NMG and when you get signed, come on back now! Sethie 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huntwood

this is an advert, nn per WP:CORP

  • Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. It's a blatent advertisement. Herostratus 05:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Last time I checked, which was about ten seconds ago, that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. If it were, Coit Cleaners would be non-existent, as well as many other deserving articles. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 06:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merely an advertisement. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. – Ezeu 07:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Not as blatant as some others I've seen. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. Rhollenton 12:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sigh, spam. If they had found a list of US cabinet makers and cleaned up the blatant copy/paste advertisement they might have had a chance. --StuffOfInterest 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabel Music, L.L.C.

doesn't meet WP:NMG --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed. rodii 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Heavens to Betsy, he made his vanity label a limited liability corporation! One wonders what liabilities he is seeking to avoid. Self-publishing record label with no evidence of wide distribution nor a slate of acts. Geogre 11:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 14:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Speedy delete' under CSD:A6/A7. Owen× ☎ 02:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vishal

Vanity page. Mark K. Bilbo 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I (the author) am not the subject article, and while I do not have the time tonight to help improve the page any further, I rest assured that numerous people will edit this over the next few days. It's unreasonable to delete this until a fair chance has been given to see multiple users contributing and shaping the article. I feel a waiting period of a week is more suitable in this case. --64.80.220.123 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Then delete as non-notable. I'm sorry but high school gossip doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia.Mark K. Bilbo 02:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VANITY. Peyna 01:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a fifteen-year-old who enrolls in an academic courseload and chases girls just isn't notable. Durova 02:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. --Clay Collier 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VANITY. And on the off-chance that he is found to be notable, the article should be under his full name. rodii 02:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Skinhead websites

Not an article, merely a collections of external links Ezeu 02:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Talk:List of Skinhead websites has some pertinent information. Uncle G 02:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good intentions on the part of the author, but this is a list of links. That's dmoz's mission, not Wikipedia's. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Skinhead. Good intentions, but articles are not lists of external links. If the sites need to be evaluated by a objective third party, just open an RFC for outside opinions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The link to the list back on Skinhead needs to be moved to the see also section. Although a list of links would not normally be wanted, in this case the links would be of use to someone researching skinhead culture. --StuffOfInterest 13:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Anytime you see "list of ___ websites" it should set off alarms in your head. WP is not a directory of the internet, and if we let lists of websites survive that's what it'll soon become. Also if none of the website are notable, then why should we list them? --Bachrach44 16:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Lists of websites should be speedy deleted – the policy on this issue is unequivocal. Keeping this list could set a bad precedent. --Ezeu 16:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per policy established with "WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". — RJH 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as list of links is specifically disallowed. On the other hand, that's what ==External Links== is for, so I'm not sure why an edit war would happen on the main skinhead page, but not this one. The links needs to be moved back into the skinhead page: if the links are causing edit wars or other problems, we have plenty of existing mechanisms to handle such problems. Turnstep 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I already moved the links back to skinhead, somebody delete this article already. It was created by a well meaning nube unaware of our more complicated policies. Sam Spade 15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep with POV stamps. Very notable list. Zordrac 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete random collection of racist web-sites.  Grue  09:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per MacGyverMagic. Stifle 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete most notable ones are probalby already on skinhead wiki Sethie 00:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I wouldn't mind having a list of skinhead websites if the websites themselves were noticable enough. Like List of webcomics is a list of bluelinks, which is absolutely fine, but a list of external links is not. WP isn't a web directory. - Hahnchen 05:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zep sandwich

NN sandwich; http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22zep+sandwich%22 produces nine hits.Josh Parris 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Josh Parris 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. / Ezeu 07:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikibooks does have a cook book project, but I don't think this is an appropriate subject for transwikying. Basically, any long, skinny sandwich gets to be a submarine, a missile, a bomber, a zeppelin, a ... anything pointy. This is one. Geogre 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator; transwiki to wikibooks as a recipe if desired. Stifle 22:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fayette County Productions

NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Fayette+County+Productions%22 produces zero hits. Josh Parris 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google isn't everything, but any notable indie film maker has a website or is at least mentioned on the web somewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - brenneman(t)(c) 07:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo_Singer-songwriter

Almost put this as speedy delete as an "attack" article but I hesitated. Seems more to fit WP:NOR. Maybe neologism a bit also. Mark K. Bilbo 02:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin H. Ticho, MD

Delete WP:BIO average professor test is not passed. Caerwine 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 07:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just being a professor doesn't make one notable. --StuffOfInterest 13:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A clinician and medical professor. The article doesn't provide us with sufficient claims to set him apart from others. Geogre 14:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Haeleth Talk 22:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable.--Mihoshi 03:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A7 --RoySmith 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Bridges

Delete. Classic vanity page for a nn teenager. The book she supposed wrote got 0 hits on google. --03:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)דוד ♣ D Monack

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ABXZone

Non notable internet forum. wikipedia is not a web directory.Geni 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is a notable forum, it might not be huge, but it has a large user group, and is a very well known forum for computers. Plus Geni smells! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.36.165 (talk • contribs) 22:42, November 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I direct people to the obvious vandlism on this nomination - possible votes being deleted? doktorb 21:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting in hopes of attaining a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn despite above anonymous comment, site says it has all of 22 members and a few hundred "guests." Mark K. Bilbo 03:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another website. – Ezeu 04:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another forum. End of article also appears to be an attack on the forum's leaders. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete completely NN. --Bachrach44 16:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This AFD discussion was completely blanked by 69.158.178.95 (talk · contribs) at 03:32, December 2, 2005 (UTC). → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 12:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nimbus Terrafaux

This Mortal Kombat character doesn't actually exist, by the article's own admission. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure this is even a real rumor; I believe it might be someone's fanfic character or some other minor fan speculation.

While I'm resigned that Wikipedia covers all the Mortal Kombat characters that exist, I don't see any reason why it should cover the ones that don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - Oh yeah. A Google search for '"Nimbus Terrafaux" -wikipedia" gets 25 unique hits. Considering that this is a video game thing, if it were of any significance whatsoever, there'd be more coverage than that. (It may even be that this possible hoax only has that much coverage because of the WP article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Haeleth Talk 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was a big controversy when Mortal Kombat came out, because there were no black characters in the game. The rumor was created by MK designers to silence the critics. Should all "disproven rumors" be deleted from Wikipedia? (Notorious4life 05:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
    • Can you cite some reliable sources to back that up? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • According to [4], [5], and [6], the Nimbus Terrafaux character was a creation of EGM. They interviewed Boon on the new MK game, and Boon mentioned the secret kickboxer character, amongst several other "hidden" characters. The magazine then intentionally published false information on this character, complete with screenshots and a fabricated storyline of his tournament involvement. The factuality of this character was debated for a long time, and the search for "Nimbus Terrafaux" was a mission taken on by many Mortal Kombat fans. I think what needs more attention than this attack on Nimbus Terrafaux concerns these other MK articles: Irata, Mirror, Monster, Red Robin, Shawn, Skarlet, Watchdog, and Zebron. Some "speedy deletes" I see, but yet this proposed Terrafaux deletion concerns a well-known Mortal Kombat rumor and professionally contained factual information. (Notorious4life 06:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete as gamecruft about something that does not even exist. Wikipedia does not exist to spread and comment on trivial rumours. MCB 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting in hopes of reaching a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Already set up Nimbus Terrafaux in a newly created and much needed Minor Mortal Kombat characters page. There are a lot of "minor" Mortal Kombat characters that aren't worth their own independent article, and they can all be found in the new article. (Notorious4life 06:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
  • If it's in a list of minor characters now, it needs to be merged and redirected. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. List it as a rumor in the parent article. --StuffOfInterest 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation: R.O.B.B.E.R.S.

Near-incoherent, nonsensical synopsis of an episode of an obscure cartoon. Delete, or at least merge with the main article. Neutralitytalk 03:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for having an incoherent synopsis, but I disagree with calling Codename: Kids Next Door obscure. It's on Cartoon Network for crying out loud! - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know whether it's a real episode or not (looks like it isn't), but the article is authentic fan gibberish. Geogre 14:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obscure? Did you see the category box ({{KND}}) at the bottom of the main Kids Next Door page? :) The series is a very popular one, and the episode is real: [7]. The synposis looks a little shaky, but that seems to me to necessitate a {{cleanup}}, {{verify}}, or {{expert}} tag. Turnstep 20:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge). The episode may be a real one, but I see no evidence that it's notable enough to deserve an article all of its very own. Synopses of non-notable episodes of not-actually-all-that-famous shows belong in the articles on the seasons they're part of. — Haeleth Talk 22:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Deltee seems nn.  Grue  09:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Turnstep. This is not an 'obscure' cartoon, it is quite popular. I'm in college and I even watch it. I see plenty of other series here on Wikipedia that the episodes have their own articles, I see no reason to get rid of this one. It was even well written and very descriptive, but does need some cleanup. Lancer Sykera 22:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, which defaults to a keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Gulas

Real person, but I think notability is suspect (but not so obviously non-notable that I was comfortable speedy deleting it). Still, delete. --Nlu 08:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - as notable as most of the other people in professional wrestling that have Wikipedia articles. However, I strongly agree that it's in dire need of a rewrite. B.Wind 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I can vouch that the bio is essentially accurate (I don't know about "King B", though.) Whether that means he is notable depends on one's regard for wrestling notability. I am a guilty old fan, so I take a mild view. Xoloz 03:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting in hopes of prompting a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. This page appears to show notability see [8]. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It needs more than cleaning. It needs a total rewrite. Because of that, it could be deleted (and wait for competent content) or be rewritten by a wrastlin' fan. As it is, though, it's all in one big gush. If sent to cleanup, send with a predisposition to return to AfD if not actually cleaned and significantly improved by the roll off point. Geogre 14:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - the name can be added to WP:RA if the guy passes WP:BIO. Of course, this becomes a keep if, by the time this AfD is closed, there are actual signs that the article is going to receive the attention it needs. — Haeleth Talk 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete awful article and if he's that notable somone that can actually make it into an encyclopedic article will recreate it.--MONGO 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was duh, it's BJAODN time! =D - Mailer Diablo 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scale of five

Maybe BJAODN or just Delete, seems to be attempt at original humor Chris the speller 03:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • BJAODN WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 06:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It gets 5 stars, so that means it has no worth at all. Geogre 14:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:-O — Haeleth Talk 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN Obviously a joke, no encyclopedic value. --kralahome 00:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not good enough for BJAODN--MONGO 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and then delete Denni ☯ 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. I give them five (5) for effort. Peeper 10:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN per Pperos. Stifle 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3...Uhhh......(9 delete, 7 keep, 1 merge) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 20:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Professional Hockey League

League that never got out of the talking phase. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete another back-of-the-envelope league. Homey 04:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wish I could say merge to 2004-05 NHL lockout - but without any net presence (all the hits seem to come to a league that existed between 1926 and 1930), I'd have to say delete as unverifiable, and possible hoax. Sam Vimes 16:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Keep the rewrite. Sam Vimes 16:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be notable enough to be relevant. See my new comment below. Stifle 00:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain what makes a nonexistant league notable and relevant. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It has been announced, I presume it will start. Stifle 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • What do you base that presumption on? Homey 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You presume wrong. Lots of things get announced. This was announced during the NHL strike, the strike was settled, the reason for the league's supposed formation is moot. You are voting blind. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I will not be pressured into changing my vote, my opinion stands. If nothing else there is historical relevance. Stifle 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Sigh. I'm not trying to pressure you, I just wish you'd give a meaningful reason, since the only reasons you have given seem bizarre, to say the least. And I apologize if you consider that an attack, but it's my feeling. Your single vote is going to cause heartburn on this discussion because there haven't been enough participants to counter it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting in hopes of achieving some sort of consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment It appears to be really happening, according to this website -- but I don't know enough about this to actually vote. Peachlette 04:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That website looks pretty out of date. It only talks about what is coming up, but not as if anything actually happened. Peyna 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The league has been saying they'll start really soon (next season, this season, in two months) ever since their inception, which was at least a year and a half ago, maybe more. In this time, absolutely no progress has seemingly been made towards starting. Lord Bob 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as that link is to a page written "a few months before [their] inaugural season," which was to occur in 2004!
  • Keep. So what if it may never come to be. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Matt Yeager
    • Wikipedia is also not a collection of random data, a crystal ball, or a place for unverifable or non-existent things. It's also not a dessert or a floor wax, which is about as relevant as the "not paper" argument. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, the article is none of these things. It's not "random", it's not "unverifiable"... as for non-existant, we have an article on The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, don't we? As for a crystal ball, well, there's an article on the year 2006, isn't there? Wikipedia can handle this article. Matt Yeager 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If and when they put down deposits for the uniforms and arena rentals, bring it back; but until then, it's the sports equivalent of vaporware. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It. Doesn't. Exist. --Squiddy 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no there there. When it exists, come along and devote some Not Paper to it. Until then, there is no historical relevance that requires a separate article, and there is no entity that could be described in a separate article. If someone must say something about this presumption, they may say it in the article that already exists on the NHL strike. Geogre 15:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article on the lockout. The fact it has a website and was in the planning stages is notable. There are plenty of Wikiarticles on things that were planned but never realized. I agree it doesn't need its own article, but the fact a "shadow NHL" was planned during the strike is notable and worthy to be included somewhere. 23skidoo 17:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Find some independent source that suggests this league was actually planned, and not that this is some 16-year-old's dream. Anyone can design a website for themselves. Sam Vimes 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I find your suggestion that this league was a 16-year-old's fantasy insensitive. A moment's google search would have shown you it was not true. -- Geo Swan 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE & REWRITE to be that thing that Sam Vimes found. 132.205.45.148 18:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but change to the actual league from 1926. Put the proposed modern league as a sentence in the new page. Turnstep 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is more evidence of notability, either in the strike year or before. As it stands, this could be a sentence to the National Hockey League or 2004-05 NHL lockout articles. 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've actually followed this league a bit since its non-announcement as a bit of a lark, and it is so dead it makes the new WHA look like a vibrant and thriving enterprise. I wouldn't be averse to restarting with the historical CPHL, but this article still needs a gassing. Lord Bob 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this non-starter. Denni ☯ 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but change as per Turnstep. Stifle 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & Rewrite per Turnstep. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep May I remind my American friends that the wikipedia is an International project, not a solely USian project? Just because you never heard of a topic doesn't mean that topic isn't noteworthy in some other part of the world. Look at List of ice hockey leagues. It is comprehensive. Are you going to challenge the existence of every league on that list you have never heard of? The lockout was big news up here. Rumors that the lockout was soon going to end made the national news several times a month. And news of the progress, or lack thereof, on the CPHL also frequently made the national news. Yes, this article needs some improvement. I will make a few changes later today. I am going to repeat my invitation to our American friends to remember that the wikipedia is an International project, and not a purely USian project. -- Geo Swan 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    As a Canadian who has actively followed this league, I would like to assure my USian friends that you need not worry: seriously, this league is as notable as my Eastside Hockey Manager leagues. Actually, less, since my EHM leagues have had people in them. Lord Bob 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    What does being an American have to do with wanting to vote delete for a hoax league? Please explain why you think an article about a sports league that never existed, and never got out of the suggestion phase, deserves an article. And please stop making anti-American accusations. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How does a request to be more sensitive to the fact that the wikipedia is an international effort make me "anti-American"?
  • How is my request an accusation?
  • I don't know what your definition of hoax is. But every definition of hoax I have ever heard has some element of subterfuge. There was no subterfuge in this instance. So it is not a hoax.
  • Did you go to List of ice hockey leagues? It lists many dozens of leagues. To be comprehensive shouldn't it list this one too, even if there hadn't been an earlier league of the same name?
  • There was an earlier league of the same name. -- Geo Swan 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
And as I said above, I have no problem with turning this into an article about that league, which really existed. And where have I advocated deleting any of those leagues? Except for the ones, added by the same person who created this one, who keeps making up Plain States Hockey League, Michigan Hockey League and Pennsylvania Hockey League. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I follow hockey religiously and I've never heard of this league nor I could find information on it anywhere. If it deserves a keep, it is for the 1926-1930 league only, and not the new one. Croat Canuck 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove references to the proposed league that never happened. Keep the 1926-30 league. (And why did you add the 1926-36 IHL copy to the more recently defunct International Hockey League. The two leagues weren't related in any way. Maybe it would be better to start an International Hockey League (1926-36)?) ccwaters 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it has been rewritten. Peachlette 11:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Prophets

NN band vanity, no claim to notabilty, no Google hits except thier web site (of which the entire content is "Please visit this site later. It is currently under construction." In other words just like 10,000 other band vanity articles and could we PUH-LEEZE have a speedy delete tag for band vanity? Herostratus 03:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Although the substub of an article doesn't mention it, Non-Prophets are a hip-hop duo consisting of Joe Beats and Sage Francis. Here's their AllMusic entry and here's a review in Pitchfork Media. --keepsleeping say what 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per keepsleeping say what. JHMM13 07:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as empty: Come on, folks! It isn't the topic we're considering: it's the article. This "article" says, "Non-Prophets are a hip-hop group." That's it! (A predicate nominative is a sentence consisting of a subject, a verb, and then another noun: "Mike is cool." "St. Bob's school is in Seattle." "IHOP is a restaurant.") This is a fact, not an article, and it's not a substub: it's empty. Geogre 15:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
you could always try to improve it. Peyna 15:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep, except that I have no interest in it. I do wish that Keepsleeping had done it, since he or she had done the research. I am against having articles on all the pop acts in the world. I recognize that consensus is for them, so I vote accordingly, but I, of all people, am the wrong one to be bulking up things like this. In general, if I know something about a topic that's up for deletion, I will add to the article and try to improve it. (See, for example, the before and after of Film adaptation.) Geogre 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm just not sure about deleting articles that have potential. On the one hand, they provide little value in their current state, but so long as they are not nonsense or inaccurate, they are not harming anyone that stumbles upon them. This article has not existed for the month, nothing links to it yet, it was originally speedy-deleted then recreated as a stub and kept. I think in this case I'd like to give a benefit of the doubt Weak Keep. Peyna 16:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it seems to meet WP:MUSIC standards. Turnstep 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate artist. It seems from of the previous discussion that there is a little confusion as to the importance of the artist and body of work. Sage Francis is an underground hip-hop artist with a large fanbase who has been signed to Epitaph Records and has begun to move into more mainstream channels. He is not "pop". Although, I'd like to point out that "pop" implies that the artist is popular and hence important enough to warrant an article. -->Chemical Halo 21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope you've added that material to the article so I can change my vote, as I voted to delete based on its substub status. I meant "pop" as in not "serious music." In that sense, Sonic Youth and Throbbing Gristle are pop acts. I didn't mean "boy band" or Pdiddly. (And if we're going to have decent underground and independent hiphop, someone needs to fix Spearhead (band).) Geogre 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a legitimate entry. Google has about 99,600 results. Not 1 as was previously reported. The article's size isn't a cause for it to be deleted.
  • Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. Nomination is false, in that there are many google hits [9]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and stub it. And can someone add a bit more to it while voting? Zordrac 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Hipocrite and Keepsleeping. Peachlette 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xophan

advertising. Mark K. Bilbo 04:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was articles moved as per Mgm's suggestion; Cheetah (Car) and Super GT redirects deleted; Turismo redirected to Gran Turismo. Remaining article content merged with List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series. (Hope this makes sense.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheetah (Car), Super GT, Turismo

3 cars from GTA. The GTA series had a crapload of cars, and theres nothing special about any of them. Non notable fictional car cruft. - Hahnchen 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 05:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Delete, and Redirect to Gran Turismo, respectively. Also note there is a somewhat obscure arcade game by Sega called Super GT. Nifboy 05:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all three into List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series, and make sure a redirect isn't left behind in Super GT (a Sega racer) and Turismo (which should redirect to Gran Turismo). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Move, merge and redirect to retain their history per GFDL.
Move Cheetah (Car) to Cheetah (GTA car)
Move Super GT to Super GT (GTA car) to allow for an article on the sega game.
Move Turismo to Turismo (GTA car)

Then redirect the moved articles.

Delete Cheetah (Car) (note the capital letter)
Leave the Super GT redirect until the game article is written then interlink with dabs.
Turn the redirect on Turismo into a redirect to Gran Turismo and include a dab note pointing to the car.

I hope that makes sense. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - Theres already a list of GTA cars as mentioned above. What would we lose here if all 3 were deleted and NOT redirected? Who is going to do a search for Super GT (GTA car)? I can understand redirecting Turismo to Gran Turismo, but I don't see the reasoning in keeping an article for Turism (GTA car). These aren't pokemon, they don't have multiple pokedex entries or personalities in an anime show. They're just variables in a game. It would be like having a separate article for each and every weapon in Quake. - Hahnchen 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Put them in the parent article. --StuffOfInterest 13:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cheetah (Car), but redirect Turismo to Gran Turismo. As for Super GT, I would prefer keeping and rewriting the article into a stub (at least) of the Sega game. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 16:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC) ╫


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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Discomfort

nn local band, nothing particularly special about them. --Spring Rubber 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 05:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow, together for a whole two weeks -- impressive! -keepsleeping say what 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Garage band. Come back when you go under an album label and get a touring contract. --StuffOfInterest 13:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment That was really mature of the creator to just remove the Afd template, especially when it specifically warns not to do so until the debate is closed. If you can't deal with it, then write about something that is actually notable or go post about it on a blog or something. --Spring Rubber 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That happens all the time..Delete it regardless...--MONGO 03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. I see that Ilyanep has made some trimming of the article so it should be OK right now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] StarKingdoms

There has been some doubt over whether this page is an advertisement or not, I feel it should be discussed whether or not this page deserves to remain on here or not, notablity of website is in question, at the very least needs a thorough re-write IndigoNights 05:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, I used to play this, long long ago. Damn this article is FAQy (not really advertising, just a lot of instruction-manual type info). As for the notability of the website itself, well... Its Alexa rank is awful, and I don't think it's grown at all since I last saw it (maybe 3-4 years ago). Giving it a weak delete for now. Nifboy 07:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It has a reasonably long and diverse edit history and from a Google search it doesn't look like a copy/paste job. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure looks like the introduction to the game and the rules, rather than an article about the game and its historical relevance. We get one very short paragraph that's like an encyclopedia article, and the rest is just how to play. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs nor a how-to guide. I recommend RFC for content and/or a collaboration to slice off the fat and build up the muscle, if the article is kept. Geogre 15:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - cos otherwise you'll have to delete Metal knights, which I created. Zordrac 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per StuffOfInterest. Stifle 22:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's pretty notable, however I am deleting all the copy and paste unwikified stuff from the manual to bring it back to the okay state it was in earlier. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukwizz

alexa 47,000 for a website business (well below WP:WEB 10,000 bar) ∴ here…♠ 05:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete blatant spam. Mark K. Bilbo 05:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the 10,000 bar is too steep in some cases, but not for search engines and this is a blatant advert. - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete webspam--MONGO 03:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Raja-Lakshmi Foundation

19 Google hits + copy and paste advertisement delete

Lotsofissues 05:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not linked, not cleaned up after three months, not supported. --StuffOfInterest 13:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: One of my actual jobs is grant writer. You can sooner number the stars than the foundations in the world. Nothing in the article sets this particular foundation apart from others, so, again, the question is, "In what way is this organization of note in its field of operation?" Nothing seems to set it apart, so delete. Geogre 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though at present looks bit offbase couldbe improved. This when done will have links to many pages of People of Andhra Pradesh,India --Vyzasatya 17:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

*Weak delete which is subject to change. I don't think they are important enough. Tintin 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Not convinced enough to vote for keep, but I withdraw this vote. Tintin 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep and move to Raja-Lakshmi foundation (41 hits on google) or Raja-Lakshmi awards (166 hits on google for Raja-Lakshmi award).
  • Reasons as follows: - (a) Awards being given by a foundation for the past 26 years and accepted by many notable people - Of the 28 recipients, around 20 of them I can immediately say are notable by Wikipedia standards (I do not know about the remaining remaining and hence cannot comment), of which some of them have received civilian awards from Government of India - If it is a non-notable organisation, notable people from all walks of life in India would not have been accepting it - think about it.
(b) Among the earliest awards being given by private organisations in India and with a good purse right from inception (though I speak only from anecdotal hearing and cannot cite on-line references for these; hence would not like to stress on this point)
(c) As per Vyzasatya above
(d) I've undertaken a clean-up where apart from re-writing, categorising and re-organising, I deleted the lists of recipients of vaidika puraskaram (Vedic Scholars award) and recognise the teacher award as these recipients are not notable outside their work context. However, the general award and the literary award recipients are highly notable, the latter probably more in the context of Telugu and Andhra Pradesh. The latter list may be a borderline case for inclusion but not the entire article and the list of general (known blandly as Raja-Lakshmi) awards definitely merits inclusion.
  • The flip side: - (a) Organisation doesn't even seem to have its website though its activities and awards are widely covered by Indian media.
(b) The references for the article had to be obtained from TFAS, an association of Telugu people in USA, which gives another award to the recipients of the Raja-Lakshmi award - However, the later day awards can be corroborated by newspaper reports available on the net (e.g. The Hindu, Deccan Herald)
  • To sum up - Not all its awards are notable but the Raja-Lakshmi award is notable because the awardees mention it prominently. Hence the article should be retained. --Gurubrahma 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per StuffOfInterest. Stifle 22:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 05:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PorColombia

A strange Q&A about a Columbian student group. Not a proper article by any means, unlikely to be notable, and unlikely to greatly improve. Harro5 05:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture_clash_pathologies

Appears to violate WP:NOR and WP:V Mark K. Bilbo 05:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Why pray tell? Culture_clash_pathologies are a biological reality, already accepted in scientific circles, and a matter presented by H. G. Wells in his science fiction novel "War of the Worlds" over a century ago. Please see citations. A very puzzled Jigüe 11/29/05
  • Strong Keep. This is a very valid and notable topic. This is certainly NOT original research. As for WP:V I see references scattered througout the article. I could not find a duplicate article with this info. I'm not sure if a Rename might not be in order, as I got no Google hits on "culture clash pathologies". But I don't know what else you would call it -- I'm not sure that there is a generally accepted name. HOWEVER, it needs major Cleanup as the tone is of a term paper, not an encylopedia entry. Herostratus
    • Comment WP:NOR because the author is proposing a concept and/or term that is apparently original with him or her. The historical events involved are significant (and very much so) but if the concept and/or term isn't in the literature (such asq, it's a topic Jared Diamond would takle) then we're violating "no original research." And I can't find a single reference for "culture clash pathologies" myself.

Mark K. Bilbo 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

      • If it's WP:NOR solely because of the name of the article, a Rename would be in order rather than a delete, I would think. I myself have an article, Battle of annihilation (I know, needs work) whose title is only weakly in the literature and is really only a description of the phenomena. If there is a better title, responders might propose one. (Mind you, agree the article body is a mess, but IMO that is better addressed by a call for cleanup or attention rather than a delete. Herostratus 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The topic seems worthy. However, a Google search for "Culture clash pathologies" gets no Google hits [10].

No Google book results either see [11] and nothing on Google scholar see [12]. This phrase is obviously a complete neologism and it would be original research to have an article of this name until it is verified by a reliable third party source. Delete.Capitalistroadster 08:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, per Capitalistroadster. OR includes 'concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication'. --Squiddy 09:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename to something more searchable (and without the damn underscores). Seems to be an attempt to give a name to something vaguely recognized from history, but without any context or sourcing behind it. Needs work. rodii

Addressed revisions suggested here and elsewhere, and changed title to the more google active "Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact " Please go ahead and delete the original Culture_clash_pathologies El Jigüe 11-30-05

  • Speedy delete since the author has requested it and there are no other significant editors of the article (I forget which criterion that is, but it's in there, right?). Probably not necessary to create a redirect since the neologistic nature of the title was the major objection to the present article. Were there any objections directly related to the content that would necessitate keeping the AfD open on the moved article? — Haeleth Talk 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well... yeah. "The neologistic nature of the title" is still an issue. With an encyclopedia, readers start with a known topic name and go looking for information on that topic. In this case, who is going to come to Wikipedia and search for "Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact"? Rather than "contributing to an encyclopedia," this feels like "publishing an article". The question that we should be asking, given the basically worthy material, is what article it should be part of? I might suggest First contact (anthropology). (I'm not explaining this very well. Someone please help me. El Jigüe, no criticism of your work is intended. But the novelty of the name tends to make it look like original research rather than "information about X topic.") rodii 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. Any discussion of the impact of the contact between the hemispheres would have to be in a recognized category just to be found. Personally, I still feel the author is attempting his own, personal synthesis of the material. Which would be fine in, say, an anthropology journal but does it belong here? Also, the hypothesis that syphilis came from this continent and was carried to Europe is still highly speculative. I think the jury is still out (and that's an opinion from reading the literature, until recently, I was working on a degree in anthropology). Seems to me the author should consider contributing to existing categories and articles rather than attempting something original. Mark K. Bilbo 22:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As another user has pointed out, the creator of this article writes term papers, not encyclopedia entries. He also creates duplicate articles with identical content under multiple titles (for instance, this one was duplicated as the now-speedily-deleted Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact), and spams them with internal links from other articles (for example he added a link to a Fidel Castro Cuban espionage page from American Civil War spies). He rejects Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and does not accept that his contributions are released under the GFDL, and thus engages in endless edit wars to defend "his" articles. See further discussion: [13] and [14]. -- Curps 02:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete persistent POV original research that are aptly described by Curps as term-papers rather than encyclopedic articles. The internal link 'spamming' is also a good sign that the article cannot stand on its own two feet, so to speak. -Splashtalk 19:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tin Teardrop

Vanity page, creator is a member of this band. Also fails WP:MUSIC, no allmusic.com entry. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 05:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete like all other non notable bands. --keepsleeping say what 05:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Garage band. Needs to get a label and a touring gig. --StuffOfInterest 13:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I keep saying this, but we really need speedy deletion for these articles. Stifle 22:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Wall Auto

Spam. —Etaoin (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN spam, 232 google hits. --Interiot 05:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Spam. Paul Cyr 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteandComment. I don't believe advertising is a criterion for speedy deletion. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 06:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not speedyable, unfortunately. Delete with all reasonable haste, as we are not in the business of giving free advertising. Saberwyn 12:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, calmly and with due consideration, as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Like Vice, Like Versa

  • Delete. No shown notability. Paul Cyr 06:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Jordy Bogguss tells us that it is just an "Internet short" movie. -- RHaworth 08:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and non-linked. --StuffOfInterest 13:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Apparently a CamCorder Studios release. Geogre 15:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not speediable but perhaps should be. Stifle 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Heart

Non-notable, unsalvageable vanity littered with links. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Roberts (related). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Herostratus 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 08:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Zines are paper blogs, right? DEL! - Randwicked 10:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, zines drop dead as often as startup businesses. They haven't even published their second edition yet. Let's wait until we know they're here to stay. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and no valid links. --StuffOfInterest 13:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN maybe when it get more known, assuming it lasts that long. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - magazines come, magazines go, but this one hasn't shown sufficient evidence of reputation, staying power, or noteworthiness... at least based on the Wikipedia article. 147.70.242.21 23:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and all those blue links should get a look too. rodii 03:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have looked at them. I've concluded that Patrick Walsh is accidentally linked, that e-zine is just a crappy article on a valid topic, and the others are dates. The others, as noted by the little little blue arrow · are externally linked. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: They HAVE published a second issue, actually. The article states that the second issue will be online soon but that the second print issue was launched Oct. 2. Thanks for paying attention, MacGyver. And zines aren't "paper blogs." Maybe you should read the Wiki article. User:Laura_Roberts


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 merge. I merged it with Characters of Lost, as the main article seemed inappropriate. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Harrington

This is a character from a book related to Lost. The book bears little connection to the series' main arcs, and this character does not appear in the series. It's essentially non-notable fanon. Since the character is not shown on the series or connected to an official website, it does not merit inclusion (via merge and redirect) on Characters of Lost. I think a delete is in order. Baryonyx 06:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just because they're not part of the television version of Lost, doesn't mean the character doesn't warrant inclusion. If the book is published by a known publisher and supported by the show's creators, it's just as real as the show. We didn't kill articles about characters who only appeared in the film version of Jurassic Park and not the book because it was not official canon either. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge in a section in the tv show's article "Lost in other media" per discussion below. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: When Baronyx mentioned this to me, I didn't realize it was from a published book by the creators of the show. However, as it stands, I'm not sure if this is going to be fleshed out into a full article. Maybe this information should be moved to a more generic article about the book Lost: Endangered Species? --DDG 15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree that Lost is more than just what appears on the TV show and such content may warrant a Wikipedia article. Between the book (with another planned), the announced short video vignettes for mobile phones, and the web sites, perhaps an article on "Lost in other other media" that would hold such content until separate articles are justified? Rillian 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rillian. Merge this character article elsewhere for now. I don't know what the consensus is regarding book-only characters for Lost (as opposed to, say, Star Trek or Doctor Who or James Bond), but I think it may be premature for this character to have her own article unless it is known that the character is going to be recurring in the books and/or be added to the show. 23skidoo 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT, which states "Major characters in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction", and suggests that individual articles should be reserved for "cultural icons". Which this woman sure ain't. — Haeleth Talk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Lost (TV series), perhaps in a section called Non-televised Lost, which would also discuss the book(s). 147.70.242.21 00:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: if merge is the result of this vote, there's a section similar to that on the Characters of Lost page, which is where this material should end up (though, as noted in my nomination, I believe it should be deleted instead of merged there). This material wouldn't go on the Lost (TV series) page. Baryonyx 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haeleth. Stifle 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to speedy delete copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Submit article

Advertisement. (Apparently ads aren't speedy-able?) BrainyBroad 06:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Spam. Paul Cyr 06:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. Kevin 07:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. *drew 08:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Weird name - did the author type 'Submit article' in the search box on the left and press 'Go'? --Last Malthusian 10:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. Unfortunately, not yet speediable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Spam, and what's with that title? rodii 13:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as test: The article's title is the author issuing a command. I suspect this is a test article, with the author learning how Wikipedia works. Tests have always been speedies. This is just a very, very, very, very loooooong one (probably a c&p, though I didn't go hunting). Geogre 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as copyvio [15]. Chick Bowen 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete all three. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Game and Yop, ESCorp and ESFun

These three articles appear to be a hoax by somebody playing around. No evidence of existance. Herostratus 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If it is truly a large international company it would be easily verifiable. I cannot find any info on this. I agree with the nomination, this is a probable hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Google hits, so totally NN or non-existent. Kevin 07:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, "large international corporation" "and little-known" are mutually exclusive. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colemans Food Centre

According to article, company operates 11 stores. Now that may be good enough to keep for some of you but consider the small number of Google hits (under 200). There isn't enough info to verify for an article. delete Lotsofissues 06:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Entire article is 'Grocery store operating 11 outlets in Newfoundland, Canada'. Not a hint of notability or interest. --Squiddy 09:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as substub. May reconsider if seriously expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as empty: Not to upbraid the nominator, but this looks 100% speedy. It's a sentence fragment. Geogre 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for sure. Not sure it should have been speedy; kind of borderline. It could be speedied as empty, but it does make a claim of notability. Being cautious, I probably wouldn't have speedied it. Herostratus 19:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Hmmmm, checked the history... first version had nine outlets...
  • Weak Keep - I would be more comfortable with a rewrite over a delete, and substub for the time being. Barneyboo (Talk) 19:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not notable --redstucco 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- without prejudice to someone coming along later to write an article with verifiable facts on this topic Skeezix1000 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soup maigre

Already transwiki-ed, WP:NOT a cookbook, and not possible to expand into an encyclopedic article. I recomend Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 06:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I re-added the text, so people can see what they are voting on. Delete as recipe (already transwikified). - Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete recipe. I've also never seen the charm of your meaty soups. Chick Bowen 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki complete, so delete. Stifle 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Egg (food). → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soft-boiled egg

Already transwiki-ed, cannot be expanded into an encyclopedic article. brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Egg (food).   Scrambled eggs and fried eggs are doing quite well, whereas, hard-boiled egg was relegated to redirect status. Most unfortunate of all eggs is Shirred egg - zero content. There seems to be some bonafide interest with eggs (see List of egg dishes), but nevertheless, I dont think it is feasible to make more than a stub from a soft-boiled egg. – Ezeu 07:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Ezeu, so people can learn about eggs and find the WikiCookBook link with egg recipes. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect: No, I will not mention that the soft boiled egg is the source of Big Endians and Little Endians. I will not. Geogre 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Good. Because if you had, you would have been morally compelled to go and change Lilliput and Blefuscu. ☺ Uncle G 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Does not have a reason to have it's own articles. --kralahome 00:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelton_Hull

Vanity... or a joke --(Unsigned Comment left by User:Cuchullain)

  • Delete. Seems to be a real person, but non-notable and the article asks as many questions as it answers. Kevin 07:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He seems to be somewhat published according to what Google can find. He seems to write almost entirely for Counterpunch.org, which, according to Alexa, is a moderately popular website. Perhaps we should let this article stay and just rework the everloving crap out of it. It needs lots of work to be sure. JHMM13 07:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This smells funny to me, like it's an attempt to create a reference for an invented persona. The absurdity and personal tone of the "facts" cited indicate either someone trying to create a "legend" or a satire. rodii 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I call BS on this. All record of his writings have been erased from the public record? Oh, come on! Vandal prank. Geogre 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - apparent joke page. If it isn't written as a joke, it most certainly has serious POV problems. 147.70.242.21 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it, but edit out the POV. Shelton Hull does in fact exist, and does in fact write for the Jacksonville, Florida, alternative magazine Folio Weekly. Whether or not he is worthy of being included in the Wiki is a fair concern, but I will say that this entry is riddled with POV issues. -- Jon Worth
  • Weak delete, not really encyclopedic. Stifle 22:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete NN Bio, salted with attack and a smoky hoaxy flavouring Pete.Hud 05:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • whoops! Turns out I exist, I didn't write the entry, and the entirety of its contents are true! The shark has been jumped with the anti-democratic changes to your site. Sorry. [sdh666@hotmail.com]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 California Constitution Article XXXV. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition 71

This isn't the only Proposition 71 in the world, and I'm not sure it isn't a copyvio of some sort. Hard to check on Google for me, an idiot. JHMM13 07:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and disambiguate if it's not a copyvio. Propositions are highly notable. FCYTravis 07:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Surprisingly, perhaps, I am unable to find anything remotely looking like a copyvio on Google from this article. Peyna 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to California Constitution Article XXXV or something similar; it was enacted a year ago and is now part of law, so the Proposition itself is no longer notable, the law it created might be. Peyna 14:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If other Proposition 71s exist in the world, disambiguate. The news media etc. generally refer to these by the proposition number even once incorporated into the law. Check if it's a copyvio, of course, and if so delete and recreate from scratch. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps the best thing to do is create my suggested article and have Proposition 71 redirect there until a disambig becomes appropriate. Peyna 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and disambiguate - per reasons given - disambiguate if there are other Prop 71s. Barneyboo (Talk) 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move per Peyna. Since it passed, it should be under it's "real" name with a redirect from Proposition 71. -- JLaTondre 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This Proposition is important in California, is a highlight of Arnold Schwarzenegger governorship and is notable in the US stem cell debate. Also, note that people tend to keep referring to these laws by proposition name rather then legal code name. Seano1 22:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Articles titles ought to have "official" names; whereas a "common use" name can always redirect to the article. Peyna 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Ocean

Hoax hoax hoax. Nothing listed on imdb or google except for Wiki mirrors. Something with these stars would be big news. And look at the date. 2009? Yeah. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Imagine the budget on that movie. 95% of the $150,000,000 would go to the cast, making it the most expensive low-budget film ever created. JHMM13 08:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Who would want to see all these stars in one film anyway. Kevin 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its nonsense. --Ezeu 08:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What bothers me with stuff like this is that it sat out there for 2 months and no one caught it. We need Hoax Patrol. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatantly unverfiable hoax. If those people were actually involved in the movie, it would at least have passed the pre-production stage and start shooting relatively soon. 2009 is just unrealistic and none of the stars mentioning the film is just icing on the proverbial cake. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as empty and as vandalism. Note that there is no content here. There are a great many names, half a sentence, and a stub notice. (Yes, I am very harsh when it comes to substubs.) Geogre 17:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I've also nominated 2009 in film for deletion since it appears 99% of its content consists of these made-up movies. 23skidoo 04:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that there were doctored keep votes...so delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Gavin Johnson

  • Keep This guy is real, except he looks kinda different from his picture, cos the real deal is kinda more nourished looking. He came to my school at the start of this year for seminars and droned on about baked dinner for fifty minutes, then gave out booklets with random statistics and food pyramids and radio transcripts available to buy to listen on cassette. I don't have one myself, but I know some people kept them to make fun of him and prank his office number. I'll see whether I can get the seminar photos or a scan of his booklet or something or whether my teachers can write in about this guy.J.Hamile-Rakow

Ridiculous picture accompanied by a possible hoax. I can't seem to find anything on google for a "Doctor Gavin Johnson." Delete. JHMM13 08:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I put up the photo but didnt write the article but I think its all true (he's actually a family friend) except I thought he was younger... I'll try get scan the pamphlet where I got the picture from Putnik Tula
  • Keep This guy was on SBS like a month ago, I know cause it's the only channel I get here in Kootamundra. And I dunno bout you, but if it aint baked dinna, I don't wanna know about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.70.119 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He came to my old high school last year as a speaker and was boring as all hell. He's real but not famous and as far as an author goes he did give out some booklets I think he wrote about food groups, etc. I'll get in touch with my school buds and ask if they have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.191.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete It doesn't really matter if he's real if he's not famous; that still makes him non-notable and doesn't need an article. :) Peachlette 12:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I saw this guy on SBS. The documentary said he used to work for the CSIRO but has recently begun his own studies on nutrition. Part of that was a survey on what foods people eat. I also have to point out that because he isnt on GOOGLE doesnt mean he doesnt exist. - Jean-Pierre Martinez—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.143.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment User:Putnik has only made edits to his userpage and pages related to Doctor Gavin Johnson, User:58.164.70.119 has only made edits related to Doctor Gavin Johnson, as has User:211.30.191.21 and User:Polarburr, and User:144.138.143.112 had made one edit unrelated to Doctor Gavin Johnson - vandalism to Causes of the French Revolution. Andjam 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Five Google hits for "Gavin Johnson" CSIRO none of which are from a reliable source see [16]. Our Sunday roast contains very dodgy data claiming that 64% of Australians eating baked dinners three times or more a week citing Johnson as the alleged source. That data is unverifiable and nonsense on stilts - as an Australian I should know. No Google book results [17] and no Google scholar results completes the trifecta [18].

Possible speedy as silly vandalism or non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No hits on the CSIRO web site. Kevin 09:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
  • Question. Is that the best picture he could find? Herostratus 19:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, probable hoax. Sarah Ewart 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article but I'm sure the image could prove useful illustrating a fashion related article. --Roisterer 08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- obvious hoax. - Longhair 21:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cautious Keep the article is rubbish, but not beyond improvement. Izehar 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you improve a hoax? Agnte 19:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax. it seems evident from the picture and the sockpuppets. Agnte 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax or not he doesn't appear to hit notability. Plus a flood of unsigned/suspected sockpuppet votes. Stifle 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Rusty

The band is not notable. No albums released, hence fails WP:MUSIC. After googling its name, I also can't locate its official site. Delete. --*drew 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yet another garage band. Get some fame and fortune before returning. --StuffOfInterest 14:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above. PJM 15:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 05:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pet Names for Genitalia

Non-notable song by Tom Green. tregoweth 08:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The song is more notable than most parodies. The real problem is a lack of potential content about this song. This existing stub sums up just about everything that can be possibly be said without pasting all the lyrics. Keep, or strongly consider a Merge to "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (note change of vote 19:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Merge with "We Didn't Start the Fire". Capitalistroadster 09:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Rhollenton 12:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This isn't Tom Lear. The parody is a bloom of an hour -- ephemera -- and its fame is already gone, I'd say. To me, it doesn't rise to Weird Al level, and I can't imagine our having an article per song of his, and this is to say nothing of the nothing that can be said about the song itself. Geogre 19:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Would it not still be meaningful to mention the parody within the article for the song being lampooned by it? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Look at a number of other sites and there are parodies noted, e.g., The Beatles article's reference to the Rutles parody. Jtmichcock 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Jtmichcock 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Tom Green. 147.70.242.21 22:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - but don't just list as a song. It'd be good if it was a list of pet names for genitalia as well (i.e. it is a song, and a list). Zordrac 01:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Towel fetish

Article itself states "towel fetish is an unheard of concept" so I will venture to say "non-notable, delete". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Notability isn't an issue. The subject matter is, according to the article at any rate (it effectively stating outright that there are no sources on the subject), unverifiable. And, unless one counts the occasional critique of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie (such as this or this) or web sites about someone's dog as sources about towel fetishism, that does indeed appear to be the case. Delete. Uncle G 10:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Guys, I really am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is the improper way/place to put forward my thoughts.

    Why is this article taken for deletion? The editor, by stating that "towel fetish is an unheard of concept" is being honest. The feelings may have been his/her own, or his own fetish. So what there's nothing to justify it?

    I doubt if the first article published on 'Erotic Bondage' had anyone to justify it also! And neither is this sexually explicit material he has written - at least not compared to the stuff we have on Wikipedia!! Come on. I'd ask you to give the guy a chance.

    -John.

    • If there's "nothing to justify it", it does not belong here. Everything here is required to be verifiable. We aren't in the business of taking Wikipedia editors solely at their words. We have no reason to believe that Crazyideas (talk · contribs) is "being honest", just as you have no reason to believe that I am being honest. This is why we cite sources, providing editors with the independent means to check the articles that we are writing. If there is no means for checking an article, because there are no sources to be cited (and this article pretty much says that there aren't), then the article is unacceptable here.

      Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. If Crazyideas wants to announce to the world a new concept of towel fetishism, based upon firsthand personal testimony, then that is primary source material, which must be peer reviewed, fact checked, critiqued, and published elsewhere.

      If you or anyone else want to convince those of us who think that the article should be deleted that the article should be kept, you can easily change our minds by the simple expedient of citing some reliable sources for the subject matter of the article, demonstrating that it is verifiable and not original research. This is a discussion, and people's decisions are not set in stone. But that is the only way to satisfy the objections to the article that we have. Uncle G 15:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. In response to John, if there is something called a "towel fetish," that there is no internet activity surrounding this tells us that the practice is not widespread and is not particularly noteworthy. All sorts of conduct is the subject of one sexually fetish or another, but an article requires some minimal amount of practice or else it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. In this instance, unlike erotic bondage the article itself note that there are no websites that deal with the practice. And it doesn't take too large of an audience to support some web activity and this leads me to believe the practice is microscopic at best. Jtmichcock 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm glad someone else did a Google search for "towel fetish". Delete, of course. --Last Malthusian 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ...but mark for cleanup and link from somewhere. As frightening as it may be, Google does turn up a few hits referring to people having a towel fetish. Might as well let the information collect somewhere. Regarding websites, there are many fetishes out there and not everyone has to have a dedicated site. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I gave three of them above. Not one of them is a source that can be used to create an article. Counting Google Web hits is not enough. It isn't research. Research requires that one actually read what Google turns up. If you found something using a Google Web search that can actually be used as a reliable source to construct a verifiable article, please tell us what it is. Otherwise, you have not shown that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 14:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I have to agree with the above, Google hits alone are insufficient unless you find links for the specific topic of the article. Towel and fetish are likely to come up often on a search since, well, fetishes are almost always messy. Jtmichcock 16:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Original research. — RJH 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: As RJHall says, it's original research. A paraphilia about the security blanket and infantile regression with a towel isn't altogether shocking, but the concept is not discussed in the literature. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, it is not appropriate to report upon a single person's findings here. Geogre 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research (while I fondle this wonderful soft terrycloth...) Durova 19:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per StuffOfInterest. The fact that we don't approve of something is irrelevant. Zordrac 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. If User:StuffOfInterest rewrites the article using verifiable sources, then I will reconsider. But as the article stands it violates more than one of Wikipedia's most fundamental principles. Chick Bowen 04:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per StuffOfInterest. Stifle 22:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete NN paraphilia, sub-encyclopedic Pete.Hurd 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unless someone can verify that there is a towel fetish subculture, and that it's large enough to be notable among fetish circles, which I somehow doubt. Seriously, a towel fetish? - Hahnchen 05:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 22:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical analysis v.2(apostol)

Seems incomplete and poorly written - at best, this should be transwiki'ed, otherwise deleted.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost to post answers to homework questions. This is not an article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete along with other attempts by this user to make Wikipedians solve his homework (A 288101 and another one which was speedied – I can't remember the name and Kate's tool is broken) –Mysid 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an encyclopedia article. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion (no content/context). - Mike Rosoft 12:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rhollenton 12:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, above reasons good enough, but probably also copyvio, surely?. --Squiddy 12:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per above. --StuffOfInterest 14:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wafwot

Neologism, not widespread Punkmorten 16:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems to be a legitimate if not widespread term (643 Google hits). I added it to List of Internet slang, which is where it belongs. •DanMS 21:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article relisted for too few votes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to WAFWOT and redirect to the slang list it's merged in. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and Redirect. What Mgm said. Plus, contains NPOV material. rodii 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That's good, we need more NPOV (neutral) material. Are you sure you didn't mean POV (biased) material? - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, duh. *blushes* Ahem. "Contains POV material." rodii 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skashank redemption

Apparent band vanity. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Author admitted on his talkpage that this article was a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David M. Zimmerman Elementary School

Schoolcruft. Can I say more? Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes you can. Please be more descriptive in your nomination and explain why you think it's cruft. Cruft is often seen as a derogatory and misused term. Explaining helps to keep the good faith. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
...and strongly believed to be a hoax. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:09, November 30, 2005
  • Delete. Non-notable primary school like the hundreds of thousands like it. Unverified and not remotely encyclopaedic. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, substub not an article. Doesn't tell us any of the basic details one needs to know about a school. Edit: Isn't verifiable either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless a consensus is someday reached to index every school out there, just doesn't seem notable. --StuffOfInterest 14:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And this is why nominators should do research on schools before they nominate. This article appears to be a hoax, though the nominator failed to uncover this, thus demonstrating that they did not follow our deletion policy (which requires that one, before nominating, determine that the article does not fall under a category that does not require deletion, like a failure of POV, or needing cleanup.) It is a waste of everyones time to nominate articles that will obviously generate controvercy on AFD without doing the requiste research. No vote Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • And this is why nominators should do research on schools before they nominate. No, this is why voters should do research on articles before they vote. Or perhaps I should say "robo-vote". --Calton | Talk 01:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nn school. Catchpole 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hipocrite --eleuthero 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as empty, and disregard any vote that does not address this particular instance or show familiarity with the article. No "delete per another page" nor "keep per another page": read this particular article and express an opinion on it. Otherwise, you'll vote to keep articles that say, "You are all idiots" but have titles called "Abraham Lincoln Elementary School." Geogre 19:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I would request any admin that disregards my vote to contact me personally. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If one wishes merely to refer to wp:sch, then that is fine. However, I feel that once one decides to take on the responsibility of saying "keep" or "delete," one must offer a rationale for that opinion that pertains to the article under debate. No meta page trumps a deliberative page, and, were there to be an actual policy to emerge from that debate (and I believe that it never will), then the decisions would be procedural and, again, not involve motioning for "keep" or "delete." Again, if you vote, rationalize the vote with reference to the article. I note that schools are the only situation where things have gotten so bad that folks are admittedly not even reading the articles and yet proposing that they be kept or deleted. This is against the spirit of AfD, to say the least, and that is why I took the unusual step of urging a disregarding of such motions. Geogre 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It is imperitive that you read WP:SCH, paying specific attention to Rules of thumb #4. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Isn't rule of thumb #4 one notch above creating a vote-bot? Hipocrite, I don't see how you can consider templated signatures "harmful" and templated votes "constructive" so I am, once again, confused. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Templated signatures cause avoidable load on the servers (see WP:SIG section 3.3].)(Ironically, much like creating a lot of obvious no-consensus AFDs do) Linking to a standard vote does not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Please Avoid Personal Attacks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hoax. Google returns no hits on "David M. Zimmerman Elementary School". How is that possible if school exists? If anybody can show evidence that school does exists, change my voet toe Keep per Hipocrite.Herostratus 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I assure you that if I had googled it prior to nominating I would have tagged it for speedy. I guess I figured it would be pointless without a city & state. damn. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's say the absolute minimum for schools inclusion is verifiability and location. This has neither. Durova 19:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This one smells worse than a week-dead narwhal. No Google hits, no specification anywhere in the article of where the school is located, and this was the user's only page creation: Coach Zed (talk · contribs). I smell a troll and possibly someone making a WP:POINT about knee-jerk school votes. It ain't working for me, this school inclusionist is voting delete. Turnstep 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
comment if Turnstep is correct, then someone should be ashamed of themselves. Pete.Hurd 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. Regardless of interpretation of WP:NOT, WP:V trumps that. Sam Vimes 21:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverified and non-notable. Nandesuka 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a hoax. Gateman1997 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Although as a school deletionist, I hope to God nobody tries to use this to say "there is a clear consensus to delete elementary schools". Although, on the other hand, that would be pretty funny... Lord Bob 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. I'm sure there was a WP:POINT to this, but can't imagine what it was. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I assume the point would be too flush out people who vote without looking at the article itself, similar to the way the McMartin preschool AfD might have. Turnstep 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this if it is verifiable otherwise we have to erase it Yuckfoo 01:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete does it even exist, where the heck is it? Unencyclopoedic article...if it's that important they can recreate it and at least tell us where it is.--MONGO 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spurious creation as the single edit by probable sockpuppet [User:Coach Zed]. It's too bad there is no probable cause for it, but I'd love to see a checkuser done. Note that although there doesn't seem to be any David M. Zimmerman Elementary School, there are several Zimmerman Elementary Schools (see [19]). BlankVerse 07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, probable hoax. Even if this school actually existed, this article would fail because it doesn't tell where the school is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to assume this is a simple vandalism from a new user, rather than a fake account by an established user. Could someone close this AfD and delete now that the location of the school has been revealed? Turnstep 13:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • With that admission on the talkpage I am ready to close this as a speedy delete under WP:CSDG2 and/or G3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non notable bio - brenneman(t)(c) 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great man

No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense. Simulcra 09:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Vanity, includes request for contact. --Last Malthusian 10:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense - brenneman(t)(c) 15:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut balancing

non-encyclopedic

  • Delete non-encyclopedic; at best : BJAODN JoJan 10:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lonergan theory of time-alcohol relationship

Original research OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apart from being OR and apparent vanity-by-proxy, includes the nonsensical statement "...is directly and inversely proportionate", which unless I'm forgetting something is directly (and inversely) self-contradictory. --Last Malthusian 12:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Chick Bowen 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GBU

Looks like an inside joke to me. No assertion of notability. Google searches using "Gang Bang Unit" GBU and "Jason Stomel" "Sam Alavi" yielded no results. –Mysid 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Could be credible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.6.238 (talk • contribs) 10:50, November 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a very interesting group or cult... If in fact these so called GBU ceremonies take place, I would love to witness one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.28.120 (talk • contribs) 11:23, November 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as prank/hoax. Ifnord 15:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete It's either a benign inside joke or an underhanded attack. Either way, kill it quickly. Also note that the only "support" comes from 2 anon IPs, one of which made the page, and whose only other contribution is vandalism. --Bachrach44 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as obvious hoax page. Jtmichcock 17:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Drunken kiddies attempting humor. Geogre 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • woman in the LA area, I would love to encounter a GB member. It would be an honor to be GBed, especially by the great looking men in the picture.
  • As a Chinese man in the LA area, I am thrilled that the GBU embraces affirmative action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.13.96 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete hoax, nonsense.--MONGO 03:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • First off I would like to say that for all of you out there mocking the GBU and underestimating the potential that these men hold are merely jealous. I have first hand experienced a GB and I have to say it was I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E. I had an encounter with these gentlemen in Las Vegas and am proud to say that what happens in Vegas does not need to stay there. I live in the LA area and am looking in partaking in many more. I can honestly say it was THE BEST night of my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dph119 (talk • contribs) 06:58, December 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mandatory to Wikipedia: Although these gentleman in the GBU are soulless people, there actions are noteworthy and should be on your website. This organization, although comprised of "drunk kiddies", has wristbands and t-shirts and are therefore noteworthy and should be allowed on Wikipedia. To ban this post of the GBU would be unconstitutional and morally bankrupt. Although you may feel that this is innaprorpriate, allow these men to express their constitutional rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.10.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete This is definitely a hoax. The support here is unsigned and in the same format [i.e. none of them did the standard procedure of putting their vote in bold]. 207.181.6.238, 68.181.13.96, Dph119, and 68.181.10.112 have only edited this page. The only other comment in support of the article is its author -- 68.181.28.120 --, and his only unrelated edit is vandalism. peachlette 13:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this page! This is to private to have any interest to the users. There are many meanings of the acronym GBU that would warrant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.15.135.3 (talk • contribs) 13:14, December 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP PAGE OPEN As stated before this is not a hoax at all. I have had personal encounters with the creators and well as the organization. They not only have merchandise which can be purchased through the organization but the members are all strong advocates to the group and proclaim themselves part of the organization by proadly wearing their GBU merchandise. This is no Hoax but a legitamate organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.216.105 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This vfd is a perfect example of why we should restrict certain activities (like vfd) to registered users only. This page is an obvious hoax, and yet despite the obvious delete votes by several established wikipedians with thousands of edits, it looks like we're losing the vote to what is clerly a sock puppet. (Most keep votes are from the same subnet, and they're all done in the same style). Oh yes - for the record, T-shirts do not make one notable. --Bachrach44 14:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am extremely upset that anyone would consider shutting down a reference page for a group of extremely hard working gentlemen. We should all hope that we can one day achieve the status and power of the GBU, and have as much fun as these guys do in our daily lives. I know them personally and appluade their work in the Southern California area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.28.8 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom -Nv8200p talk 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; article redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galwegians

Dictdef with no potential for expansion, even if it were correctly renamed. Any relevant information belongs in the article on the county. Deco 04:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle 11:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Galway. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to uncommon to need a redirect. --Bachrach44 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Relisted for too few votes. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Paolo. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In Ireland Galwegians is also a well-known Rugby club. Dlyons493 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Paolo. --eleuthero 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uberhubris

Neologism Chuckhoffmann 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and not a this or a that, but Wikipedia is the first place I've seen any direct attempt to "define" this 'state' which I've heard persons referring to more and more frequently over the past ten years.

There's a couple of hundred entries in Google under uberhubris, and under the entry uber-hubris, several hundred more.

If not Wikipedia, then where?

I've previously heard "uberhubris" to refer to an internal state of being/mind, but have [I believe] seen it corrupted recently [probably as we turn to other languages to find our superlatives]. Jksamuels 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Urban Dictionary takes this kind of thing, but neither Wikipedia nor its dictionary counterpart Wiktionary do. Further, it's a really ugly portmonteau word, combining German with Greek. "Hubris" is already superlative: it is a pride so shocking that it outrages the gods in Greek tragedy. There was an Anglo-Saxon word along the same lines (maybe...depends on which side of a particular debate you take) in "ofermode," and other languages have their own versions. Thus, it's not really a needed word, either, except that there has been a debasement of "hubris" by people using it in a slipshod manner (which is normal). If that misuse continues for another decade or so, we may need a word to reestablish the original meaning, but not yet. Geogre 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, defining neologisms isn't what Wikipedia articles are for. Geogre is kindly asked to withdraw his scandalous allegation of ugliness, though. I like the kiddingly redundant superlative, the tongue-twistingness and unpronouncability, and especially the uber/ubr chime between two languages so widely differing as German and Greek. Good luck to the word, just not in its own wiki article. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Pbbbbttt! There's a tongue twister neologism for you. Bet they don't have that at Urban Dictionary. Geogre 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (Last of the language's true defenders.)
  • weak delete I like the concept, but the word is not notable enough, and it is a bit clumsy in english, so I will be surprised if catches on. If it does catch on, it is probably still more appropriate for a dictonary. If enough people vote keep to make it close, contact me and I may switch to keep, since I am generally anti-deletionist, and I believe in making allowances for minority opinion, even if it is a mere 15 or 20% minority.--Silverback 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Page Open This is my first wikidrama -- in a trial for the survival of an entry, I'm the apologist. How exciting. If it is the case that the entry is merely the definition of a neologism, and it is the case that the Wikispaces are not the 'proper' place, but Urban Dictionary IS -- then the remaining issue: Is the entry qua entry merely the definition of a neologism? Do articles ever 'grow'? Should this be changed to a 'stub'? --jksamuels 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Brian P. Stack. - Mailer Diablo 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Stack (politican)

There is already an article for this person under a different title, of which I was not initially aware. Nightscream 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Where? –Mysid 11:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Brian P. Stack is the one Nightscream is refering to. -- JLaTondre 16:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If I were to venture a guess at Brian Stack (politician) (note the missing I in the other one). - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, guess not. Unless Nightscream produces evidence this is indeed duplicated, I don't think deletion is the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment We have nothing under Brian Stack. If there is no duplicate, this article should be moved to Brian Stack unless anyone else is aware of other Brian Stacks of note in which case the article should be moved to Brian Stack (politician). If Nightstick can identify the duplicate article this article should be merged with that. Capitalistroadster 17:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Brian P. Stack as original author of the duplicate article (Nightscream) appears to believe that is the better one. -- JLaTondre 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Google site specific searches are excellent for this sort of thing. A search on site:en.wikipedia.org Brian Stack returned the pre-existing article as the first hit. -- JLaTondre 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Healadin

I don't think it quite fits CSD, but certainly no point in having a page dedicated to a particular segment of a subclass of a class in a RPG. Delete. --Nlu 06:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into World of Warcraft. Stifle 11:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Relisted for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as subtrivial WOW-dom. Saberwyn 12:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but.... The bells are going off in my head suggesting that WoW took this from actual medieval literature. Any of our Anglo-Saxonists or Old Norse folks recognize it? I certainly can't replace the content with something more germane, but, if someone else can, that would be a nice way to get a two-for-one out of it ("Healadin is a figure in the Volsungsaga and the WoW people stoled the name"). Otherwise, barring someone with a better memory or my just imagining it, delete. Geogre 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt it. Healadin is moust likely a portmanteau of the words 'heal' and 'paladin', just like a Bowazon from Diablo II was a Amazon character tweaked towards using bows. Saberwyn 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Orange Party

Duplicate for Orange Party which is also a deletion candidate. Party is either brand new or doesn't exist other than on paper. Nothing of note yet. StuffOfInterest 11:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as article duplication. If Orange Party survives deletion, recreate as redirect. Saberwyn 12:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is a duplicate of Orange Party, which was deleted. ◎DanMS 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Minor Wheel of Time characters. Merge has already been done, and I now stride boldly forth to do all the redirecting. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adelorna Bastine, Aeldene Stonebridge, Rafela Cindal, Tsutama Rath, Yukiri, Andaya Forae, Kumira, Jesse Bilal, Llew, Kairen Stang, Salita Toranes, Narenwin Barda, Ferane Neheran, Elza Penfell, Sarene Nemdahl, Silviana Brehon

These are all minor characters from the Wheel of Time fantasy series by Robert Jordan and are not sufficiently important to warrant an individual article. If these were real people they'd be {{db-bio}}'ed without a blink. Not the worst example of fancruft, but fancruft nonetheless. Delete. Zunaid 11:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've tried as far as possible to avoid nom'ing characters more central to the plot, so for example I've left Adeleas and Vandene out of this list even though their articles are equally short. Hopefully none of who's left in this list is plot-central. Please point out any errors, but please don't give away plot details ;). Zunaid 11:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We also have lists of minor characters. Can't these be merged in a List of minor Wheel of Time characters? - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - I think the proper title would be List of minor characters in the Wheel of Time. BD2412 T 14:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've since found an article titled Minor Wheel of Time characters, although bizarrely the four characters currently written about are Logain Ablar, Shaidar Haran, Slayer and Verin Mathwin, three of whom have their own articles and none of whom are exactly what you'd call minor characters. Zunaid 14:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge in the proper article and have redirects (for example character name could redirect to article name#character name. +MATIA ☎ 15:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't need to clutter up AfD with this. Just go ahead and merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Minor Wheel of Time characters per Zunaid. — RJH 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge into Minor Wheel of Time characters per above. Jtmichcock 17:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above and, incidentally, WP:FICT. — Haeleth Talk 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merged as requested by everyone. Checking and changing redirects now. Once this is done these articles can safely be deleted (they are highly unlikely search strings anyway). Zunaid 09:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lanais Stoll

Fails CSD:A7, but I can't see any expansion on this. I don't think being the first baby born in a year is notable enough for Wikipedia. Stifle 12:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Undecided, surely there's hundreds if not thousands of kids born at the very same time? - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not expandable, as you say. It just isn't information that says anything useful about society, the universe, or anything. There's always going to be a first baby born every year. Trivia. And also non-verifiable; birth time is subjective, 00:00:00 may well be fudging by the hospital, quite probable not acutally first baby born in the whole world, besides which the date line moves. If kept, change to recorded as the first... If someone wants to make a list of the first baby born in each year, fine, then Listify. Herostratus 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, smacks of numerology, not encyclopedic. They were born at 00:00:00, which is significant, because that is also the number of Google hits for "Lanais+Stoll" Turnstep 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: If all those problems weren't enough, you have the first baby born in the US, first in Finland, first in Somalia, and you also have first in Virginia, first in Massachussetts, first in Delaware, first in Maryland, first in North Carolina, etc. Geogre 03:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with January 1, 2003. Informative notable info that people want to know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: As UTC is the earthly time and is not local time then the significance of UTC does indeed indicate that this person is likely to be the first person of the year 2003 and that certainly by the recorded time they can not be second. The information is also verifiable as hospitals by law have to record the time of birth, and if this alone is recognised in law then that time must be recognised as being accurate and not illegally "fudged". Given that there is likely to be just 1000 first persons in an entire millenium, whose passing may see billions of new people, then the significance is quite high given the importance of the calendar in general. That newspapers devote front page news to the phenomenon enforces that this is a definite seal of our society such that we attach national significance and importance to the event. Incidentally - if the odds were that just 100 people were born every second then we'd have over 3bn new people each year - so it is misguided to say that "surely" hundreds or even "thousands" of people qualify. It is more likely statistically that no other qualifies.--194.201.24.215 18:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not expandable and the only google hits are from Wikipedia. If someone really wants this information to be included, it would be lovely as part of a list of the first baby born in each year, as per Herostratus. peachlette 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salt box cafe

No context or location details, and non-notable. At the moment my vote is to delete but if someone adds location, then it is a candidate to be transwikied to Wikitravel. Stifle 12:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even the with location it's most likely an advertisment for a non-notable eatery. Kevin 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. Its POV issues can't be cleaned up. If we were to remove all the POV adverbs there'd be no article left. - Mgm|(talk) 13:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Mgm, remove the current article's POV descriptions and the article becomes "Salt box cafe is a transport cafe that serves tea, chips and bacon" which is not notable. Sliggy 16:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrari's Restaurant

This entry is a non-notable restaurant blatantly advertising itself. Kevin 12:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. It's already lost its image. --StuffOfInterest 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That was my fault. They were blatant copyright violations with no licenses and in a few cases not even source info. Those can be deleted 7 days after being uploaded. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Ifnord 15:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pannage

When I saw this I wasn't sure whether to {{nonsense}} it, laugh, or ignore it. I'm 99% sure it's a joke, but still am not certain enough to call for a speedy. Stifle 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It's in the OED 'the New Forest there is a period called Pannage time, when the cottagers have a right, for six weeks, to turn out their swine to enjoy the harvest under the trees.' Dlyons493 13:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Weird but true, the inhabitants of the New Forest had six traditional rights. Pannage was one of them. Bevo74 13:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • http://www.hants.gov.uk/newforest/today/common.html
  • Keep. Thanks very much for erring on the side of caution and not speedying it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is why nonsense is not a speedy deletion criterion. Only patent nonsense (which this article is not) is speedily deletable. Uncle G 14:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And indeed it is why I did not mark it for speedy deletion. Stifle 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons above. Incidentally, it didn't strike me as so odd - but tagging and reverting garbage on the Wiki has desensitized me somewhat. PJM 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A very real, and very ancient tradition, well worth a page - MPF 20:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per discussions. Close Vfd. Zordrac 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm convinced. I withdraw the nomination and it can be speedily closed, although cleanup/stubbing is warranted. Stifle 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no-hassle redirect to Moral objectivism. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Objectivisim

tag for speedy deletion was removed Melaen 12:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The technoillogical myopia

non-notable band, makes you wish that there was 1% more support in the vote to add this to CSD Stifle 12:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted the article myself as saw a band listed that we know from the unsigned circuit. I am happy to delete it right now if necessary. independientix 13:48, 30 November 2005

  • Delete. 'A' for effort on the page, but still a non-notable. --StuffOfInterest 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the original author of the article and would like to delete it. independientix


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicky Spesh

Escapes speedy by a hair's-breadth, non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 12:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Surprised me. Actually is released on a label. Still, article desperately needs expanded on. {{stub}} it and get it linked somewhere. --StuffOfInterest 14:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 14:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (1) Musicians myst have TWO albums released. Or a gold record, charted hit, or big-leauge tour. UNLESS... they have a big media buzz or... are verifiably the MOST prominent representitive of a notable style in the local scene of a city. I'm not seeing that, although I could be missing it. (2) Poorly written article, to boot. (3) If he's notable, and I've missed it, sorry, but THE ARTICLE CREATOR HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY to make the case for notability -- name tour venues, provide references, anything. Why should we do all the work? Annoying. Herostratus 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. He has released a record which has received some notice and is available. However, a search for Nicky Spesh only gets 95 results [20] although some verifiable references ie BBC, Tesco etc. Capitalistroadster 22:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 740 Results for Nicky Spesh at last search including BBC etc, saw him in leading article in DJ magazine. People are saying he is using hip hop to tell stories in a way that no British artist has done before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.57.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The above unsigned keep vote is from the author of the article, who has also added Nicky Spesh to English hip hop and, strangely, Category:British_rappers. peachlette 13:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment "People are saying" doesn't wash on Wikipedia, see WP:NPOV, specifically the part about not using weasel words. Stifle 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    comment "What a load of rubbish, I've seen this dude on T.V and he's not called carlos sheltnaman or whatever that thing said. The article is not very well written I will change 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fc barcelona arab

Barely coherent article about the FC Barcelona Arab Supporters Club, a web-based club for Saudi-Arabian Barcelona fans. Google shows no links in and the site is not in English (or even Latin script) so is unverifiable in the English Wikipedia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete seems non-notable.  Grue  19:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Relisting for too few votes. Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another website. If it's notable in regard to FC Barcelona, it can get a link in its external links section. - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
If it's somehow decided to keep this, please rename to FC Barcelona Arab. - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 14:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This subject doesn't need to be anything more than an external link in FC Barcelona, which it already is. As a remote second choice, merge into FC Barcelona. --Metropolitan90 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Böhse Onkelz/Tracklist

Delete - No more needed, since the albums have their own pages MikeAtari 21:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Relisting for too few votes. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MikeAtari -SCEhardT 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor Yushi

A lengthy, crufty series of non-notable characters for a non-notable convention. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into No Brand Con. Stifle 15:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Relisting for too few votes. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (or merge per Stifle) — Haeleth Talk 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete don't let article length fool you as this is just not notable.--MONGO 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siegfried Goodfellow

Just doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion, 54 google hits. Punkmorten 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedia material. Stifle 01:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Relisted for lacking votes. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. His book isn't stocked by Amazon, and Amazon even stock some self-published works. — Haeleth Talk 23:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promotion. No indication he's successful even in the self-publishing business. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

However, Ziggy's theories are not found elsewhere and thus are deserving of mention. Far from being self-promotion, it is the promotion of important theories about Freyr which did not exist prior to his work. --- Carla O'Harris

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elegy for Kosovo

Looks like its a copyvio, very POV & doesn't look like its appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Delete AllanHainey 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The actual book title is Elegy for Kosovo : Stories [21]. PJM 14:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per above. Zordrac 01:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a copyvio. It should be rewritten if it is kept. peachlette 14:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transology

Rambling, pretentious article about a non-notable project to design urban cars. NB. Not a copyvio (see talk page), just an insult to Wikipedia to simply copy and paste. -- RHaworth 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)*

  • Delete per nom - style also scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 14:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not really sure why there is such an anxiety created by this link. Please do what you must, I apologize for making an attempt to introduce the subject here. Transology is an absolutely new discipline that vitally merges transportation planning, industrial design, and urban architecture, NOT some pretentious article. I am not personally offended and good luck in all of your future endeavors.-MJ
    • Brand new concepts generally need some time before they make suitable encyclopedic entries. I'm glad to see that you don't take this process personally and encourage you to continue contributing. PJM 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually quite interesting. Take a look at the website link provided in the article. Yes, this is apparently fairly new, but it is certainly verifiable. However—and this is a big one—the Wikipedia article is apparently a direct copy of the website. It must be verified that this is not a copyright violation. To the author: You must either provide verification that this is not a copyright violation or you must rewrite the article so that it is not a direct copy of the website. A picture or two to accompany the article would be good also. And finally the article needs to be wikified. •DanMS 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The only people who have written about this concept are its creators. There's no evidence that this concept has been accepted by anyone else, and added to the corpus of human knowledge. There are no sources whatsoever that are independent of the creators, the existence of which would demonstrate that the concept had been accepted by other people. Interesting or not, this article is original research, that Wikipedia is not the place for. Delete. Uncle G 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well put; agreed. PJM 15:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please delete the article. We are publishing it on another respected academic press and it was an honest mistake to place it here. I did not understand the fundamental idea behind wikipedia and do so now. Yes, the work is an original contribution to the previous fields mentioned and as of yet has no larger audience. Again thank you for the critical commentary. I am sure in the future wikipedians will introduce the idea after it has been normalized. I do not mean any disrespect to the editorial culture here. Best --MJ

Thanks again for not resenting this process or taking offense to our comments. Cheers. PJM 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Only 134 Ghits, which aren't all about the same thing as the article, and it's definitely original research. Good luck with your project though! :) peachlette 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Tamchyna

When I came across the article, somebody had typed "Please note: this article is fiction" at the bottom of it. It may or may not have been the original editor (not a logged-in user; similar IP to the original contributor). A Google search produces only a handful of hits for "Andrew Tamchyna" - all non-WP hits refer to a non-notable swimmer. It seems that the article is indeed fiction (you would think a professional hockey player would be mentioned somewhere other than Wikipedia). Delete. Joel7687 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't verify it either. PJM 14:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Me neither. He only gets four Ghits that aren't from Wikipedia, and none of them are for a hockey player. Delete. peachlette 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delere per PJM. Stifle 22:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabakafest

No assertion of notability. No hits on Google. The article is about a party held by some friends. Mysid 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 14:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Joel7687 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, NN, NN, Vanity, NN, NN, NN Chris the speller 21:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otisabi

Delete: Non-notable comic. Article claims he is "known for his self invented mock-past careers and lives". Indeed; within the article it claims he lives in Manhattan and also in Los Angeles. Yet, his profiles ([22],[23]) say he lives in Turkey. Claims to be working in the motion picture industry yet IMDB has no entry under either Otisabi or Yilmaz Aslantürk. There are also claims to being a top male model, top water polo player (google for "Yilmaz Aslantürk" and "water polo" returns nothing), and rich playboy. I was strongly leaning towards speedy deleting this as nn-bio, but given there have been a few people who have contribute to the article I thought I'd give it half a chance by cleaning it up a bit and putting it here on AfD. --Durin 14:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yılmaz Aslantürk (illustrator) and Otisabi (the cyber persona) are NOT the same person. Yılmaz Aslantürk, who resides in Turkey, created the Otisabi character for his Comic Strips. Otisabi the cyber personality liked that character and took its name as his handle/nickname. Also the claims of being a top model and water polo players are evidently NOT real but intended to be comical as made obvious by the following statement that clearly says "self invented". You might cross check with Eksi Sozluk (http://sozluk.sourtimes.org) for further verification.Otisabi

  • Then please indicate some reason...any reason...why this person (you?) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. As it is, the article clearly fails Articles (7) criteria and should be speedy deleted. If the article is just a joke, then it should be speedied immediately. --Durin 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this person, (being me, but the article itself is not initially written by me or anyone I know of) is notable mainly for being one of the few internet persona's in Turkey that emerged as a nickname, gained popularity then made himself a career as a writer and journalist under the same nickname, announced specifically on the cover of a magazine (http://www.vatangazetesi.com.tr/boxer/index.asp). It's like Durin (you?) emerging from wikipedia as an administrator and be invited to write for a mainstream magazine, acknowledged outside of wikipedia but still under the same LOTR nickname? Would you think of yourself notable enough? I just find it humiliating to prove and justify my existence.

Personally, I do not defend that otisabi should be included (or for that matter excluded) for any reason. I just saw the previous flawed article edited that out, I will edit in the "excuse" to justify otisabi's presence, however I would still like you to be provide a justification that corresponds to the article itself a little bit more coherent than "the article clearly fails Articles (7)". How clearly does it fail? If you will, please clarify that so that I can edit it accordingly. Otherwise you may proceed with your speed obsessed deletion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.184.71.11 (talk • contribs)

  • If I were obsessed with speedy deleting articles, I would have deleted this article on sight. Instead, I took the time and effort to clean it up a bit and placed it for AfD where this discussion is now happening. Had I just speedied it, we would not even be having this conversation. Let's throw pillows, not knives, ok?
  • As for it qualifying speedy deletion under A7; the article makes no assertion of notability of the individual that can be independently verified. I attempted to verify, and made an association of a name to the person that you hav indicated is inaccurate. As noted, claims of being a water polo scoring champ and etc. are fake. There's nothing in the article that we can verify to support notability. The link you have provided shows the word "Otisabi" on the page twice. Not knowing Turkish, I've no way of understanding the relevance. A journalist and/or writer is not notable enough because they are a journalist and/or writer. Has the person won awards? Published frequently? When and in what medium? There are journalists and writers at my local newspaper. None of them are remarkable in any respect. What makes "Otisabi" something encyclopedic? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to create this article on the Turkish Wikipedia? --Durin 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum; I saw the edit summary saying the first paragraph shows why he's reputable. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see why a person who spends time on the web and becomes a writer/journalist is therefore notable. --Durin 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Durin. Stifle 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


(editing in for the purposes of further clarification) Although I have mentioned the word "obsession" once in reference to your usage of the word "speedy", you kind of get a little too itchy about it (Maybe I should throw in a itching cream?). You, being the moderator with a topic under your name and "milestones of achievement" can and may by every right delete an article. It doesn't matter how fast you erase it. Giving a sense of urgency in a matter of quasi importance such as this one seems a bit sign of pointless self importance. Just so you know, this is just an article in question, it's not a "cut the red wire or the green wire in ten seconds" moment. Do we really need to throw in uncalled for adjectives? It's not important how fast it should be deleted but why it should be deleted. A little more coherence to the text itself would suffice. Next time let's throw meaningful references to the text rather than links to lengthy articles, mmmkay?

Now, as I said earlier I will not defend the necessity of the topic otisabi in wikipedia. It could have forever remained in its previous version (which somehow eluded your and other hall of fame moderators faster than bullet deletion skills. Maybe you should add these to your notable list of milestones as well.) I am not sure what would be the scope of notability and necessity in an ever growing English speaking world. Is it centered in English speaking world and their means of collecting information? If so wikipedia being one such medium would suffice to present what is notable in one country to the other. However, we're not really given anything specific, other than speed regarding a deletion. Oh and Thank you for editing the article, it wouldn't be what it was without you.

I must also point out some inconsistencies inherent to wikipedia's "notable person" criteria. You, Durin, for instance have a user article to your name. Even though you're just an editor who has just enough time (and perhaps, not enough life) to adorn your topic with milestones of quite puny achievements, you are somehow considered notable. However anyone with enough time can be a moderator in wikipedia, and have milestones of statistical achievements. Should any geek with a LOTR nickname be given space in an encyclopedia just because he/she has enough time to justify it? Of course you may say "but its a user page and everyone is entitled to one.". Sure, but it's not very easy to distinguish that at first glance. It is presented in the same format, and can easily serve as a vanity page if need be. Of course this is beside the main point.

The main point is what is the criteria for notability that is somewhat left undecided whether it relates to the culture, geography, language, etc. You say in your web page you want some verification of notability. Fair enough. But then again if you are unable to read the "verifications" due to your lack of language regarding the subject of verification which may be something other than English (and french) shouldn't you just leave the judgement to someone that might know Turkish? If you insist on verifications you first should be able to "see" them, right? Perhaps you should ask a comrade moderator who does rather than directing me to Turkish Wikipedia? Hmm? That didn't occur to you? No Turkish speaking mods in English wikipedia?

Other than that I do not see how you miss the point about the notability. Use your pace in thinking please, I will provide the pillows if you fall, do I not explicitly say that otisabi is notable because he started out as a cyber persona, gained fame, and eventually hired as a writer due to his fame. It's quite unlike the blokes in your local newspaper who probably gained fame in town gatherings, but then again how can you prove and distinguish one from the other?

Otisabi writes in a nation wide circulated magazine, and he did not apply for it, he is offered the place. If that is in par with guys being able to write in local newspapers, so be it. You might live in Times Square.

Has the person won awards? But Durin, doesn't that depend on the award itself? Suppose my friends decide to give me an award how would that qualify? Besides how would -you- know the difference given the fact that you are alien to Turkish and the cultural life in Turkey? Do every good writer in history won an award or another? What award did Kafka won? Was he published regularly when he was alive? No. However he was published after his death, but still it wasn't what made him notable. It was not through awards or being published regularly to fulfill a quantitative understanding that mattered, but his literature was studied. It was written about. Maybe that is something you should keep in your inventory of criteria.

Was otisabi considered worthy in that sense? Yes. I can provide you articles. But would you be able to tell anything from it? No, because you don't know Turkish. Oh but somehow you think you are -still- eligible.

Was he regularly published, article clearly says that he is being published, and he is a publisher as well (and again nationwide, unlike your local paper friends). But there's a thing called vanity press, and regular publishing does not make you notable. That is unless you think there's relation between money and notability other than the "note" in "banknote".

Maybe Durin, just maybe, you should have said: is he translated into English so that he is notable to be published in English Wikipedia, then I would understand. Then you would have a point, then I would rest my case. Then I could have asked the initial question where is the center of wikipedia? Does it exclude Internet because of its insignificance as a source of being notable? If it does doesn't it also make itself not so notable since it is Internet based?

However, that I did not see. And allow me to be honest when I say that I find you quite naive and Pavlovian after milestones of achievements. Other than applying ready made bio templates you should be more attentive to the articles you have power upon. You should ask the questions that refer to specific points in a copy paste friendly environment, you should be able to provide a rule that directly explains the situation, rather than giving out general guidelines.

So next time please do not offer faux apologies by saying " Sorry to disappoint, but I don't see why a person who spends time on the web and becomes a writer/journalist is therefore notable." I am not disappointed by not being able to make it in wikipedia. I am disappointed that even wikipedia is run by bureaucrats who throw in a little bit of obscurity can rule and survive.

So here's what you could have asked: "Is he notable because he one day decided to be a nationwide publicized writer journalist, or was he asked/urged to be one because of his fame in the internet?" But that requires a sharp knife that wasn't in the drawer in the first place doesn't it?

Sorry to provide you one by throwing to your direction. If that was too sharp for you, here, a pillow, rest your weary head after a day of accomplishment.






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

The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bronx underground

This was summarily deleted a few days ago as "Blatant, self-promotional ad spam/link spam". Discussion on deletion review raised a near unanimous opinion that the article should be discussed prior to deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • No opinion. I have as yet no opinion on this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Website is ranked 4,276,868th on Alexa, only gets 111 hits on Google, some of which are Wikipedia:Deletion review or a version of it on a mirror. No claim of notability is made by the article; it could be any other music venue. If it's like The Cavern in Liverpool (that produced the Beatles), then it might be valid, but until such a claim is made, delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I see nothing verifiable here. Delete unless sufficient third-party sources are used in the article. Friday (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:V. By the author's own admission there is little to no published information available on the organization. If sources are found, then the article still has problems with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --Allen3 talk 16:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above unless there is any evidence presented in the article of its notability. If the article is kept it should be moved to Bronx Underground with the current capitalisation left as the redirect. Thryduulf 16:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously an ad, as can be seen from the staff list. --kralahome 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I'm satisfied that these chaps exist, they provide a performance venue in the Bronx area of Madhattoes, and they've produced a CD of some performances. I can't see why we should delete the article but perhaps we should consider redirecting to a more complete article. Any suggestions? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. You want to know where to redirect? Unless there's an obvious target, why would this be a candidate for redirection at all? Are you hoping for a List of clubs in the Bronx article or something? As for why it should be deleted, the most compelling reason offered so far is that it's not verifiable. Other concerns are that it's an ad, and, (for those who believe in notability), it's not notable. Friday (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Canning

Delete non-verifyable bio, hoax? No google hits for "Stephen Canning google".-- Syrthiss 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 15:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this must be a blatant hoax. If a 12 year old made that much money they'd be in the news or at least covered somewhere. And if someone was in legal struggle with Google over google.org, I'm sure it must've been covered somewhere - even if only for the sheer stupidity of sueing someone over a domain name which is clearly theirs. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Originator of page came by again, blanked it with edit summary of "sorry, sources misinformed". I didn't know if that would screw up the process of afd so I reinstated the afd notice, but I think we can change this to Speedy Delete per article creator. If it helps, I can go place a {{d}} on the page. --Syrthiss 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YAFLA

Quasi-neologism. Via google, appears not in common use (if one only searches in English, it appears to be a word in some other languages otherwise it's the name of a blog site}. Also, where do we stop: YASLA, YAELA, etc.? Perhaps merge and redirect to TLA. Ifnord 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think merging to TLA is a good idea. TLA stands for three-letter abbreviation, which this clearly isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting. Perhaps use as category. Yet Another Five Letter Acronym. Zordrac 01:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zordrac. Expansion needed. Stifle 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete Rd232 talk 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Mazer

hoax? Flapdragon 15:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax (I missed the last sentence before). PJM 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vandal nonsense Ziggurat 21:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete . . . though I can't stop laughing about the last sentence. Maybe WP:)? peachlette 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't manage the BJAODN this time. Stifle 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't DeleteI went to high school with scott and I don't appreciate you making light of his tragic deathUser:your mother
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The dragon's den

Non-notable website. Stifle 15:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Appears to be more akin to advertising than informative. Delete. Das Nerd 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, per WP:NOT. PJM 15:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Flapdragon 15:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 18:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Dolls

These might not be big enough to warrant an article... --Wonderfool 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic.--MONGO 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, coming second in the competition is sketchy, but playing at the Glastonbury Festival and landing a 5 album record-deal as a result, makes me think they're notable enough. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detox Paintball

Vanity article about a Canadian amateur paintball team. Suggest delete as non-notable. Rillian 19:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Energy quality

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is original research. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is one of a number of related deletion debates, you may wish to study all of them before forming a judgment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is a fellow called Odum wo appears to be an ecologist, and may have written about topics such as this. However, the thing described in this article appears to be original research having little or no bearing on Odum's work. linas 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Odum's papers are well-cited by other scientists in the field, and the quality of energy has been discussed by other s also. I agree that the current content is poorly written, but that is not a reason to delete a page on Wikipedia. Karol 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - H.T. Odum is a was a highly respected scientist and one of the founders of ecosystem ecology and ecological economics. This is real, published and significant. Guettarda 03:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The example under question of quantifying enegy quality was a clarification of Odum's example on p.251. This can be placed in the discussion section if that meets with approval, and a blockquote from Odum's text inserted instead (I don't think the example is as clear but if you want it please insert it - you are more than welcome). However energy quality is a fact of Odum's text. Linas is referred to p.251 of Ecological and General Systems to verify. Sholto Maud 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles about more obscure concepts that this well-cited one. Karol 06:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Lacy

Delete. Stub vanity page. Although some journalists are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, they aren't all, and I can't see anything about Lisa Lacy which makes her suitable. A google search for "Lisa Lacy" returns the wikipedia page and nothing else related to her.

-- Ortcutt 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google search does turn up a Lisa Lacy who sports a dowjones.com email address, and who has written on medical companies. However, I don't see anything notable about her, so weak delete for now. Sliggy 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite rooting around I can't find a "significant life science" story written by her, so I've strengthened my opinion. Sliggy 23:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Even if she can bake. Ifnord 18:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and they can recreate it if it she ever becomes notable.--MONGO 03:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum empower

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it is original research. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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


  • Comment. Googling for empower eMergy (with an m) shows that various academics are talking about it, so its not quite OR. However, when one starts reading about it, its has this wacky flavour to it ... fringe science verging on pseudoscience. Its hard for me to beleive that economists don't already have better names and theories for these concepts. It doesn't help that this and the related WP articles are all a bit off-kilter... linas 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment How right you are, Linas. But they aren't trying to come off that way to users like you or me, they just don't know any better. There are actually many challenging conceptual issues in ecology which have not been adequately addressed by talented applied mathematicians, only by mathematically challenged ecologists. This has been very harmful to that field. I should also add that not all ecologists have been mathematically challenged by any means, in fact you'd probably get a kick out of some classic papers by Robert May once you have enough dynamical systems and ecology background. ---CH 03:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article fails to define what Maximum empower is, or even what empower is, spending only three very short sentances on its definition. It then takes a decent paragraph to point out that there have been no scientific articles published on it, and that the physics and chemistry community reject the concept. As such, it seems to be both non-notable and original research by the article author into some uncertain concept originally advanced by H.T. Odum. linas 02:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - this is a central part of H.T. Odum's work; well established, solid science. Guettarda 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps you should edit the article so that it explains the "principle" it refers to. Gazpacho 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Empower has been referred to in Odum's Environmental Accounting, and A Prosperous way down. The principle of maximum empower is notable because Odum identifies it as what policy should aim towards. The concept has historical and contemporary use, and should therefore be included in Wiki. Currently I try to fill Odum shoes for the world but cannot and need help. In the aim of having Odum's concepts freely available, the afd nominator should help find a good definition and append it to the article. Sholto Maud 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although this article has many features of a typical crank science article, it is in fact published research by a respected professor. Gazpacho 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you fix the article so that it actually says something, instead of floundering? We are not trying to delete a respected professor's research, we are trying to delete a nonsense article about that professors research. linas 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Do we really need quite so many articles to ocver this topic? Perhaps Sholto could enlist some help in merging the various articles into one or two really good ones? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair point. My original idea was separate entries, rather like the entries on the laws of thermodynamics, each detailing the math behind the concepts when time permitted me and others to contribute such. Each concept might rolled into one entry on the emergy nomenclature, with a separate entry under H.T.Odum and his work?? Maybe that would be a better way to structure things. Sholto Maud
Comment Anyone interesting in helping me merge some of these controversial articles into two (or three) really good ones that are free from my own personal bias and original research? I seem to find it hard to know where the line between orginal research and original clarity of presentation lies. :) Sholto Maud 07:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Linas, if you saw my comment in the other AfD with some suggestions for how you could study up to act as an ambassador from math/physics to ecology, it sounds like Sholto would be happy to work with you on this. I actuall y think this would be quite valuable to ecologists, but it might not get you many points in physics grad school, sigh...---CH 03:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that all these pages are really poorly written, but that is no reason to have them deleted. The status of these conepts is just above OR (they are used in well cited articles in scientific journals), so the pages should stay and be improved. We cannot expect to have a nice chunk of text on a subject so obscure from the beggining. Karol 16:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moob

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. Ifnord 18:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --StuffOfInterest 18:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense, local slang for the situation.--MONGO 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang neologism - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Also please note that M00b is up for deletion --Bachrach44 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Palestine/temp

seems like a forgotten temporary page Melaen 14:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Occupation of Palestine exists. Jtmichcock 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The poor thing has been walking dead for a year. --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Jtmichcock. Ifnord 18:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Jtmichcock. Caerwine 18:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain Factually accurate, useful and expressed in neutral terms 82.38.97.206 mikeL
  • Integrate what isn't already present in the Occupations of Palestine article and delete the rest. Saberwyn 23:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, main article already exists and the there are several articles directly related to it. -- Ynhockey 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Hollas

Spoof. Peter Hollas appears to be a non-notable mathematics student at Wadham College, Oxford. See Ampleforth College 2003 Oxbrdge entry results. Flapdragon 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search for "Peter Hollas" rugby gets three results [24] two of which are related to Wikipedia. The third is the "Wadham College Gazette" where Hollas is mentioned as a leading member of the cricket team - you would think that an English rugby union player with 30 caps would do better than that. Delete as hoax due to lack of verifiability even possible speedy as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Ifnord 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. "Indeed, it may be asked, who now has heard of Peter Hollas?" No one, and thus it shall remain. Sam Vimes 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete hoax/non-notable bio. Stifle 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. D-Rock 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K4BB

Looks like advertising to me. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — RJH 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete spam. --Bachrach44 17:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Ifnord 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah beng

just a page full of opinion, insults, and slurs 65.96.170.119 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator --Neigel von Teighen 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as verifiable. While poorly written and filled with POV it is referenced. Ifnord 18:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Weak delete per Uncle G. PJM 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with this article is the same thing that is wrong with articles such as Westies (people), Bogan, and Chav: The article is a massive original research magnet. Contrary to what Ifnord says, the article isn't referenced very well, or even at all, really; and verifiability has not been demonstrated. It contains a few external hyperlinks to some web sites, none of which are exactly reliable sources (one of which even has a prominent "[This is] just for fun-lah! Words are taken from here, there, and everywhere." notice right at the top), and the content of the article is only weakly supported by the "sources" in any event. This may be a valid stereotype. But I'd like to see evidence that it is verifiable, i.e. that there are reliable sources available that editors can use for constructing a verifiable and neutral article on the subject. There have been attempts to make Chav more verifiable, and less a collection of mere original research added by random Wikipedia editors, and the article now sports a (scant) few reliable sources. It needs to be demonstrated that the same is at least possible for this article. That hasn't actually been done yet. Citing reliable sources, thereby demonstrating that they exist, will do it, though. Weak delete. Uncle G 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. ESkog | Talk 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider merging discussion with Ah lian Vfd debate. Zordrac 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term is very commonly used in Malaysia and Singapore. Not sure about the main content, but the intro does give a fairly accurate description of people who fall under 'Ah beng' category. Hayabusa future 08:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How are readers supposed to verify that the article is accurate as you say, aside from taking the word of a Wikipedia editor that they have never met for it? Please demonstrate that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. Izehar 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per UncleG (bsolute minimal references to establish verifyability would be coverage as cultural phenomenon in established print media of note) Pete.Hurd 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this article being deleted for being "unverifable" alone, because that does seem to be the sole reasoning put up so far? Can the article not be improved on instead?--Huaiwei 13:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Unverifiability is one of the reasons that we delete articles, yes. If there were reliable sources that could be used to improve the article, then it wouldn't be unverifiable. Conversely, if the article is unverifiable, then there aren't any reliable sources that can be used to improve the article and cleanup is impossible. As I said, it needs to be demonstrated that improving the article is at least possible, as it is for chav. Find reliable sources on the subject that can be used to create an article (Chav was the subject of newspaper articles and a television documentary.) and cite them, and you will change editors' minds. Uncle G 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A quick search with Google found this reference [25] (along with many others not dug into in depth) Stipulated that it is just a blog but the term seems to be a real one. Many people use this term and refer to it. Not sure how much more verifiable you want. Pete Hurd poses a rather high hurdle, is that actual Wikipedia policy or just Pete's feelings? This editor heard the term used more than once on a recent visit to Singapore, but of course that's not verifiable. If no verifiable sources exist but the preponderance of evidence suggests that the term exists and is used roughly as the article outlines shouldn't that be sufficient? I should point out that i'm inclusionist rather than deletionist, and want people to be able to find what they look for. ++Lar 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's actual Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If "no sources exist" for the verification of an article, then we cannot have an article.

      The web log posting that you cite deals with the subject in depth, but given that it's the pseudonymous author's self-proclaimed "two-sen stereotypical opinion at its height", are you truly convinced that this is a reliable source, despite what Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet says? Once again, I mention that chav was the subject of newspaper articles and a television documentary. Those are the sort of sources that you should be coming up with. If this stereotype is as widespread as you assert, there should be reliable sources on the subject. Please demonstrate that there are. Uncle G 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - see nomination below - Hahnchen 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Ah Lian. Mandel 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Ah Beng is used daily in press and TV in Singapore, just that it is not easily verifyable does not mean we should delete the page, if all pages needed that we probably should delete 10-20% of wikipedia. Stefan 23:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • All pages do need verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If "in depth" articles on the stereotype have indeed been published in the press, as you claim, then please cite them. We aren't asking for you to write the whole article, just to provide evidence that a verifiable article can be written. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge for why the "But it's common knowledge!" argument is unacceptable. Uncle G 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying that most pages in wikipedia does not have references, that page on chav have one which is not much of a reference in my opinion, the external links for ah beng is of about as good quality as the onces for chav, i.e. neither are very good. I have seen Ah Beng mentioned many times in ST, I have heard it said many times on TV, but I can not tell you when and I can not give you reference, I did not say that any "in depth" articles have been published, I claimed that it is used in press and TV. If you really think this is a made up fake word then you can vote for delete, but the word is used, if you ask 100 people in Singapore what it means all will verify it, I can agree that the article(s) are badly written but the word is there! best use of it on the web from a reputable source Channel_News_Asia is this link, but it does not explain the meaning but maybe proves that the word is used?[26] Stefan 10:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah lian

same as Ah beng: nothing but POV and insults 65.96.170.119 17:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Week keep I can't claim to know a lot about the subject, but it does seem that Google has recorded a lot of hits on this termm, and it does seem to be used. No question the page needs some cleanup and NPOV editing, but as far as I can tell, this does appear to be real. --Bachrach44 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as verifiable. While poorly written and filled with POV it is referenced. Ifnord 18:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Weak delete per Uncle G. PJM 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As per Ah beng: What is wrong with this article is the same thing that is wrong with articles such as Westies (people), Bogan, and Chav: The article is a massive original research magnet. Contrary to what Ifnord says, the article isn't referenced very well, or even at all, really; and verifiability has not been demonstrated. It contains a few external hyperlinks to some web sites, none of which are exactly reliable sources (most are the same web sites that are listed for Ah beng), and the content of the article is only weakly supported by the "sources" in any event. This may be a valid stereotype. But I'd like to see evidence that it is verifiable, i.e. that there are reliable sources available that editors can use for constructing a verifiable and neutral article on the subject. There have been attempts to make Chav more verifiable, and less a collection of mere original research added by random Wikipedia editors, and the article now sports a (scant) few reliable sources. It needs to be demonstrated that the same is at least possible for this article. That hasn't actually been done yet. Citing reliable sources, thereby demonstrating that they exist, will do it, though. Weak delete. Uncle G 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • To retort Uncle G's comments, the "Ah beng and Ah Lian" phenomenon is well documented in Singapore, and there're plenty of cultural references to them in local newspapers and context. One can write a good article on it that's neither biased nor as inaccurate as what is presented here. It is documented here [27]. I have to vote keep and merge (Ah Beng with Ah Lian). Mandel 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A self-described "Satirical Humour Website" (which is written right at the top of that page) is as unreliable a source as Uncyclopedia is. Please cite some reliable sources. Please prove that this is well-documented. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • How about Lonely Planet Singapore? [28] Mandel 14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. ESkog | Talk 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G (who makes a good argument for keep, yet then votes delete!). Whether we think its insulting is irrelevant. Its a real term. Bogan etc exist. Just clean up with the POV elements. Zordrac 01:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "verifiability has not been demonstrated" is not an argument to keep. Uncle G 03:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term is very commonly used in Malaysia and Singapore. Not sure about the main content, but the intro does give a fairly accurate description of people who fall under 'Ah lian' category. Hayabusa future 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How are readers supposed to verify that the article is accurate as you say, aside from taking the word of a Wikipedia editor that they have never met for it? Please demonstrate that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The article is inaccurate, but the term is certainly verifiable. See [29] from The Straits Times, which uses the term in context. Mandel 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • You are conflating attestation (which is what a dictionary would ask for) with verification. All that that link gives is an example of the phrase "Ah Beng" (which is not even the title of the article under discussion) being used in a sentence. It doesn't actually tell us what an Ah Beng is, let alone what an Ah Lian is.

          So I ask again: How are readers supposed to verify an encyclopaedia article that purports to tell them what an Ah Lian is? So far, all that we've had that actually attempts to describe the concept are dictionaries that are by their own admission humourous. Please cite a source, that doesn't say "This is just for fun-lah!" or "This is a Satirical Humour Website" right at the top of the page, telling us what an Ah Lian is. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

        • How about Lonely Planet Singapore? [30] Mandel 14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Izehar 15:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:This article is so poorly written, that if voted keep, it ought to be completely rewritten. It's almost an embarassment that a Singaporean or Malaysian could write so badly. Mandel 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per UncleG (absolute minimal references to establish verifyability would be coverage as cultural phenomenon in established print media of note) Pete.Hurd 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've given it above. Lots more references in[31] Mandel 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Those are quotations, that a dictionary uses to show a word actually in use, not references. That's more like a reliable source. It professes to be a serious attampt at a Singlish dictionary. The fact that it is a dictionary, however, does mean that there's less than one sentence of information about Ah Lians there, because that's all that the dictionary entry gives us, and everything in the current article, all of the text that purports to describe fashion, jobs, music, and language, must be excised as having no reliable sources supporting it. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Isn't quotations that the word is in use from a reputable source proof enough that a) the term is verifiable, and also, b) these terms are defined: He says he doesn’t give a hoot if people call him an ah beng, a catch-all term for the uncouth, the uneducated, the unrefined, the unenlightened, who blindly define status by the brands they own. .. “I’m the king of bengs,” he laughs, “I have my own Prada bag, Prada shoes, Prada jacket, Gucci belt, clothes from Calvin Klein, Armani, Valentino..” (Cleo, May 1999)
        • If that's what you are asking for, a dictionary on Singlish terms published by OUP or Cambridge before you call something verifiable, then I'm afraid you won't be able to find any. Ditto with any dialect terms used in a third-world country. What is verifiable of course, is that such terms are in use (proven), and to me that's good enough to persuade anyone that such terms should stay in Wikipedia. Unless you think there's a universal hoax going on, I can tell you the description of this term is pretty accurate here, and unless you think a book publisher has more integrity than several Wikipedians here, and not one, you have to take someone's word for it.
        • Using your same argument, so, if an obscure movie is shown to exist in IMDB, we still shouldn't include it because none of us have watched it, and we can't take the word of those who have, right? Mandel 14:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs some work to make it NPOV but has the makings of an interesting article. Rhion 18:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It needs sources to demonstrate that it is verifiable. How do you propose that readers check what the article says about Ah Lians? From whence do you propose that editors obtain the information that enables them to make the article neutral, or even make an article at all? Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Such things should be left to those who know what this term is about, and not to the blind leading the blind. One can't learn about a culture merely from books, one has to immerse oneself right in it. Mandel 14:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It seems you are actually saying we should allow OR in certain articles. Is it correct? BorgQueen 22:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Outright Delete - Totally POV, would it hurt if these rants were removed from wikipedia? No, it wouldn't. Or at best, replace them with stubs and have someone watch the thing. As much as I hate crap like aZn pRyD3 lol, this article is absolutely unencyclopedic. - Hahnchen 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As with ah beng, the term has been demonstrated to exist and be used in verifiable sources (Straits Times), and further has been shown to describe a subculture of some significant size. The criticism of the current quality level of the prose, and of the verifiability of the content may be valid, but that is an argument for cleanup, for placing NPOV tags, for refactoring... not deletion. To omit this term is to be, in my view, unencyclopedic. Note that a merge of these two articles (ah beng and this one) with proper redirects might be a good idea since they are similar. ++Lar 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Ah Lian is used daily in press and TV in Singapore, just that it is not easily verifyable does not mean we should delete the page, if all pages needed that we probably should delete 10-20% of wikipedia. Stefan 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friday Harbor High School

The page makes no claim of notability, nor can I find one on their website. --Bachrach44 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another school. If there's more to it than that, I'll reconsider. Peyna 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nn school. Catchpole 22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with broader article on school district or geographical location as appropriate, per the proposal at WP:SCH. — Haeleth Talk 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • General plea
    • To "keep" voters: please consider voting in accordance with the WP:SCH proposal (i.e. merge the article for now, or expand it before voting to keep). The proposal guarantees that verifiable schools will be kept on Wikipedia, so it effectively does what you want.
    • To "delete" voters: please consider voting in accordance with the WP:SCH proposal (i.e. merge the article because it's a substub). The proposal guarantees that substubs like this will no longer be kept on Wikipedia, so it effectively does what you want.
      • Since merge is counted as a keep, for this to work the keep votes would need to be changed to merge. Vegaswikian 05:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a good compromise for both sides. Let's take it and end this endless AfD bickering. — Haeleth Talk 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Permanent verifiable institution. --Gene_poole 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please if this school can be verifiable Yuckfoo 01:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article was improperly deleted outside of process. As such, I have reverted the closure so that this may be discussed for the full period of five days. Silensor 23:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
article is missing it's AfD template Pete.Hurd 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 23:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - real school. Zordrac 01:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep High schools --Jaranda(watz sup) 02:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not notable --redstucco 09:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • why do you say that when it is verifiable that does not make sense at all Yuckfoo 00:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it carries some significance - I mean Eton has its own article ;-) Izehar 15:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mind telling me what the significance is? The reason I flagged the school is not because I'm against all schools in principle, it's because I found nothing on the page which indicated it was in any way significant. --Bachrach44 15:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete NN Pete.Hurd
  • Keep - The web site indicated is hosted on wednet.edu, operated by the state of Washington. That is sufficient proof that it is not fictitious. In fact, I have been there; it is very much a real building. --Alcon San Croix 00:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets criteron established per the new WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verified and encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debra Beller

Not particularly notable, googling shows several people by same name (a ferret rescuer seems more famous). Ifnord 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - most notable feat is in having her own blog. LOL. Zordrac 01:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio. Stifle 22:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fwdsolution

not notable. --Bachrach44 18:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete this non-notable company's ad, poorly written with typos. Ifnord 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 18:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Google search turns up mostly unrelated hits. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GADGET (club)

a club at one highschool is entirely non-notable. --Bachrach44 18:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Glenbrook North High School. A Google check on this one turns up a few hundred hits and some media attention which is really quite good for a high school club. It definitely doesn't need a separate article though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asexual cats

This seems to be an editorial, but it is not very coherent. -- Beland 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research (being kind, more like nonsense). Ifnord 18:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editorializes (POV?) and isn't linked anywhere. --StuffOfInterest 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, non-verifiable (can't ask the cats, can you?) Jtmichcock 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR. My best guess is it's some kind of weird attack on neutering ("act of mutilation"). --Last Malthusian 13:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing apposite on Google for "asexual cats" either. Delete, OR - David Gerard 17:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary it. Asexuality is real, cats are real. Not original research. Zordrac 01:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's unencyclopaedic. Izehar 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - contains nothing not available under Asexual and Cats Catamorphism 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe McGee

This was blanked in August by XD1. I cannot find any reference to the book or the author on Amazon.com, nor to the television show on Google. Either they're both completely unencyclopedic so he is too, or they are unverifiable. The subject's name appears on Google, but only one or two of the hits appear to actually be this Joe McGee, and Google News finds one relevant match that refers to him as a preacher. -Splashtalk 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete it can't be significant enough to warrant an article. Izehar 15:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails speedy as a TV presenter but I agree with Izehar. Stifle 22:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M00b

I'm not a gamer, but this looks like patent neologism to me. StuffOfInterest 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to newbie. Urban Dictionary lists it as a common typo of 'n00b'. I added this information to newbie. -- timc | Talk 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • UrbanDictionary is nowhere near being a reliable source, as its avowed aim is to accept any and all completely made up stuff that people care to submit. Uncle G 15:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Also please note that Moob is up for deletion --Bachrach44 15:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Home Architect

Refers to a non-notable peice of software developed individually by the author. Google turns up a much more popular peice of software by the same name, but I don't think even this would have enough content for an article.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 19:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not previously listed Melaen 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm pretty sure I saw this on AfD a few days ago, but either way Delete. Peyna 00:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Turns out someone just added this on the 2nd when it was already listed under the 30th; took care of it. Peyna 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above. Cool3 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Divas of Borisland

non-encyclopedic

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 18:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somewhere between non-encyclopedic and attack. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (nn-bio). Enochlau 23:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Whelan

This one sounds so much like an ad, that I'm not tempted to see if it's improvable, tho I conceed it might be. In any case, in its current form this article needs to be deleted. Caerwine 18:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. --StuffOfInterest 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an A7 non-notable biography. Being a personal trainer in itself is not an assertion of notability. You would need to train elite athletes and play a significant role in their success. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-notability is not justification for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- timc | Talk 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes it is see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion item A7 "Unremarkable people. An article about a real person that does not assert their importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." Thhis article does not assert his importance or significance. Capitalistroadster 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per CSD A7. Makes no claim of importance or significance. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O. Richard Bundy

This appears to be the biography for a non-notable university professor. Merovingian 18:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Merovingian 18:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 19:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. -- timc | Talk 19:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave Posted - Bundy was placed on the list of notable Penn State people, and the article was placed on the Wikipedia because of the presence of his name on the noteable people list. He is the director of the single largest organization at the Pennsylvania State University and a nationally-renound marching band.
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I am unclear why this article is up for deletion. As a newer user of Wiki, I am not familiar with your short hand of "per nomination." I was also unable to find it in the articles for deletion. However, I believe I found reasons to keep this page. Dr. Bundy is listed on the list famous Penn Staters which can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pennsylvania_State_University_people

I do not understand how this can be deemed as not notable. I say this article stays posted on the following grounds:

• Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers

• Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines)

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

o Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers

o A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following o An independent biography

o Name recognition

o Commercial endorsements

• Dr. Bundy is the leader of the largest organization at Penn State, the Penn State Blue Band. This 300 member strong marching band is known not only to the 40,000 students enrolled at Penn State, but regularly play to over 100,000 different people per week during football season, and it is no secret that he is the director. Through his leadership, the band was featured at Marc Jacobs Fall 2005 Fashion show in New York City. http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2006RTW/review/MJACOBS • www.marcjacobs.com • • HIS band was also featured in an advertisement in the December issue Vogue Magazine along with Kiera Knightley • http://live.psu.edu/story/14756 • http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1133259840146320.xml&coll=1 • This year, the Sudler Trophy, the “Heisman Trophy for marching bands,” was awarded to the Blue Band, again under his direction. • The Blue Band has released numerous albums over Dr. Bundy’s tenure at Penn State. These albums have certainly sold more than 5000 copies, as a few of the older ones are out of print.


--128.118.51.111 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


--Chicken45 15:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedied by Ingoolemo as an attack. Ingoolemo talk 19:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Mountain Pizza

non-encyclopedic advertisement

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic advertisement JoJan 19:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it seems you are intent on deleting this article because:

1. It is nothing but an attack on the subject ( {db-attack} )
2. It is a 'non-encyclopedic advertisement'

I am left confused as to how it can be both. It is merely a profile of a very popular pub across the street from a very popular institute. As my colleague Dr. Fusia put it:

"Patented nonesense my ass. That's perfectly relevant, and if anybody uses wikipedia, it's the GT crowd.

Snobby wikipedia bastards."

Please reconsider your decision.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Mountain Pizza

(Relisted following repost)
No, this is not speediable as it isn't an attack page; the PoV stuff about the "cold and lazy servers" only makes it look like one. It's not encyclopædic, though - this is a NN pizza restaurant with one branch according to its own website. It's an advert for a pizzza shop which doesn't meet WP:CORP. WP:ISNOT a "where-to-buy-pizza-in-Atlanta" guide Tonywalton  | Talk 19:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. (that one came back to life fast) --StuffOfInterest 19:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure there's a WP:NOT here, like WP:ISNOT a yellow pages directory or something.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine 3 - Advertising, perhaps? Tonywalton  | Talk
Oh, I just noticed they've kindly supplied the phone number.As WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information 3- Travel Guides puts it: An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel. Is that enough NOTs? I wonder if they deliver. To London, England. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Delete. Not notable. -- timc | Talk 19:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. I think this has now progressed from nonsense to attack to advertisement to non-notable to acceptable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.221.6 (talk • contribs) who appears to have written the article originally. Please a) sign your comments with ~~~~ and b) state if you have a vested interest, as you appear to. Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Comment After an incredible barrage of trigger-happy speedy deletes, the article seems to have stabilized. I think it is a poor reflection on us that the contributor's pleas for time to expand the article were ignored. I have attempted to bring the article up to standards. After researching the building's history, I have not found any great notability. This article is certainly not the least notable on Wikipedia, but its deletion wouldn't be a great loss either. If the result is keep, I'll add a photo. -SCEhardT 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I nominated it for AfD discussion. This doesn't mneet speedy criteria and never did. Unfortunately even following rework I can't see it meets inclusion criteria (and wouldn't as the pizza shop, whatever the building's history (though the building might have). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. Upon further thought and research I vote Delete due to lack of notability. -SCEhardT 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It was already speedily deleted once before today. The same user put it back. Harvestdancer 20:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, as I look at the history, it was deleted TWICE today. Perhaps it's time for some IP work by an admin. Harvestdancer 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It does not meet WP:CSD criteria, and replacement of a speedied article is not a criterion for speedy deletion (unlike reposting of an article deleted according to VfD consensus, which does). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment Well, this was an interesting second Wikipedia experiment. You might want to delete my original posting too, it is pretty non-notable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteria_Del_Figo

Anyways, I suggest you make an adjustment to your site policy. In 'Criteria for speedy deletion', it states :

"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it."

Since it was obviously the speedy deletion chain of events, and not the non-notability that got this article deleted ( as evidenced by the existance of the Figo article ), perhaps you can further quantify your standards for speedy deletion. For example, replace "too soon" with "within 2 hours".

~~~~Original Poster

  • Comment Also, where can I find the policy on "Non-Notable". I didn't see it on WP:NOT.

~~~~Original Poster


  • Comment I don't know, I am starting to think I am in the right here. From WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine

"Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style."

Also, the following sentence:

"Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable."

The thrird party in this case was the administrator who helped contributing information to the page.

~~~~Original Poster

  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. We shouldn't have to debate the same delete result multiple times on AFD - the proper place for this discussion is WP:VFU. ESkog | Talk 18:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


  • CommentA speedy delete isn't appropriate in this case. Only repostings of AFD'd comment is eligible for speedy deletion. A reposted speedy deleted article is alright. Which is good because my article was deleted before it even started!

~~~~Original Poster

  • Keep - Historically relevant as it stands on the spot where Avery Chastain once lived. Should keep all historically relevant pages. Zordrac 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment that might merit a footnote in an Avery Chastain article, if one existed. The pizza place is not notable in itself, any more than Joe's Newsstand would be notable in itself just because it happened to be situated in Grand Central Station. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like to see the page expanded a little bit, perhaps some more information on its history. The page does show historically relevance though, and therefore should stay.Ognit Ice 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. Izehar 15:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tonywalton. Stifle 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mysteries-Megasite

  • Nonnotable website. tregoweth 19:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 19:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP: This site is a collection of websites that are of both paranormal related and relate to other mysteries, such as 9-11,Bigfoot,Conspiracies. At least, Wikipedians will have a place to go to when lookig for material to edit articles of a paranormal nature already on Wikipedia, such as UFOs,aliens(ET),Bigfoot,ghosts and the like.Martial Law 01:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE.A wiki page about a (nonfamous) website? Please. If the link is relevant to some "real" wiki page, then add it there. Dyslexic agnostic 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Try UFO,Bigfoot,9-11,WTC,Loch Ness Monster,Alien Abduction,The Bermuda Triangle,ghosts. This goes on and on in the "real" wiki pages.Martial Law 02:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Hyperstrong keepMartial Law 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website, and Martial Law, you can only vote once. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dyslexic Agnostic. Stifle 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Zoe. Pete.Hurd 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete non notable website Sethie 20:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isnin.com

Ad spam, created by anonymous and user "isnin.com". Fang Aili 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, due to being here solely to advertise the company. Mo0[talk] 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Ad spam. Tom Lillis 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator; not a speedy candidate at this time. Stifle 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dora Romaniello

The article appears to be a hoax; there is no Italian adult-movie star named Dora Romaniello 199.46.200.232 19:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • speedy Delete Even with safesearch turned off (snesible when looking for an adult film star), google finds no results. It's either a hoax or an attack. --Bachrach44 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable.--MONGO 03:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Freshness Volume 4

Non-notable album by, er, a band, I assume. WP:MUSIC ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This appears to be an Insane Clown Posse album. -- timc | Talk 19:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment In which case, I'll also stick a cleanup tag on it, but since the article contains information already in the Insane Clown Posse article and nothing new that I can see, I'm still a delete. Thanks for the info, timc! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is linked from Insane Clown Posse. Article needs cleaned up being that it currently looks like a copy/paste from a sales site. --StuffOfInterest 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cautious Keep Izehar 15:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. But it does need to be cleaned up. peachlette 16:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was sad delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Young

Delete A tragic death to be sure, but hardly encyclopedic. Caerwine 19:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sad, but not something for Wikipedia unless his death inspired something broader. --StuffOfInterest 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. -- timc | Talk 19:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And sad though it is, there's something racially tinged about the article that makes it quite disturbing. Durova 23:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Encyclopaedic with extra refs off ref provided. Should add the extras to the main article. Zordrac 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Izehar 15:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrei Fëdorov

Nom & vote Del on this bio of a 39-y.o. (nearly-)Average Joe Professor, who is unusual but not notable in having in his late 20s completed his education in his native Russia and apparently become a Costa Rican citizen.
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: In case someone thinks that is unusual enough to be notable, we deserve more research before taking it into acct:
_ _ If his mother were Russian and his father a Latin-American, it would be significantly less unusual. And while anomie that provokes a "search for one's roots" does not preclude notability, it is usually a profound distraction from achieving things that constitute notability.
_ _ In that case and in light of the surname, evaluating the full picture might require knowing whether the parents were married to each other. However, i think i recall that Soviet-era women predominantly kept their surnames on marrying; i don't recall anything about the surnames of their children, except that Stalin's sons Yakov Dzhugashvili and Vasily Dzhugashvili by his two wives used his birth-surname, and his (disaffected) daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva used her mother's.
_ _ IMO the bio's surname could be
  1. a Russian father's surname,
  2. the Russianization of a Latin-American surname, or
  3. the masculine form of a feminine surname that i assume would be Fëdorova or Fedorova.
IMO #3 could possibly be the approach used in surnaming the male child of some absent fathers.
--Jerzy•t 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. Isn't linked from any articles which could establish some notability. --StuffOfInterest 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete he hasn't done anything. Zordrac 01:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pebbles For People Foundation and Martha Kavonavich

Because of the link to the Foundation's website (http://users.wpi.edu/~bcaff/pfpa) given in the article, I suspect that this is a joke. "pebbles for people foundation" returns no hits. If this is deleted, the article on its founder should be also. Ingoolemo talk 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Adding Martha Kavonavich, which also gets zero google hits. --Interiot 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Then clean out the spam links left in several other articles by the same anon. --StuffOfInterest 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and second the suggestion of StuffOfInterest. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The PFPA helps these poor children. I have not only been contacted by this group but donate annually.Kich164 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep How does the webpage suggest it is a joke? It gives almost the same info as the article. That this is a helpful organization. Martha is a saint. His charity work has aided thousands. I try to give all I can to his group.JesusSaves 21:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • JesusSaves and Kich164 appear to be both created as sock puppets for the John Larney AfD (as briefly mentioned by the closing admin). User Bcaff took part in the John Larney AfD [32]. And now we're seeing sock puppets related to the site http://users.wpi.edu/~bcaff/. (also note that John Larney works for the Boy Scouts of Massachusetts [33], and user Bcaff uploaded this Massachusetts Scout badge that appears on the previous URL) Coincidence? --Interiot 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No one ever proved that we were "sock puppets" because we are not. Just because I don't spend all my time here doesn't make me a fake person. Tell me why this article should be deleted and we can debate it. All your reasons can be refuted because this is a real entity which helps people. Kich164 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I jusr got a call from these pebbles for people people. I decided to look it up here to see what it was about. They are most definatly real.He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 01:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I voleteered for this program for a while. It is not a joke.TheBill 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The above two also contributed to the John Larney AfD and were new at that time. --Interiot 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So I voted on the Larney page? I wrote the article. I like the guy. Being experienced Wikiusers I bet some of you have voted on the same pages. TheBill 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • After reviewing the contributions list above I see that some of the people you are attacking as "sock puppets" have gone on to write for wiki (admittedly not much as these people probobly don't spend all thier time here). They have gone on to write about what they know. This is a topic I know and therefore wished to share information with others who may be curious about the Foundation and what they do.Kich164 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as verified legitimate organisation. Also note the false claims of sock puppetry to influence vote towards delete. Always a good sign it should be kept. Zordrac 01:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It's theoretically verifiable to some extent, though without even a phone number (they do solicit donations by phone) or address to verify them by, it's not even really technically verifiable. At this point, I really would like to physically verify this myself, even if it meant sending some money via credit card to confirm whose name actually shows up on it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"This is difficult to verify. Many spokespersons may have commented on the incident, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches."
From an actual verifiability standpoint, there is absolutely zero internet presence of this organization outside of bcaff's page, and by all accounts, the name "Kavonavich" has never ever seen the Western world (I can't find the name in any nationwide white pages on the internet or even on sites like privateeye.com). And no, having a couple people show up and say they've heard of it doesn't count. Everyone should have the means to verify it themselves.
In terms of what the foundation donates, it's just as preposterous as it sounds [34]:
The Pebbles For People Foundation is a charity that donates the pebbles it collects to the needy children of Southeast Asia and Africa.
In terms of the logistical details of shipping rocks around the world, I mean, it's prerposterous to think that there's a shortage of rocks anywhere outside of the antarctic or on the surface of the ocean, it's preposterous to think that it's remotely economical to ship rocks any distance at all, and it's preposterous that a group would donate rocks instead of food or water. I can change my vote to BJAODN if need be, I can't possibly see how anyone can vote Keep on this with a straight face. --Interiot 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no such thing as the PFPA, it's a joke. Furthermore, Interiot, I don't appreciate you slandering me. Though the website cited is mine, I had nothing to do with the creation of this page, nor do I support its continued existance. Also, about the image I uploaded, that was part of the content for the article Old Colony Council. Do you have a problem with that? I'd appreciate if you'd cease with the animousity towards me. Bcaff 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't need to / shouldn't have mentioned the non-AfD edits, and I wasn't trying to imply anything about the edits themselves. But I was being a bit of a dick in general, I'm sorry. --Interiot 06:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Apology accepted. Bcaff 11:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as well as any other related articles anybody finds as an obvious joke. - BanyanTree 22:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nominator. Stifle 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilbur Street

I saw this linked to from University of Delaware and became curious of what could be important about this street. I found nothing. UD has many streets with many "festivals" named after them. There's a row of houses called Skid Row with Skid Fest, Chapel Fest for Chapel Street... I'm sure there are others. The streets and the parties are notable. gren グレン 20:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable residential street. Gazpacho 00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no significance at all.--MONGO 03:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modbury Rovers

Non-notable local football team, plus appeal for fans. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't look notable and reads more like an advert than an article. --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it: it is nice to hear of a good local side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.78 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but leave a friendly message at the creator's (who is also the voter above me) user page; perhaps they don't know what Wikipedia is really for. Peyna 22:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Good point, Peyna. I always try to add a brief note to all authors whose articles I AfD, and many CSD ones too, giving instructions on how to undo the causes of an AfD and offering help and advice in future via my talk page. But the 'pedia is being unhelpful with this one - every visit to the talk page is getting me a Wikimedia Foundation error. Someone, somewhere doesn't want me to in this case (and it's frustrating!). Could somebody do this - maybe even as subst:welcome - for me? I'd be very grateful. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Worked for me; I attributed the welcome to you.
  • Delete. Reads more like a Geocities page than an encyclopedia article, and also for non-notability. Mo0[talk] 23:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article as it stands mainly comprises requests for people to come and support the team, and an unattributed non-neutral opinion that it needs a "decent captain". I tried to rewrite the article from sources, but came up empty handed when I looked for some sources. The only things that I found were a news report stating little more than that this is one in a list of football teams, and a directory entry on a web site where most of the fields were not filled in. If this were a company, it would fail the primary WP:CORP notability criterion by a huge margin. No-one independent of the team has written anything substantial at all about it. Indeed, if it weren't for the one minor and incidental mention in the news report, the team's actual existence wouldn't even be verifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it KEEP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.65 (talk • contribs) 13:49, December 1, 2005

  • Delete Izehar 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; merging an inconsequential actor was out of the question, so redirect made. Johnleemk | Talk 11:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary Soza

Appearing on a few Barney shows and UT does not establish sufficient notability to warrant an article. Ingoolemo talk 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It was, but this is entirely different content. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Barney & Friends. He's got a tiny IMDB entry as well. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per MacGyver Zordrac 01:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete' NN Bio. still subtrivia if merged into Barney & Friends. Pete.Hurd 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would be ridiculous to include the name of every bit part actor into the Barney article. The article must either stand alone or be deleted as non-notable. I am neutral given that the actor does have an IMDB entry (as per MacGyverMagic) but appears to have few credits. In my opinion, it is a borderline situation. I am inclined say keep the article as it is factually true and the notability is questionable, but it does seem absurd to make Wikipedia into a repository of information on every actor ever to play even a handful of small roles. Again, I am neutral, except in that I must say that a merge is out of the question. Cool3 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, it doesn't assert that being a high-school DJ is notable. -Splashtalk 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Cunningham

DJ at a highschool 100 watt radio station. Clearly nonnotable vanity. --The_stuart 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. Author should have at least linked to him from the radio station's page. --StuffOfInterest 20:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, if possible - attack article. 147.70.242.21 23:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is "jeez" a valid argument? --Ezeu 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, either attack or non-notable. Stifle 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xuqa.com

Non-notable social networking site. Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 20:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 20:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Got cluesticked. Still, needs some content to make it less directory like. --StuffOfInterest 19:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Alexa ranking in the top 10,000 ([35] ranked 7,213), thus passes WP:WEB. Probably passes on the forum criteria of WP:WEB as well, and google news knows about it ([36]). -- Durin 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It passes the test per Durin, but it's still too much of a substub to my liking. If it survives, please stick a cleanup tag on. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Durin. Simple. Zordrac 01:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there are no set criteria for what is "notable". How knows, this could bloom into a featured article one day. Izehar 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shiloh hellman

nn vanity, likely created by the subject Gator (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Branham

This is an article about the owner of the world's largest rabbit. There are two possibilies here. Both mean that we should Delete. 1) It is a complete hoax (look at the picture). 2) The original article claimed that the rabbit was 26 pounds and 7 ounces. This is beaten by this one: [37]. In which case, it is an article about a man who used to own the world's largest rabbit, which doesn't seem very notable to me. Bucephalus 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - hoax (photoshopped picture). If the rabbit were indeed the size as shown in the picture, it would outweigh the Rabbits made by Volkswagen. 147.70.242.21 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as obvious hoax. •DanMS 02:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vandalism (including the picture). Blatant hoax as well. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom, above, or whatever. --StuffOfInterest 13:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this and the picture as obvious hoaxes. Caerwine 22:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpeedaMay

Neologism/hoax. No references provided, and Google search yields no results. -- PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Until this urban legend is listed on Snopes, there's no chance that this is more than a story someone concocted. If it hits Snopes, it might be worth an article. Mo0[talk] 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, I definitely see where you all are coming from, but don't be so hasty to delete. This may be an issue of "SpeedaMay" being misspelled (certainly seems like an odd word and I didn't get any Google results either). Also, Snopes doesn't exactly list everything, although they ARE a valuable resource (and I share it with my students in English). This may indeed be nonsense, but further research is needed, I think, before deletion is necessary. 172.173.36.198 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, further research (and references) will be needed in order for the article to be kept. Your argument puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Delete as hoax unless supporting references are added. B.Wind 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You have a point, don't you? Let's see if the original author (or ANYONE) updates within the next 24 or 48 hours (depending on admins and policy). I maintain an open mind--infused with the intellectual responsibility and healthy skeptisism that makes Wikipedia work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.156.113.115 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-01 04:51:19 UTC
        • I do... and you made it. Please re-read my vote. B.Wind 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources, and (like Peruvianllama) I can find no sources. The article also directly implies, by stating that there has been no media coverage and that Snopes hasn't documented this, that there are no sources to be found. The article is thus unverifiable, pretty much by its own admission. Delete. Uncle G 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it's an obscure regional thing? Also, the way they capitalized the term is really weird...I wonder if there's a reason for that beyond the eccentric whims of the original author.
    • OH, BY THE WAY...forgive me if this is a stupid question, but what does "Per nom" (above) mean?
        • Thanks, UncleG!!!
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was FBI delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zak Bauvi

Content is clearly either biased or fake, no references provided, Google search yields no results.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

comment the city was added into the article on Memphis, Egypt (nb - this was added by the same author). It say that the modern name for the place is Mit-Rahineh, which is a real archaeological site. It's worth noting, though, that the editor's additions to that page are... well... not brilliant (see [38]), and no text I have found onliune referring to Mit-rahineh mentions this alternative name. What's more, Zak Bauvi looks too much like a Czech person's name for my liking as the name of a place in ancient Egypt. So, unless there's more verification from somewhere, delete. You might also want to look at the page creator's other achievements as some indication of this page's worth... Grutness...wha? 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1. POV0-ridden substub with no context. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upsizethis.com

Forum with 895 registered users, no evidence of significance, Alexa ranking is 2,294,754. Has already attracted a NPOV-tag. Note that the correct title should be Upsizethis.org. Punkmorten 21:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete don't bother with a rename - just perform a mercy killing. --Bachrach44 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a non-notable webforum that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Mo0[talk] 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletethis.com per above. 147.70.242.21 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Try WikiDirectory instead. --StuffOfInterest 13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, POV and failing the usual tests. Probably not even worth a footnote on Michael Moore. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Izehar 15:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VK3CFI

This is the ham radio code of a woman who chatted with MIR cosmonauts [39] Couldn't find any support to her alleged NASA affiliation User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if the person is real, I can't see her radio call sign warranting a page of its own. If that were the case we would end up with thousands of these codes. (73 de NQ4S) --StuffOfInterest 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Izehar 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary mclaughlin

nn vanity Gator (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to clear typo and keep. While Gaelic music doesn't have the cachet that hip-hop or punk music has, she seems to have a reputation in the Gaelic music scene (as evidenced to some extent after a Google search with "Mary McLaughlin" Gaelic keywords). The article also needs a clean up and needs wikification. 147.70.242.21 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete copyvio from [40] Dlyons493 Talk 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, probable copyvio, not encyclopaedic in tone, reeks of vanit, and invokes Geogre's Law. Yes, I recognise it might be meritable if seriously cleaned up, moved and Wikified - but since that changes the content and the title, unless anyone here feels strongly motivated to do it here and now, I think it is better off gone rather than lowering the tone while we wait for the cleanup squad. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think she probably meets WP:MUSIC. She does have a long history and she has an entry in allmusic.com, as well as numerous Google hits with various combinations of her rather common name. I would vote keep on an original article but I marked the copyright violation on this one. -- DS1953 23:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 06:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6 References

Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertisement with no useful content. --Hurricane111 22:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Analyze. User 160.39.129.27 -- with no previous edits -- created several large articles about one Alexander Turney Stewart in about 30 minutes. Some thoughts: (1) They are obviously copied from an existing document -- no one can type that fast -- which raises but does not prove copyvio. (2) What the person did was create several articles named: Alexander Turney Stewart, 1 Stewart's Early Years, 2 His Road To Success..., 4 Later Years, 5 Death And Influence, and 6 References. So we need to treat those as one issue. Some of those have been speedied, some VfD'd, and some just with merge or warning tags. I don't know what's going on here either. Our boy's a but rash, but this is not neccesarily vandalism or copyvio, and we might end up with a good article about Alexander Turney Stewart out of all this. Herostratus 23:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I can type that fast. Watch me. So the idea that its necessarily copyvio is not true. There are people who do exist that can type that quickly. Follow how quickly I make edits on here, and how many big edits I've made in the past 2 weeks. I'm sure its comparable with the amount that this person made. Ergo, not necessarily copyvio. Zordrac 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In Progress. Anon new editor is apparently breaking the old, existing Alexander Turney Stewart article into smaller seperate articles (the articles are inapropriately named, but he may be in draft phase, and will Move them later. I don't know why she's doing this and she hasn't responded to my message. Perhaps she is planning to expand the Alexander Turney Stewart such that it will be too long for a single article? Doesn't seem to be any species of vandalism. Suggest we wait 'til she's done and see what we have then. Herostratus 05:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now as good faith attempt at article. Zordrac 01:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Climax and Resolution User has not responded, has not appeared. Wierd. At first I thought he was just splitting the article, but now I think he created the text. Anyway, all is back in main article and I'm going to speedy all these seperate articles now. Herostratus 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A War For Australlia

Self-professed episode idea for a popular television show. Delete as unencyclopaedic fancruft.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. My country is called Australia by the way. Episode suggestion for a non-existent television program. Capitalistroadster 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- has no place in Wikipedia. - Longhair 22:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 23:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Sarah Ewart 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a theoretical episode for the Nickelodeon cartoon series, Rocko's Modern Life, as well as the misspelling of Australia. Saberwyn 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. A War For Australlia may qualify for Speedy Deletion, as it was made by the same author as this article. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. IanBailey (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. And I second Peruvianllama's comment--I thought we'd dealt with this already. Tom Lillis 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete asap. My eyes hurt from reading the sheer non-importance of that entry. --Roisterer 08:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per PeruvianLlama. Episode ideas are unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 12:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just got through cleaning up after our little friend. Had to unblock the IP due to collateral damage, but I'll keep an eye out for more. This example should not be a speedy since I believe other users should know what to watch out for. - Lucky 6.9 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - how hard is it to spell Australia???? Zordrac 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I might've said otherwise if it hadn't been written by a known vandal who made up hoaxes. – Iggy Koopa 02:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience

  • Reminds me of List of notable people who have been stung by jellyfish - in other words, nonsensical and of little enyclopedic value, difficult to verify --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons that the nominator posted. This article has little verifiability and is pretty weird. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - reminds me of List of stutterers. How far is too far with these lists? 147.70.242.21 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that list of stutterers has not been deleted. In addition, such lists can be quite useful- it isn't the least bit inconceivable that some 13 year old kid has to do a school project on stuttering, and list of stutterers provides him or her with an invaluable resource. ditto for this article. --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. This was originally part of the too large LSD article, and was given its own entry to cut that article down. Given the social upheaval and cultural change that LSD is strongly associated with as well as its place in pop culture, having a list of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience is virtually nothing like a list of people who have gotten stung by jellyfish. For many of these people, LSD changed their lives; many of these people are notable persons who have had great influence on modern culture. I agree verifiability is a problem; rather than deleting the article, names should be removed to the talk page unless cited as is done in other similar situations, such as the Famous users section of the Mescaline article. (There is a project dealing with this sort of stuff, btw, and i'm about to go propose the system used on the mescaline page for all relevant situations.)--Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, so why are people without verifiable sources in there at all? Surely they should have been deleted long ago. If the list is as you state, surely the fundamentals of WP require that the collaborative project takes a firm grip on something with such obvious potential to go out of control? And why this list, rather than "people whose LSD experience has been widely discussed" or "people whose lives were heavily influenced by LSD" (which might have some merit, but still leaves the question of how heavily, and why).
This list was fairly recently split off from the LSD article. That's what the list was, a list of people who had commented on the lsd experience, and when it got too long it was given its own article. It wasn't done by me or anyone else i know. user:Kwertii moved it on June 13th. There's obviously lots of problems with lots of articles on wikipedia, and if you have problems, you should fix them. If you feel that many of the users should have been removed from the list, go ahead and do it. We all have things to do. --Heah (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having a list of notable people who comment on the experience, but then having to put the names on the talk page due to lack of verifiability, makes absolutly no sense. I'm not certain what a celebrity could add to the description of an LSD trip that a person off the street could not state just as fluently. In other words, besides the fact that these people are celebrities, why should they be singled out for their descriptions? Jtmichcock 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Many of these people are living and to name them without citation is essentially accusing them of having broken the law. However, I see nothing wrong with the basic premise of the list. If these are verifiably people who have spoken about their own experience then the list could be a useful research tool. Durova 23:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Such a list (unlike a list of people who have taken, say, aspirin) is useful when on a controversial topic subject to much spin and disinformation, but indicate the source for each entry, otherwise it is just useless gossip or libel. Haiduc 01:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists split from pages are usually much more valid than ones created whole cloth. This list appears verifiable, useful, and maintainable. Turnstep 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. There is a category Hallucinogen researchers, users, and proponents, population 31. It isn't an exact overlap with this list, but close, since it includes "users". I don't know if that has any bearing on the subject or not. Herostratus 03:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the sentiment that a list of famous people who have commented on LSD experiences is of more interest than a list of famous people who have commented on being stung by a jellyfish. Generally speaking, people don't often mention being stung because it's merely a minor inconvenience, whereas LSD trips usually have more far-reaching, profound effects on one's life. If some of the assertions are false, let the subjects remove themselves from the page; otherwise, the topic was of enough interest to me to click on the link, and I'm sure many others would be interested to know Steve Jobs's opinion on the drug. Dontknockmysmock
  • Undecided the title sucks, the concept is flawed (the list is pretty pointless without the context of why they commented and what comment they made), false additions may be actionable so WP:V is crucial, but in the end there are some people (like Philip K Dick who are known for having experimented with, and talked about, LSD. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just followed up a sample; they vary from Bill Bailey, whose "comments" are mainly jokes (and pretty much universally thought not to be among his better ones), to Dick Feynman, who professed to be embarrassed about it. Apparently. (I don't remember that from his books) So without context this is appears to me to be a seriously pointless list. How would people feel about a list of people who tried smoking when they were at college, but didn't really take to it? The ones that made a big deal of it, like Timothy Leary (immortalised in song by the Moody Blues) are well enough known. I am struggling to see the point of this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it is. Here's why:
  1. For what value of "comment"? Would "I never had an LSD experience" count? Where on the scale from "none of your business" to Timothy Leary is the cutoff point? What did Syd Barrett comment about LSD? As far as I'm aware he is a recluse, and while he was not a recluse I don't recall him being coherent for long enough to make any comment, so what was the supposed comment in this case of this extensively-documented figure?
  2. For what value of "notable"? Are only people with blue links included? No. Nor is there any guarantee that normal WP standards of notability are being applied. If only WP:BIO candidates are included, why not a category so that authors on the person's article know they've been included and can verify the information?
  3. For what value of "experience"? As medication? As experiment? As life-changing influence? As "me-too" experimentation back in the 60s?
But most of all, whatever the level of verifiability and original research involved, that does this article actually tell us about either LSD or the people involved? In what way does it add to our understanding of Bill Gates to have him lumped in with Philip K. Dick? Does this finally explain Microsoft Bob? Not as such: all it tells us is that Gates is a baby boomer. It is every bit as relevant as list of people who admit to having worn flares (in fact, to a first approximation, it's the same list).
If this article told me about the LSD experience and how it defined the writing of PKD then it might be interesting, but that's not what it is. This list is indiscriminate and always will be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
It tells us much more about cultural connections between people and their culture. the 60s was a time of great upheaval, and a list such as this can help to show who changed, how things changed, and etc. LSD and what people think about it has ramifications far beyond cleaning my drier of lint.
Not really. No more than experimenting with smoking or E does, anyway. The list doesn't who changed, how things changed or anything like that: I'm pretty sure we already cover the 1960s in a much more encyclopaedic way. This is just picking one random attribute. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
and again, i agree the list needs a rewrite. but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.--Heah (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Whihc is what people said last time. Guess what? No rewrite, so back it came. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD?
Last time? nothing in the history of this page suggests it has ever been afd'd. --Heah (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: all uncited persons have been removed to talk page. remaining population of list is 36. --Heah (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because the article itself is very unencyclopediac. Also the information is subjective, because nobody knows which notable people have done LSD and who haven't. Croat Canuck 06:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many notable people have used LSD. Samboy 07:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Many notable people have drunk beer. Should we have a list of notable people who have commented on the beer experience?
    • If beer was an illegal, dangerous, infamous drug that few relatively few people have used, then yes. Turnstep 20:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs in common use, and LSD was used medically (i.e. legally) in some cases. The word "infamous" is POV. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The keywords here are "in common use." Part of the notability is that this is something that few people have used. As far as 'infamous' being POV, what of it? This my opinion on an AfD page, not an article. For the record, "the title sucks" from your post above is probably POV as well. :) Turnstep 03:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic or else start working on list of notable people who have discovered dryer lint in their laundry. Nandesuka 13:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense as a list; it's unclear (since "comment" means very different things to the different people on this list), unverifiable, and possibly libellous. Either rewrite as Notable comments on the LSD experience, including fully sourced accounts of the comments people have made and no names not attached to particular comments, or, if no one is willing to do that work, delete. Chick Bowen 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Nandesuka. Stifle 22:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The "LSD experience?" The reference reminds me of stuff that I overheard more than 30 years ago from people I thought took too many drugs back then. 172 08:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the revised version, which at least says where the comments were made. Anville 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is what the wiki is all about. But why isn't Leary on this list? -- JJay 04:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list must have sources but it should really be kept up as Wiki provides the one place that people can compile such a list. Otherwise, such knowledge will be scattered to the four winds of the Internet. Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.195.134 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as hoax by known vandal - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lazlos Christmas Mishap

Professed by the author to be a video game idea [41]. Delete as unencyclopaedic fancruft.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable one-fancruft original research. I think it's spelled incorrectly, to boot. That's not a deletion criteria, of course, but there it is regardless. Lord Bob 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked the contributing user's specs, but at first glance, this is by the same person(s) who filled the Camp Lazlo article with all kinds of theopretical crap 'designed' to promote the continuation of the series, asked for more 'episode ideas', and then complained when his stuff was cut out. Delete. Saberwyn 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This guy has been warned via several different IP's. Now he's blocked. This is going away as a hoax by a known vandal. - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination by an anonymous user. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Berman

nn Doesn't really seem encycliopeadic. 205.188.117.8 22:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This guy's right up there with Howard Cosell in the longevity and name-recognition department. I hardly follow sports at all and know who this guy is. Mo0[talk] 22:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup some of the memorable phrases. Notable broadcaster who meets WP:BIO. 156,000 Google hits for Chris Berman see [42] and 154 Google News hits [43] indicate notability and verifiability. Capitalistroadster 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Swami predicts this article will be keept! Which is not gramatically correct, of course, but I just wanted to make the keep bit really clear. Notable sportscasters are encylopaedic, even if listening to him go "backbackbackbackbackgooooooooooooooooooone" 120 times every Home Run Derby gets really annoying. Lord Bob 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think ya'll are just makin up all this stuff. Look, nothing shows that the guy actually exists. You guys probably photoshopped up that picture and created a bunch of nonsense names like "Swami" to try and make your case seem presentable. Wikipedia will not stand for this abomination. 205.188.117.8 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic keep - probably one of a handful of most notable sportscasters of the past quarter century. Had this been 20 years ago I'd be voting to merge the ESPN article into Chris Berman. 147.70.242.21 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, here we go again with more likely sockpuppets and their nonsense. *eyeroll* 205.188.117.8 23:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Longtime broadcaster on a major network with immediate name recognition. This comes close to being a bad faith nomination. Jtmichcock 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and chastise nominator. --Ezeu 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable person. -- Win777 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as per A7, but brought here first just to make sure. -Mysekurity 01:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Burns

Non-notable pie-eating contest winner. 15 google results. I love pie eating as much as the next guy, but even I could eat 18 of them ;)-- Mysekurity 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete , Non-notable. Jtmichcock 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - food eating feats aren't even getting the Guinness Book notoriety they once did. 147.70.242.21 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Po$$e

A group of guys who hang around and play games and occasionally enter tournaments. And they all go to the same school. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep (I don't know if I have a vote, being the creator.) Well, it's a clan, not a person. We're trying to be remarkable. SK| started with three brothers, so I think that the logic of "since they all go to the same school" doesn't really apply. edit: what is it exactly we have to do before we're considered remarkable enough? Check the Four Kings clan wiki page if you think we lack content in any way. (Also, did you need to have bolded unremarkable? =P ) -saintboy 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    By the way, I'm not sure if this discussion is deleted if the article is, but if it is, can you please send me an email at nick at anthology dot cee oh em, and explain why, and what we can do in the future. Thank you. Now, it's off to Table Tennis so I can cause my toes to develop several bleeding sores. Huzzah! -saintboy 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC) edit: again, sorry. I'm now registered as Saintboy, so please contact me if you end up changing your minds.
  • Delete, gamers and gaming clans are not significant. Gazpacho 00:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Completely insignificant. Yup. SK Gaming, Team 3D, Team NoA, Ninjas in Pyjamas. Completely insignificant. SaintBoy 02:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, perhaps you didn't hear about this, but gamers are actually being signed. I admit calling ourselves "cyber athletes" is a bit silly- but it's growing. Of course it's significant. Also, can you guys offer some real critisism? You're supposed to offer critisism that could allow me to improve the page in a way that it could be kept. Thanks in advance.SaintBoy 02:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not that all gamers are unnotable, but browsing the articles above, quite quickly I find significant international success, breaking new ground, the first clan to.... There are exceptions. DJ Clayworth 21:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. I'm not sure if the other teams you mention above are notable enough to stay either, but as per your request, one way to improve the page would be to make a similar "Notable Achievements" section like they all have. Better still (and probably the only way to save the page at this point) would be a "References" section in which you provide links to outside sources about the group (e.g. newspaper articles). Wikipedia has a requirement that information be verifiable. Turnstep 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I have to admit no one has ever written about us earnestly in a publication that is credible (the school newspaper is so terrible, I can not, would not, shall not dare to post a page of it. An example is the fact that they refer to African-Americans as "coloureds"). Well, I suppose that's all then. If you delete our page, then please don't delete the other clans' articles. They are, at least- "remarkable". Saintboy 04:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since MMORPG clans do not express importance in Wikipedia. Also, no other clans of CounterStrike are created, so why this? It is nice that you wish to include your own teammates, but this is unacceptable. Please advertise your clan on another site. Sycthos 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Glad you joined in. I just said whoever deletes stuff can delete it. I'm glad you all can find time to join in. Firstly though, 1. we're not a MMORPG clan. 2. All the links I posted above are Cstrike clans that have wiki entries. Research please. Saintboy 05:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 12:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School gaming clubs are not notable unless if they win the Grand High Championship of Counterstrike. Ashibaka (tock) 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not notable, and basically no claim of notability. Delete - come back when you win in a major gaming tournament, like the teams you have named. (A third place might be enough for me.) - Mike Rosoft 14:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per creator's own testimony. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, can I the article in my userpage? I assume so. Also, if it's in my user page, is it alright for me to catagorize it in the categories I'm in now? Thanks in advance. Saintboy 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a recommended use of a user page, but it is marginally about you so I think you can keep it. Ashibaka (tock) 23:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

*Userfy to User:Saintboy as suggested. Has admitted its about him. Zordrac 01:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as already done. Zordrac 01:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 06:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Turney Stewart/road to success

originally double posted at 2 His Road To Success... and 2 Road To Success

Problem not trying to insult author but: sorry, but the information here is so far out of encyclopedic format and verfiability, that it would be better off to start over. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Slow Down. There is a cluster of seven articles to consider here. See under 6 References on this page. Herostratus 23:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • How many disclaimer tags are needed to qualify for a speedy deletion? If possible, set a deadline for a massive cleanup, and nuke the darn thing if the deadline's not met. 147.70.242.21 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alexander Turney Stewart or keep as a sub-page thereof - providing it is not a copyvio. Since the article had been posted twice, I decided to merge both on to a slightly better title. -- RHaworth 04:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Nothing until editor has finished whatever she is doing, more under 6 References on this page. Herostratus 05:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alexander Turney Stewart; permanent subpages are deprecated. See Wikipedia:Subpages. Chick Bowen 17:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied. Some kind of complicated vandalism or just sandboxing. I have speedied all the Alexander Turney Stewart sub articles.Herostratus 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "children of our age"

Perhaps this should be on wikimedia, and who knows if there's a copyvio going on? I'm no good at determining that sort of thing. It's also formatted poorly. Delete or Move to Wikimedia. JHMM13 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, perhaps you mean Wikisource, but this is copyrighted. Gazpacho 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Right right, sorry about that. JHMM13 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if the translators allow GFDL usage, they'd need permission from the creator of the original work. Delete as copyvio. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't belong here. --Bachrach44 15:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mgm Dlyons493 Talk 03:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't belong on the site and doesn't belong merged with the original either. Bryanmckay 00:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyright, and as of now, Wiki is not a place for new translations. with authors permission, great! Sethie 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copvio. Cool3 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Phototaxis

This article is one long sales pitch. Even "MIT Phototaxis" gives 3 hits for german pages in google. feydey 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as fast as possible - advertising. 147.70.242.21 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove pronto, nonsense. --Ezeu 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with all deliberate speed as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; if everything I didn't like was patent nonsense then the world might be a better place... Stifle 22:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demonic nosehairs

Band vanity coupled with attempts at collecting donations. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising, and not notable.--MONGO 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 12:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Bachrach44 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity of the worst kind Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete :) Wiki at this time is not interested in donating the hardrive space for your advertisement. However, Natas ruluz! ROCK ON! Sethie 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Randy goat radio

Non-notable radio station on live365. Live365 as a whole is notable, but one radio station that you have to search for on the website is not. Also reads like an advertisement. Mo0[talk] 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Self-promotional adspeak. Heck, the station I work for - a real radio station - doesn't have an article. Yet.  :) Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. --StuffOfInterest 12:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. --Bachrach44 15:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete see above Sethie 00:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sixx John

non notability Melaen 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no context. not encyclopedic. there is not even one sentence that makes sense on the page. --Bachrach44 15:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and speedy if possible as lacking in any meaningful context. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Izehar 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bankable star

The article's entire content right now is "A bankable star is an actor famous or charismatic enough to be "capable of guaranteeing box-office success simply by showing up in a movie"." This is a Wiktionary entry, or dictionary definition. It has been in existence since October 27, 2005. There is a commented-out suggestion that the article become a list of "bankable stars", with an opposing argument that this would be difficult to keep from being original research. I think that this is a perfectly good Wiktionary article, and so should be transwikied. I am, of course, open to arguments that this article could become something other than a dict-def and it simply hasn't yet done so in a month. Jkelly 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I now vote Keep. User:Uncle G has proven my nomination short-sighted. Jkelly 07:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. Please move it to wiktionary. Uncle Ed 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If a list of bankable stars as reported from particular sources (respected movie magazines, earnings, etc) was added — not as a definitive list, but as "Magazine A stated that X was a bankable star in such-&-such an issue. Film magazine B rated Y in such-&-such, with a sourced list (a rarely on WP) then it might work. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move per Unc Ed. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC) keep per Willmcw Ben Aveling 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. A very nice dictionary definition. -Willmcw 01:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC) remove my vote - the article has grown beyond a definition. -Willmcw 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, per above. Not bad as dicdefs go, but still a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 17:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; do not transwiki. Non-idiomatic phrase; the meaning is exactly what one would expect from the meanings of "bankable" and "star". See wikt:WS:CFI#Idiomaticity. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
But it relies on the idiomatic meaning of Bankable? I can't instantly think of anything else being described as bankable in quite the same way. Ben Aveling 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Jtdirl is right. The HTML comment was wrong. Keep. Uncle G 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Could possibly be expanded to have a list of actors considered to be bankable stars, based on objective measures as openings; however a strong potential for abuse as a vandalism-magnet and for editwarring. Hence, delete. --Gurubrahma 07:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is basically an article about a survey. Does the term have any meaning outside of the survey? If so, make it a wikitonary entry. Sethie 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Sethie has a point. The article is called Bankable Star, which would make a good wiktionary entry. It currently contains a List of top 10 Bankable Stars, which is a slightly different thing. A potentially valid page, but subject to all the comments that have been made already. Ben Aveling 02:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per cryptic - Hahnchen 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


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