Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 has already been deleted (note the redlink). Requests for UNdeletion go to WP:DRV. -R. fiend 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of interesting or unusual place names

This page is relisted on Articles for deletion following the deletion review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names [11]. It was previously listed here. -- User:Docu

The page and location being discussed is "List of interesting or unusual place names". The content itself is currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names. At some point User:R. fiend had changed [12] the section header of this page to the misleading "Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names". -- User:Docu

and now it's back where it belongs. You can't AFD a deleted article. -R. fiend 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Similar to Inherently funny word which cites words considered "funny" by some, this page lists names that are considered non-standard toponyms by some sources. -- User:Docu
• Delete. unencylopaedic POV. Ian ≡ talk 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline encyclopedic, but still useful. An enjoyable article, and papers (or at least newspaper articles) have been written on the subject. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Criteria too subjective. Another pointless list. -- Krash (Talk) 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm voting keep again because it's interesting to me Ruby 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - working on processes that improve the quality, verifiability, neutrality of the list items against criteria for inclusion on the page--A Y Arktos 07:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Although limit to unusual. "Interesting" is too subjective, but rarity can be judged within some limits.--T. Anthony 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -for the same reasons as Docu, Rhymeless, Endomion Copysan 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It isn't POV, nor is it subjective - anymoreso than any other wikipedia article. Source, Verify, attribute POV, etc, doesn't stop applying, and this article shouldn't be held to a higher standard than any other list. SchmuckyTheCat 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Great article topic, inherently of interest; preferably interesting place names should be retained until such time as the article grows to the point where it needs to be split off. Ombudsman 07:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.  Grue  08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: and where's the article? Thanks/wangi 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was originally at List of places with interesting or unusual names (original talk page still exists), and a version is sitting there just now, problem is it's a cut'n'paste hackjob of a repost, so I've tagged it as {{db-repost}} (since it's missing the correct version history). We need to get the house in order here before we're even ready to do an AfD vote. First off the article was never orignally at List of interesting or unusual place names, that was just a mistake the review poster made. Thanks/wangi 09:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Bring Back, article was redeleted out of process by R. Fiend. Once it's back, I'd support moving to wikipedia: namespace in the same vein as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Night Gyr 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per others above. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My reasons were already stated in the first nomination. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 11:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but attempt to address understand and concerns of those wishing to delete e.g. firm documented criteria for inclusion in the list, removing the word "interesting" from the title. SP-KP 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I find this page potentially interesting/useful but am concerned about the inherent POV-ness of what constitutes being interesting or unusual. Would limiting the list to sourced unusualness be too unpopular of a suggestion? Savidan 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• English words with uncommon properties includes entries without citing sources. I'd be interested to know whether you feel the same about that page, or if not, what marks it out as different. SP-KP 12:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/bring back but needs culling down to include only names which have references to being interesting or unusual, rather than ones someone has just thought of -- Astrokey44|talk 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Bring Back!!! This article is very useful. I agree the title could possibly be changed to something a little less subjective, but all in all, the article isn't very subjective - in my opinion. For example, I think everyone can agree Fleahop is a wierd name for a town, no matter who you are or where you are from. I also don't see the problem of having this article, when you consider the fact that Wikipedia has extremely long, detailed article about most all Mortal Kombat Characters. See the one on Noob Saibot for example. KEEP IT!
• Keep a work-in-progress, but no need to delete said work for now. youngamerican (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but it probably could use some cleaning up.--み使い Mitsukai 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft and inherently POV by design unless someone changes the article name to List of place names that you may or may not find to be interesting or unusual depending on whether or not you agree with the author and contributors who are apparently easily interested and amused.--Isotope23 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I would certainly not oppose a title change, seeing as so many people consider the title itself inherently POV, but the concept behind this list is perfectly encyclopedic, and as we've established numerous times in the past, amusing articles are not inherently less useful than serious ones. — Timwi 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep Snargle 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've moved the article back to the WP namespace (Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names), as the move back into the articlespace was out of process. Docu's attempts to fix the vote by alerting everyone who voted to keep it before are pretty transparent, and not a good way to go about an aFD. -R. fiend 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Took some effort to find it, since you didn't link it from anywhere. The article is now at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names. Changed that while I was writing my comment. Night Gyr 18:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The deletion while debate was progressing smacks of censorship. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Was this it? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_places_with_interesting_or_unusual_names&oldid=39045672 Keep for interesting content and a listed selection criteria. — RJH 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but delete some of the red links. Many names on the list are indeed interesting in the English language, and this list belongs on an online encyclopedia. Gilliamjf 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The interest or unusual nature of place names fails Wikipedia:Verifiability; compiling the list itself is original research. Ikkyu2 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in Wikipedia space under the guideline that persistently recraated articles are interesting to someone, and therefore keepable. Septentrionalis 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as overly-broad or biased. Until and unless someone can define criteria for "interesting or unusual," this is unmaintainable. --Karnesky 22:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fuzzy definition, potentially endless and of very encyclopedical low value. This could be interesting for Uncyclopedia, though. Pavel Vozenilek 06:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Somewhat interesting. Verifiable. We have several articles with subjective criteria, the trick is to cite sources. - Haukur 10:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As Haukur — and in an encyclopædia filled with articles on characters from Pokemon, Star Wars, etc., there's room for this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. violet/riga (t) 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mel Etitis. Does no harm, items can be verified. No reason to delete just because every item on the list is not 100% verified and cited. If it bothers you that much, move the uncited ones to the talk page. Surely there are more important articles to spend our AfD/DR time on. Turnstep 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of interesting content (although unfortunately a lot of very marginal content also). older ≠ wiser 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep List isn't perfect, isn't entirely verified, but it is verifiable (it can be sourced, and is in part.) As the topic has been the subject of several books and news articles, it is notable. Xoloz 16:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep easily verifiable. — Dunc|☺ 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I had to add the funniest placename in the Netherlands, Sexbierum. —Ruud 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if this is about moving it back to the article space. It's still inherently POV for reasons I expressed on DRV. Unorthodox, unusual, weird, interesting... it's all subjective and cultural. --W.marsh 05:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep good list --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as long as it's in Wikispace - if it's put back in articlespace, I will commence to randomly and irrationally remove any city name I don't find interesting or unusual. If I'm reverted, I'll just add a squillion cities that I find interesting and unusual. Like, say, Richmond, New York City, Albany, Sacramento, Livermore, and a few thousand more. Who is anyone to tell me that Walnut Creek is less "interesting" than Delta? This entire list is completely and utterly subjective and hence unencyclopedic, and if I have to make a WP:POINT to do it, I'll do it. This list is patently and obviously original research, which is expressely forbidden by policy. FCYTravis 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So we have an administrator threatening to vandalise an article - marvellous!--A Y Arktos 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You'd really have to stretch the definition of both "vandalism" and "article" to make that a true statement. -R. fiend 07:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Who are you to say it's vandalism? I think Richmond is an interesting place name. Who are you to tell me it's not? You have no fact or source which says Richmond is less interesting than Phuket. Given the entirely subjective nature of "interesting or unusual," you have absolutely zero grounds on which to oppose said addition. I trust I've made my point clear. FCYTravis 09:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• If the concensus of this AfD is keep, then List of interesting or unusual place names will be an article. Threatening to add names that even User:FCYTravis presumably, by use of the emphasis around the pronoun "I" in his remarks, finds uninteresting given the context of his remarks and also his reference to his proposed violation of WP:POINT is vandalism in my book. I thought administrators were not supposed to behave like this. The pronounciation of Phuket gives rise to the link with criterion specified on the page - how would Richmond link to the criteria? --A Y Arktos 09:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• "If the concensus of this AfD is keep, then List of interesting or unusual place names will be an article." Well that's not exactly true. -R. fiend 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Except the "criteria" are all entirely subjective and non-exclusive. "Exactly what is "interesting or unusual" is of course open to debate, but most of the names fall into recognizable categories" - note the weasel wording and the word "most." You have no grounds to oppose my additions or deletions, because the article itself states, it's "open to debate" - so who are you to impose your POV of what is subjectively "interesting" to you only, and not allow my POV of what is "interesting or unusual" to me? FCYTravis 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per Haukur, et al. – the key is citing sources and predicating entries appropriately. For example, there are numerous treatments regarding the 'unusual' name of Swastika, Ontario: for one, a book by Alan Rayburn (a prior executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) called Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names, 2nd ed. (ISBN 0-8020-8293-9). Despite the obvious political intonations, prior attempts to rename the town to "Winston" were met with fierce opposition by local residents given other historical meanings of the symbol (pp. 79-80). If sources are cited, agreeable entries shouldn't be problematic. Hell (pun intended): even Kitchener, Ontario was previously called "Berlin." (pp. 78-9, 96-7 of Rayburn). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pez

Appears to be a hoax; only source is on a site related to The Game. User:Jonty303, the author of this article has been spamming references to The Game all over the place. [13] OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Google search for "The Pez" + Cornish turns up many results related to the pez despencer, and not this. Delete per Jamie, hoax. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lightdarkness. --Kinu 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lightdarkness. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy delete as garbage, spam, nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  This should actually be speedied as previously deleted content; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Peran Hayes. David Peran Hayes now redirects to this nonsense article. —Cleared as filed. 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Chiang

Delete - vanity, google does not identify his books or 'biology web' Rockpocket 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 3 results on amazon [14] doesnt seem notable enough though -- Astrokey44|talk 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Astrokey44. Stifle 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discord Script

• Delete. Madeupinschooloneday. Gabriel Roth 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• This was made up in school one day. Delete. GTBacchus^(talk) 06:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously. Delete. -- Krash (Talk) 06:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No explanation necessary. --Kinu 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - You can't get more WP:NFT than that! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This clearly fails WP:NFT. How the heck are we supposed to know who FlameViper21 is? How the heck are we supposed to give a toss? JIP | Talk 09:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dëæelliíeet. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note that the author userfied this, so this might count as a speedy deletion. JIP | Talk 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. So long, Mr. FlameViper21, we hardly knew ye.--み使い Mitsukai 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, JIP is ridiculously right --Dinosaurdarrell 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither this, nor Flameviper12 have any business being on Wikipedia. --Juansmith 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete! This would be like saying the specific twin language my twin and I speak deserved to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.64.170 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. NN. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Eichenseer

No opinion. This was tagged with a speedy but he may be notable enough for a article. Listing here to give it a chance. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Getting good grades and starting a small business do not notability make. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. His website isn't notable per WP:WEB, so he isn't per WP:BIO. (Flawed logic? Maybe. But it works here.) --Kinu 06:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• See also Chicago Record Labels the section on Some Odd Pilot has been there for w while and the creator of the Chris Eichenseer article, User:Meichenseer juest updated it as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7 --Adrian Buehlmann 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem

Belongs in dictionary Mr. Vernon 06:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move to dictionary, this is not a WP article. Tawker 06:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Intuition is a vocabulary word, and it has an article here too. So must Ahem. It has a lot of potential. A future edit could include "Notable Quotes with the usage of Ahem" and other notabilities. --Shultz 07:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• That was a joke, right? Adrian Lamo ·· 03:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Joke or not, it violates WP:BEANS. Stifle 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as notable vocab word. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wiktionary already has it. FreplySpang (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it doesn't even belong in a dictionary.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. — ciphergoth 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even convinced this is wiktionary worthy.--Isotope23 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per FreplySpang. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... please don't start a page on uses of Ahem either; quotes belong on Wikiquote anyway (who are unlikely to want such a list). -- Mithent 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as already on Wiktionary. Stifle 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). The last three unsigned "keeps" were all made by three different IPs shortly after each other, but were probably still made by the same person, so this is somewhat marginal and I am not entirely convinced this this phenomenon is notable or encyclopedic, but CanadianCaesar has made some valid arguments so I'm calling this a no consensus decision anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! trolling phenomena

vanity FlareNUKE 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --FlareNUKE 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep Proper protocol was not followed in creating the AfD. BlueGoose 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait-a-minute! I see what you mean! FlareNUKE, take a look at Template:AfD in 3 steps. I don't think you're supposed to copy the template into the body of the article! Please fix this and I'll come back with my vote.
    -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC) —Noted that FlareNUKE made changes to suit protocol. (So what's the verdict, BlueGoose?)  RlyehRising  13:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete BlueGoose 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is clearly original research. And based on the page history, there have been persistent attempts to violate neutral point of view by adding vanity. The article also has notability problems—is this a legitimate phenomena? What published evidence supports this assertion? Has anyone written a book or even an article about this alleged phenomena? (And even then, the book or article would have to have been broadly distributed to be counted as a reliable source.) Additionally, if such a work were cited, all material in the article would have to be restricted to that source to conform to wiki's no original research policy. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. All material submitted should have been previously published and editors should stick closely to the original source. However, if an editor accumulated all this information and then had it published (by an independent, professional publisher; a photocopier doesn't count), and if said publication were broadly read by a sizeable number of people (at least nationwide), then the publication could be cited as a legitimate reference. Otherwise, I see no way around the no original research policy.
  
  As far as using "google searches" to substantiate the article, I don't give those much weight. One problem is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia; so this article could already have been distributed across the net (thus biasing the web results). I would also be suspicious if a web site conveniently popped up to support everything asserted in the article. In any event, web cites (perhaps I meant web sites) should not be used as primary or secondary sources unless the author is recognized as a scholar in the particular field that he or she writes about. And even then, such information should (ideally) be mirrored in a paper-published form with a wide distribution. (Increasingly, I rely less and less on web sources; generally I only use web references if the author is a recognized authority and has published essays or books—in paper form—in his or her field.)
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please fix the nomination, rather than saying "procedural keep"! JPD (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I tried that, but good job being a douchebag about it. BlueGoose 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom plus second JPD's impressively restrained comment. MLA 12:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources -- Astrokey44|talk 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge relevant content with Yahoo! -- 9cds^(talk) 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, noteworthy phenomena.JohnnyBGood 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a major subculture on one the world's most popular websites, and it has been addressed by Yahoo on numerous occasions. It is equivalent to the Slashdot trolling page and has survived vfd before. Tfine80 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable trolling arena. Kappa 09:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Internet phenomenons are tough for secondary sources, but trolling is real and problematic. I say "for now" because as time passes and more Yahoo! patrons see it (I'm not one of them) they may cut down on material they can't confirm, and eventually what might be left is something to merge with Yahoo!. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same reasons as Tfine80 stated. Cyrock

**This vote actually by User:71.71.8.202 CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable
• Keep, notable wiki ent
• Keep, notable article. keep per norm. great content

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of entertainers where birthday and birthyear are in question

already an article

• Redirect. Already an article Age fabrication. --FlareNUKE 07:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --08:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• redirect per above.--み使い Mitsukai 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, speedy.--Isotope23 17:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to redirect, nobody is ever going to search this up. Stifle 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • True... but if a person wants to go to that article and it will just dissappear... --FlareNUKE 10:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Durin 19:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dry-doggin'

Neologism, admitted as such in the article. FreplySpang (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Obvious joke. Marskell 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as hoax. Although, I have been guilty of this type of behavior numerous times at Yankee Stadium, where the aisle vendors seem to offer only mustard (which I hate). However, to me it's simply called "compromising". PJM 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Shall Perish

Delete unnotable band, author said it should be deleted, vanity J.J.Sagnella 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 12:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• If that's the case, then Speedy G7.--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Survived Speedy. That's why it's still here. J.J.Sagnella 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, then let's just play the Strong Delete card, then.--み使い Mitsukai 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mitsukai Ruby 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Already been deleted once. Author says a new album is coming out this year. If that happens, it may be notable. Otherwise, it's just as non-notable as when it was first deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dont delete this, ASP is releaseing their new album in JULY of 2006, a full length on a major worldwide label Nuclear Blast Records.

• Keep major record label, touring band, notable and on Amazon.com 3H 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H4x0rLAN

nn local lan party, no assertion of notability. I initially speedied this, and received an upset email from the author. Ain't nothin' that'll be hurt by letting this go through an AfD, and it might help smooth some ruffled feathers. I believe the author intends well, and I don't want him to think some cabalist is beating up on him, so, voila!  :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, here is the email I sent to Chairboy regarding the deletion of this article.

Chairboy,

You'll have to excuse me, I'm a long-time user/reader of Wikipedia, however I just recently created an account to create and edit topics, so I am not completely familiar with all the ins-and-outs of the system.

I know you meant well, but I am sort of offended. H4x0rLAN is a local organization that I've been helping run for over 3 years. My entry wasn't a blog whatsoever. I was doing my best to accurately document our existence. I thought Wikipedia was exactly for this sort of thing. I was using proper etiquette by following common procedure as I see used on other Wikipedia entries and linking to other Wikipedia entries for certain phrases and items. You say my entry (which was far from complete) was a blog, however I look at say the entry for the Internal Revenue Service. I was following the same format. Does this constitute the IRS entry as a blog? Does that entitle me the right to delete that entry? Why do entries for QuakeCon or DreamHack (other LAN parties) be allowed to exist, but that which I partake in does not?

I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude, but I was working hard on that entry that I thought could be a great addition to help out local gamers of Green Bay in finding an active organization to engage in. Again, it was far from complete and what I had posted was a small sample of the factual information I was planning on posting. Unfortunately, if this is the welcome I receive, I may have to reevaluate my future contributions to Wikipedia. Sincerely, GBLANSandrock

We have hosted events in size from 10 up to 150 attendees and have a community of over 330 individuals from several states and even Canada, which I think meets the criteria for notability. I was not given time to post this information before my entry was initially speedied. Thank you Chairboy for giving me the opportunity to properly dispute this deletion and post my thoughts.

• Keep I say. --GBLANSandrock 08:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

* Delete some people will write an article about anything ... Adrian Lamo ·· 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Stricken until I can research it. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I jumped the gun on assuming it was a totally nn lan party, but despite the author's willingness to clarify and support, I'm not convinced it's notable enough for an encyclopedia. It's just organized enough to beg WP:CORP review, which it would fail.

The author did me the courtesy of citing this article, but I find news written by reporters with nicknames like "pzyk0tic"[15] to occasionally be questionable :) Google is +/-[16]

I hope things work out for 'em. No vote. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete only 40 unique hits on google [17] first person writing doesnt help "we were offered from the building landlord to move to a new room that better fit our needs." However I thought the photo might be able to be used on LAN party -- Astrokey44|talk 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a soapbox, article is being written objectively, not propaganda or advertising, I have removed an external link to our website --GBLANSandrock 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

could be a great addition to help out local gamers of Green Bay in finding an active organization to engage in is advertising. Not commercial advertising, but advertising nonetheless. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that is from my comment in defending this entry, that does not appear in the article itself. --GBLANSandrock 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT a directory of LAN parties. Ryanjunk 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This would be like a blog barbeque Ruby 16:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Can I list my weekly poker party? No offense to the author but just because WP is a user-edited encyclopedia doesn't means it's a data dump. One limitation of paper encyclopedias is that you can only print the number of pages your audience is willing to buy, so you see maybe 20-30 volumes at most. But just because WP is electronic and can hold a lot more data doesn't mean there are no standards whatsoever. Look at the WP notability standard Thatcher131 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
• Delete no offence, really. — ciphergoth 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. Mmmm... BBQ. --Kinu 20:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Good faith article, but doesn't meet WP inclusion guidelines. Ikkyu2 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This "local" lan party is in-fact one of the larger "casual" LAN Parties in NE Wisconsin, and as original author/gbLAN owner said, has people from all over Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula Michigan, and Canada. This page is not also complete, more is to be added, and current information is to be expanded. Also, as I have suggested to the Author, and as he reports, suggested to the WP Editors, the title to be changed from h4x0rlan (the bi-weekly event of gbLAN) to gbLAN itself, which stands for Green Bay Local Area Network (the city in which these events are hosted), because the gbLAN community also hosts a semi-annual event called Kick-It-Lan which hosts as up to 150+ people and is one of the larger if not the larges LAN party in WI/UP-MI north of Chichago or Milwaukee, which to me appears to be worth notability. For those siting WP:NOT can you please cite the text you are refering to, as I cannot find what you mean by "WP:NOT A LAN directory". Thank you! Soriano 23:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first, second, and third edits. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to improve the article, thought that was encouraged around here --GBLANSandrock 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Are you saying that you're User:Soriano? Your indenting seems to suggest this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to your comments about me making several edits. I made edits because I was trying to improve the article. I am not User:Soriano. Thanks. --GBLANSandrock 05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake Chairboy. I see now you were referring to Soriano's three edits to this AfD, I thought you were referring to the three edits total I made to the article. --GBLANSandrock 06:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know these were my first edits but I have used wikipedia before, and sorry for the multiples, I don't always think in complete thoughts all at once, otherwise it would have all been in one. Sorry for the confusion. --Soriano 13:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of mathematical notation

Original research that isn't relevant to the title.

• Delete. Gazpacho 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom abakharev 11:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom JPD (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A potentially interesting subject, but what's there ain't it. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Quære: is "etymology" the word we want here? Is there a corresponding word for the history of symbols? Alphabetic characters might be the most obvious example; in one sense the Arabic alphabet is "cognate" with the Roman alphabet, because they both derive remotely from the same Phoenician source. But is there a separate name for the sort of historical research that draws these family trees? Smerdis of Tlön 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Agree with Smerdis. — RJH 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Minor webcomic, failing WP:WEB miserably. Six-digit Alexa number, ~200 registered users on the forum, and Googling it doesn't turn up any noteworthy coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Now, back to my Lucky Charms. PJM 12:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I like the webcomic myself! But it's not Wikipedia-worthy given the above stats. -- Mithent 23:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The website's Alexa rank is surprisinly low, which is why I choose not to vote, but I thought I should note that this comic is extremely well known and respected. The comic had gone on an extended hiatus until several months ago, which caused it to lose much of its readership, which may be the cause, but even the archives of notable comics remain, so I don't see why this article should be removed for currently having little traffic. -- Zaron 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there anything to verify this popularity/respect? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I myself don't know of anything aside from seeing it discussed on many large forums, such as the Penny Arcade forums and Ctrl Alt Del forums. I know forum discussions don't hold much weight here, all I'm saying is that because of them I know that many, many people know of and love this comic, and I'm sure there's got to be some proof of its notability somewhere. If nobody can then the article should of course be deleted, which is why I chose not to vote. -- Zaron 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. HotWings 01:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man In Black Ruby 01:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This page shows the site's traffic, which may or may not help. Anyway the site seems to be averaging 40,000 hits a week, which in my opinion is pretty high, albeit not as high as larger comics like Penny Arcade, but certainly about as high as many other comics with articles here. I'll take a look to see if there's anything else I can find. -- Zaron 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian W. Fairbanks

Just barely any claim to notability, but vanity article.

• Delete. Close to a speedy candidate, but I think a nominal claim of notability can be teased out of the book publication. And of course, it's tempting for me to support it because it's published on "Lulu Press"... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just barely outside speedy zone. Stifle 02:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable band. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid fridge

• Delete. Vanity page about a self-proclaimed unknown band. Get real. csloat 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Grandmasterka 09:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Speedy delete, per A7. Tagged. PJM 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The All-Nude Workout Video

Not notable Delete -Doc ^ask? 09:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, 16 google hits -wikipedia [18] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Entertaining? Maybe. Notable? Likely not. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — individual workout videos now? I can only think of a handful that would be remotely notable. :-/ — RJH 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stickelers

ad Delete -Doc ^ask? 09:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Merge into Terry Stickel, if that seems necessary. Ikkyu2 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yamato Damacy

Podcast Delete -Doc ^ask? 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 18:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all podcasts unless very strong evidence of notability is presented. Stifle 02:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Marsh

unverified nn-bioDelete -Doc ^ask? 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, seems NN. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:BIO. PJM 12:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 05:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. University debaters are not notable as such. Bearcat 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pavel Ignatyev

Delete. nn Steve Casburn 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above, WP:BIO. PJM 12:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. See WikiTree. (Note: Can't transwiki this as WikiTree uses creative commons license.) Stifle 02:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XICE

All the claims to notability are the cipher author's own software. This is just another cipher vanity page. Anyone can make up a cipher they themselves can't break, and put up a web page about it. It can't qualify for a Wikipedia page while the author is the only person who's verifiably taken an interest in it.

This was on PROD but an anonymous user removed the PROD tag. — ciphergoth 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Savidan 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete . — Matt Crypto 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a random cipher, unreferenced. Stifle 02:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a group without a claim to notability. FCYTravis 08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Force Order

Four month-old. On-line gamers' community - not notableDelete -Doc ^ask? 11:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sandstein 11:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Accidents and incidents in aviation Adrian Lamo ·· 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plane crash

I couldn't be more confused. Whatever this article is about, it isn't coherent. It begins with "Attention - This is not based on the truth", segues into "The secret flight" and ends up at "Games links". Attempt at fiction? Government experiment in exposing large groups to nonsense? Whatever. Delete Adrian Lamo ·· 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I'm sure someone will come up with a clever redirect idea. I don't oppose that. I'm just too residually confused to do it myself ... Adrian Lamo ·· 11:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what is this all about? Send it to BJAODN. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Accidents and incidents in aviation? Completely incoherent! I have no idea what it's about. --Canley 11:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: See below, I have also listed the related (and equally incoherent) article The Airline for deletion. --Canley 12:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, per Canley. PJM 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect It was a stub [19] before it was redirected to Accidents and incidents in aviation, then it was turned into the current article by User:Wahrheit. Probably should be redirected again. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Re-redirect (or is that re-re-redirect?) as per Astrokey.--み使い Mitsukai 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. This is little more than vandalism of a redirect. Just revert to the original, sensible redirect to Accidents and incidents in aviation. Jkelly 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The redirect has already been put back in place. Suggest Speedy close to this AfD, which no longer has any reason to exist. Ikkyu2 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of texts in Universal glot

Pointless page. I've moved the examples of Universalglot to Universalglot. This one should be deleted. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 11:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as it's been merged, we need to preserve edit history for the GFDL. Stifle 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, no objections against that. Although there's little of interest about the page history, and I don't think anybody well ever enter the Universalglot page while looking for "Examples of text in Universal glot" (note also the erroneous space in the name of the language). —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Airline Adrian Lamo ·· 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Airline

Came across this article as a link from another AfD candidate, Plane crash - another utterly incoherent article, referring to an airline called "The Airline", yeah right. Obviously no Google hits, and the article contains no detail which can be used to verify it. The Plane crash article contains an implication that it is fiction, this may be too. Even if not, it is an unsalvageable, unverifiable mess. Canley 11:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, another squint-inducing article. The first one seriously made me stop to consider whether I'd just up and lost the ability to read English. Plus gems like "In the 60's was hunger emergency on the Bermuda triangle" ... Adrian Lamo ·· 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I admire the understatement and reserve of the user who previously tagged it for {{context}} ... like any amount of context could help.

Adrian Lamo ·· 12:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. An extremely poor entry. PJM 12:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Airline.--み使い Mitsukai 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect -- there isn't a pressing need to bring this sort of thing to WP:AFD. Redirect to Airline. Jkelly 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under CSD G1. Patent nonsense. Ikkyu2 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G1, and A1 to a certain extent (it's fairly long, but zero context). -- Mithent 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Uh...which airline? Ruby 01:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --BorgQueen 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windozer

Delete: This page really contributes nothing to Wikipedia. Nothing links to it, it links to nothing. Warrens 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A1. Tagged. PJM 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Krop

Seems to be an nn news reporter. Fails the "professor test" i.e. there is nothing to differentiaate this person from thousands of others in the same profession. PROD removed previously, article now claims that subject is "award-winning", yet no verification of the award, nor an indication of the importance of the award is given. Article reads like a CV and a copyvio. Zunaid 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, nomination is bad faith bordering on vandalism. IMDB credits alone pass notability test. "Article reads like a copy vio" is a claim that makes no sense whatever; if it is a copyvio, nominator should have little trouble finding the source. Monicasdude 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: IMDB credits are as bit parts in several movies, mostly as a news anchor: 1. IMHO this alone does not equate to notability (although it does add to already established notability from other sources, which the article has yet to demonstrate). 2. The movie roles are not mentioned AT ALL in the article, neither is ANY OTHER mention of notability besides the unproven "award-winning" claim. I nominated the article based purely on what is currently written, which currently equates to nothing more than a simple CV. I contest the "bad faith" claim, and find the vandalism claim truely absurd. Zunaid 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Because of their high public visibility, news anchors are notable. (I'm going to edit out the bit about Jill's favorite hobbies though.) BTW, I think accusations of bad faith tend to be unproductive in AFD debates. The merits of the nomination are what matter, not the motivation of the nominator. --Thunk 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thunk, I think Ruby 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep News amnchor is sufficient to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I acted hastily and with ignorance by deleting the AFD's. Trolls came to mind. This won't happen again. However, there's nothing controversial about it to warrant deletion. The article is a work-in-progress. As for imdb credits or any credits you could say the same for other articles. News hound
• Speedy Keep per all. Ardenn 04:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Dogbreathcanada 05:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not, as a general rule, convinced that local news anchors on individual TV stations really merit their own articles, but as long as the general consensus permits them there's little valid reason to treat her differently than all of the others who already have articles. Either keep, or try to build a standing policy consensus against local news anchors. Bearcat 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per "Jill Krop is a Canadian television journalist and the current Global BC News Hour Final anchor, as well as radio personality." --Rob 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm curious why nom. didn't nom. all of the people listed on her TV station? Some of her co-workers' articles sound even less notable. Odd choice... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Water Bottle under CSD:A7 (biographical, no claim to notability). Stifle 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Ford

Delete. Supposedly the real name for DJ Hype, this article bears no relation to the DJ and appears to be subtle vandalism. A google for 'Kevin Ford' brings up no results; neither does 'Legion of Aquarius', and there is no evidence of either on the Warp Records website. Thenugga 13:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dubious and unverifiable. -- Krash (Talk) 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Secretive artists unfortunately have a bigger hurdle to jump to become notable artists Ruby 02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight of the Angels

Delete. Commercial entity; not encyclopedic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Angels Flight to prevent someone from trying this again.--み使い Mitsukai 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, simple ad and non-notable. Kuru 15:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Mitsukai. Stifle 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Niagara falls Ruby 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Bayliss

Non-notable - despite claims of great influence there is no google presence. See also Danny Quilty deletion discussion.Spondoolicks 09:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-bio}}. -- Krash (Talk) 19:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, does not appear to meet WP:BIO, probable hoax. Stifle 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mindscript

Deleted via an AfD almost an year ago, so I think another AfD discussion is needed. Proudly announced 1000 downloads last month, and the project exists since two years ago. Article strangely claims it's both open source and free for noncommercial use (implying it's free only for noncommercial use, which goes against the OSD). cesarb 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment a) wikipedia article removal is not an enforcement mechanism for open source licensing; b) downloaded the software for test purposes and it comes with its source and the GPL; c) I have no idea if this is notable or not. Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 02:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Google search "Mindscript" first page of 682 hits lists its Sourceforge site and download mirrors, a parked "mindscriptcorporation" domain, this page, and a Lego Mindstorms site. Not much on the second or third pages shows great notability. Google Books search shows only two relevant hits, one on Lego Mindstorms and only one book about distributed computing. Is the Lego connection enough notability? A thousand downloads of something as meaty as this (not just some cartoon icon or some toolbar-with-hidden-spyware) might suggest notability but the article and the Google search don't show much to document it. No vote. Barno 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that the same mindscript? I can't tell from a quick perusal... Georgewilliamherbert 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be the same program as the first AfD, though the write-up is better than I remember the first one being. Unfortunately, once again the author of the article 212.209.39.154 (talk · contribs) has done the same thing -- added links to his project to all the Wikipedia articles that seem to apply (and some that don't, such as Cryptography[20].) However, I'll abstain for now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mention Mindstorms in the WP article or Mindscript's Sourceforge page, and I haven't dug into Lego's website to find out whether it's the same, so I don't know. Can an editor with knowledge of LEGO Mindstorms tell us whether it's the same software as this article's topic? I think there was even a WikiProject for this stuff, I'll check the list. Barno 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no "WikiProject LEGO". There might be a LEGO Wiki on somebody else's servers, if I correctly recall something I read a year ago. Barno 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Googling reveals no connection to Lego Mindstorms/Lego Mindscript that I can find. Source code for the Mindscript development environment the AfR refers to contains no references to Lego or RCX (the Lego Mindstorms CPU/controller unit.) Lego Mindscript is intended for programming the RCX controller. The Mindscript referenced by the AfD is intended for creation of platform independant scripts which run on personal computers. Seems to me the creator of this project chose a name that he may not have been aware was already in use by Lego. Guest458 04:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is an entire (MediaWiki based) Wiki for LEGO related stuff: Brickwiki:Main_Page. It doesn't yet have a MindScript article, and one is wanted, so I'd normally like to suggest a transwiki. I'm not sure how to do it automatedly the way that it's done for other MediaWiki sites. HOWEVER, I do not think this is the same MindScript that LEGO programmable Bricks support (via Brickwiki:Bricx Command Center) so I think I suggest delete barring further clarification. ++Lar: t/c 08:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note: relisting 11/02/06, which in your star-time is 10/02/06. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Terri Schiavo-related articles

This collection of internal links is meaningful only as a self-reference; it is not a viable topic for a mainspace list. (Also, the implied threshold of relatedness for including a link on the list is too low for the article to have a notable subject, and too undefined for it to be maintained by other editors.) As I said on the article's talk page, the self-reference problem might be solved by rewriting and retitling it to a "List of topics related to Terri Schiavo", but even that would be a non-notable list. The bottom line is that any topics significantly related to Terri Schiavo should be linked to as normal in the Terri Schiavo article (in the "See also" section if need be), so they don't need a separate list of their own. Delete, but if anyone would like to copy the list to their user namespace (or maybe even Talk:Terri Schiavo) as a navigational aid, that's fine by me. –Sommers ^(Talk) 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there's nothing here that couldn't be in the "See also" section or done without. Savidan 15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can tell this article is worthwhile without even looking at it. :) -- User:Bill Frist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs)
• Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is why we have "See also" and Special:Whatlinkshere. -- Krash (Talk) 19:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment we also have a Category:Terri Schiavo. AndyJones 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is what Wikipedia:Categories are used for. Jkelly 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Completely redundant. If any of these articles aren't directly wikilinked from the Terri Schiavo article then they aren't worth recording elsewhere. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• we don't need both this and a category. One of them should go. If the creator of this is serious about linking all these articles together, then templatification might be a viable answer. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Or a portal. Fg2 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Have no opinion about this particular list, but lists and categories are both valid as they serve different purposes.Jcuk 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But if they serve the same purpose, then what's the point of having both? --Calton | Talk 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Part of User:Pinktulip/User:TulsaGal/User:Amorrow/whatever they're calling themselves today's campign to link anything even tangentially related to Terri Schiavo to Terri Schiavo. See also this CfD edit. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP KEEP OMG! KEEP. It is just a most excellent view into our human condition. -- 68.164.245.60 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course this is not an "article". It is a "list". That is what the title says. We have tons of lists pertaining to vastly more trivial subjects that this list.
  • Please note Marskell's emotional and long-term involvement with the Terri Schiavo page, his tendency to "own" the Terri Schaivo page, to pre-emptively warn people that they will be reverted (because he is so accustomemed to just doing the reverting) and his tendency to silently revert any changes he does not like. Any attempt by anyone with less authority than the now-inactive Musical Linguist to build up this information in the "See Also" section will simply be reverted by him without notice, with MAYBE a trivial justication afterwards and no futher negotiation on the matter. And also: absolutely no penalty on him for forcing his will upon the article, and no penalty on him for not constraining himself to a fair process (e.g. involving prior notification, genuine negotiation and compromise).
  • Marskell has already methodicaly hunted down and destroyed two separate attempts to organize this information within Categories. His first attempt to destroy the information was with a declaration that he would remove "most" of the newly-added articles from the normal TS category. Now that Pinktulip has been blocked, note how subtle Marskell, with his "ownership attitude" about the article, and how he can now implictily take credit for the results.
  • Note also how Marskell, on the TS talk page, had derisive and intimidating comments about the "Good Artcle" process when Pinktulip got a "good article", On the talk page he says "As for the good article tags, I think they're a joke and should be scrapped." But then he got admin after admin to hound Pinktulip, and Pinktulip resists and gets blocked, then Marskell turns around, puts on an innocent face and involves himself with Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles and act like a team player! Very clever of that aquistitive scavenger and character assassinator (and ongoing "article owner" with those sneaky methods of his). Marskell had imposed his will on the article for many months and made little progress (and participated in the FAILED attempt to get Feature Article). Pinktulip comes along, starts making progress and Marskell declares him to be a hijacker an keeps whipping up the hysteria. Once Pinktulip, who did NOT fight a revert war against this reverter in the article itself, but stayed on the talk page instead. Pinktulip got whacked due this guy's hysteria-inciting actions.
  • Look at uneven the tug-of-war contest is: Pinktulip spends hours building up the house of cards so that you all an easily see where the garbage in the politicians is and Timothy Marskell comes along with his fine Linguistic credentials and gives himself permission to go right ahead and knock half the card house over if it does not please him perfectly. Again, Pinktulip could have tried to restore his work, but he, Andrew Wiliiam Morrow, is twice Timonthy's age and much more patient about these sorts of things.
  • Timothy has done ZERO research. Others like Andrew do the research. Timothy then uses every tactic available to exercise control over the result. We are not talking about copyedit contributions. We are talk about content. Musical Linguist was overt in her pro-life view. Timothy's skewed views seems to coincide with hers. They have had MANY MANY months to OWN this article. They should let other take their turn fairly. I am fourth child from a large Catholic family. I learn very well to how wait for my turn. Timothy does not display that same attitude. Timothy's kind of attitude is what lead to many, many of the messy conflicts on this article. He should excuse himself. He has more than had his turn at it. He is emotionally involved with it. His attitue: if he can find a comma out of place or dangling particile (and I do like the content) revert the whole thing! Very easy. Science fiction writers, I find, also tend to have this bad habit because often what they do in their writtings offer is a great deal of surface, but not much content. -- 68.122.117.175 12:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Look, Andrew (or Pinktulip or TulsaGal or whatever you're calling yourself today), have you considered taking up a hobby? Knitting? Basket-weaving? Something actuallu productive, maybe? --Calton | Talk 12:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • You see how this is, you stupid, young dumb fucks? I tried to make a Catagory and it is getting deleted. I try to make a list a it is getting deleting. You dumb deleters say to put the information in the "other". You just want to destroy the information because you do not like it and the rationales that you use, because of your multiple and inconsistent viewpoints on style results in a situation where there is not where for the information to go where it will survive. -- 68.121.101.234 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ==See also== isn't article. Pavel Vozenilek 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Please use existing categories. Kuru 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly a category, definitely not a list. Agree with Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As others before me have pointed out, there's already a category for Terri Schiavo, and a category corresponding to this list was formerly attempted at Category:Terri Schiavo minor players. This latter category or list of tangentially-related articles, as Amorrow/Pinktulip/TulsaGal/68.122.117.175 would like it to be, would be unencylopedic, unnecessary, unmaintainable, and impractical. Imagine if, at the bottom of the death article, there were a category corresponding to, in addition to Terri Schiavo, every famous person whose life was affected by death in some way. (Not to mention that there would be no established way to draw the line on just how tangential or remote these relationships could be.) So, respectfully responding to Kuru, Stifle, and others: the best thing to do is delete this list, leave the categories essentially as they are, and hope that Amorrow/Pinktulip will decide to be a little less contentious. –Sommers ^(Talk) 04:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not needed. Proto||type 16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reading the angry comments above, I appreciate some users are deeply touched by the Terri Schiavo case, and I sympathise with that. However, from Wikipedia's viewpoint, I have to say that we simply do not organse information in this way, and it would be wrong to start. This information really doesn't need a list, or a category, or a template, or a portal. Some of the pages mentioned in this list are, or should be, linked from Terri Schiavo. Any more than that really is not useful. AndyJones 10:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pagong

Page contains non notable trivia about a fan-derived word from the first season of Survivor. Jtrost 14:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. DVD+ R/W 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Survivorcruft, i.e. material of interest to only dedicated fans of Survivor. Stifle 01:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Survivorcruft per Stifle (heh) Ruby 02:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZEAL92

Not notable. Possibly a vanity article. Jim 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: the idiot signs the article with his email. Savidan 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just a username -- Astrokey44|talk 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7, non-notable person. -- Mithent 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn bio Ruby 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Astrokey44. DVD+ R/W 23:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morals Mangler

Non-notable invention. Google finds two mentions on chat/personal web pages. ikh (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: non-verifiable. Possible vanity. Savidan 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, and most probaly vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 18:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- I thought alcohol was supposed to clean off cruft, not generate it. Haikupoet 03:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. See edit history Maustrauser 07:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts: The First Generation

Non-notable RP game. No Google hits at all. No obvious mention of it on Gaia Online. Nothing to verify. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. If information is found, perhaps merge with Kingdom Hearts or Gaiaonline. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Information found per comment below. I agree it should be merged with Kingdom Hearts -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Shinmawa. Stifle 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with a merge per Shinmawa too. Stifle 01:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment as this Roleplay's founder, I would first like to note I was not informed of the creation of this page. I haven't any issue with its existence, so I'm not nominating it be removed, I'll leave that decision to whomever makes it. However, you can find a link to the Role-play here, http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/index.php?gmode=index&guild_id=979 In case any may want to verify its existance. Obviously, the role-play is not well known within Gaiaonline, so I wouldn’t suggest it be merged with it. However I don’t see any reason why it can't be merged with the Kingdom Hearts page, other than the fact its a rather miniscule project. I just thought that as this Role-play’s creator, and supervisor, I had a duty to comment. Thank you for your time. 7 February 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.225.149 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment As a member of the Roleplay, I would just like to say that none of us knew about the creation of the article (especially not the founder) but none of us have a problem with it either. We actually found it amazing that someone put up an article about us. Anyway, I (and some other members) wouldn't mind if it were merged with the main Kingdom Hearts article, although, as the founder mentioned, it is rather small project. But we would prefer that it remain on its own, not being a big part of either Gaiaonline or Kingdom Hearts. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.1.40 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Non notable. Fieari 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Shinmawa.--み使い Mitsukai 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable game. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable RPG. Too minor for a merge.--Isotope23 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is the Roleplay's founder again. I believe one of the members edited the page to include several character bios. I decided that if some were included, we might as well include all the ones that we believe are vital. If our members were to add more information to this page, including summaries for different chapters within the roleplay, would this effect your decision on whether this is a legitimate article?
• Delete per isotope23 Ruby 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angie Young

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn bio Ruby 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: has some kind of notability ([21] [22] Talk:Angie_Young). May qualify depending on whether this Plein Air Magazine has sufficient circulation. Any idea on how this can be established? - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  Changed to Keep. Apparently, we have at least three articles on magazines in the same amazon sales rank page [23]: Perfect 10 Adventures_Of_Superman The New York Review of Books. - Liberatore(T) 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Ruby - this is an ad with a link to the subject's site. KillerChihuahua^?!?

• Delete as a nn ad/bio. Savidan 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/nn. Thatcher131 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert, WP:BIO. Stifle 01:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gwic

Non-notable and half-written software that has been abandoned since 1998, according to the article itself -- Aim Here 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a working piece, altough obsolote; however, its license allows for modification, so it can be a base for a more robust implementation.

(if you want to see the Java version at work, look at http://www.jole.fi/research/gwic/Java-gwic-422/ ) --Frigo 13:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also a version of GWIC with the GPLed ELS coder instead of the patented QM coder, but I don't know if it is compatible with the original (I guess not), or if it is as accepted. --Frigo 14:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dead software. Stifle 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 then why this isn't deleted?

It is Open Source -> new versions are possible --80.85.50.204 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep/merge? If the format is dead or no longer supported, that doesn't mean it's not important as part of the history of (in this case) computer image processing. Maybe it can be merged into a general article on image file formats. (If it was never finished or implemented anywhere, then delete.)Thatcher131 17:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This algorithm was never important historically, and the article makes no claims to that effect. And it's abandoned status means that it probably never will be. If there really is a comprehensive list of file compression algorithms on WP then maybe you can stick it there. -- Aim Here 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 277 Google hits for gwic wavelet, and none for the quoted full name of the program. Sure, more work could be done on it, but until someone picks it up and it becomes notable, it's not worth an article. -- Mithent 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Christian worship music artists

This article is vanity started by Ezmedia[24] to promote his bands. User only has created pages related to his personal self and related bands. This page is a fork because there is already a huge encompassing list of all different types of Christian music genres at List of CCM artists, Category:CCM lists, Category:CCM lists, Category:Lists of musicians, Category: Christian music, and others. This was an effort to promote his personal band Prays and other things like Faithpay. A vanity fork that serves no purpose. Arbustoo 11:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 11:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft in current state. If created as promotion there's no chance to get better. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft; regardless of how created. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, whether promotional or not this article appears to be of interest to very few people, in other words it is listcruft. Stifle 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable list of musicians. Jcuk 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article doesn't appear to be promotion anymore. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if it's no longer promotional.--み使い Mitsukai 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: per Johnleemk's rewrite. Savidan 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per John Lee's rewrite. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• LOL, I didn't rewrite it. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and not promotional. Kappa 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black_Door

Band cruft Amcfreely 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Kinu 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a random single from a band without its own WP article. Stifle 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have been useful to have a link to the band's real title :) I'm not convinced it's a keep, but I do withdraw the delete vote. Stifle 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I created this page...it is not a "random band", but the first single by X Marks the Pedwalk before they became known as that. I guess I should have made that clear in the article :)The-dissonance-reports 03:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I take back my vote. I am willing to put an external link in the X Marks the Pedwalk page to Scarecrow's Black Door single as listed on discogs.com [25] The-dissonance-reports 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• The band has its own article now, so Stifle's reason is invalid. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article does not appear to assert notability with any statistics, etc. but appears well-written. I don't know much about this band, so I'll defer until its shown whether this does or does not meet the band notability criteria. No vote. Savidan 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess as a fan of and editor of articles concerning bands that are not popular, I never really considered the issue of notability. Obviously, it is not the band X Marks the Pedwalk that is on trial here, but this obscure release by the band's predecessor. As far as notability goes, it does appear that XMTP qualifies, having gone on several national tours in Germany and releasing several CDs on established indie labels such as Metropolis Records and Zoth Ommog. But like I said, I've already removed the link on the XMTP article to the Black Door single and replaced it with an external link to the entry on discogs.com I'm happy with this, but I do believe that the other XMTP releases deserve their own page.

Actually, I do have to admit that I believe every CD/LP deserves a page on wikipedia, but that's just a personal opinion :) The-dissonance-reports 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, debut single by notable band. Kappa 09:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vampirism Revolution

Custom map in Warcraft 3. Completely non-notable in any way. —Cleared as filed. 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable WarCruft. --Kinu 23:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: welcome to the World of Warcuft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Thesquire. Stifle 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to/Merge with Warcraft 3. Actually, there are a number of articles on custom maps in Warcraft 3 on Wikipedia. While this particular map may not be as popular as, say, Defense of the Ancients, it is still one of the more commonly played maps on Battle.net. IMHO, that makes it notable enough for at least a redirect, if the article is not to be kept. Alternatively, perhaps this article can be merged with the Warcraft 3 article, with content regarding this map added under the subsection "Custom Maps" in that article. Ikusawa 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I rewrote the entire article from scratch. The quality should now be on par with the other articles on Warcraft III custom maps. The article is by no means comprehensive (for one thing, the list of units and structures is incomplete), this is just to show what a cleaned up version of this article would look like. As a comparison, I also posted the version of the article that garnered the AfD nomination in the first place on the discussion page. Ikusawa 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge with Warcraft 3 per Ikusawa - Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Article has been rewritten from scratch. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons above. The rewrite, although an obvious improvement, does not change the inherent non-notability of this subject. Savidan 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, popular Warcraft map. Kappa 09:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As I noted above, there are a number of articles on custom maps in Warcraft 3 on Wikipedia. As a map, Vampirism Revolution is at least as popular as Sheep Tag or Life of a Peasant -- my problem with the original article was quality, and not notability. Having said that, I think the rewrite also brings this article's quality up to a level on par with the other articles on Warcraft III custom maps. Ikusawa 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu Ruby 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ikusawa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Clevelander

Sexual slang --Mr. Vernon 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: BJAODN? Savidan 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, sure, why not BJAODN it.--み使い Mitsukai 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Maybe suitable for Wiktionary. Jim 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I wonder what the etymology of this is, however; someone's bad opinion of Cleveland? Ruby 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:NFT poor man's version of the Cleveland Steamer. --Kinu 18:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete. It's a real thing.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockchild

Not notable blog with no Alexa rank [26]. feydey 15:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - wikipedia is not a blog. Savidan 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, this is just an article. If you think it should be deleted, then we should also delete Dooce and Wil Wheaton while we are at it, and any other article about bloggers. Lets leave this article alone so the author can complete it. It's not gona break Wikipedia.

• Delete non-notable blogcruft. The difference between this and Wil Wheaton is notability...--Isotope23 20:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, allow the author 2 weeks to complete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MynameisJayden (talk • contribs)
• comment The following was added to the article itself by User:StrugglingArtist, under the heading "Reason Not To Delete":

After reading this blog for months, I can afirm that it's not base on any real person or persons, it's fiction. This is an article in progress, could you please wait until it's complete, or visit the blog and see for yourself. Scroll down and read his post "In shock, not by electricity!", then click on Continue Reading after you turn on your speakers.

This article is gona take a few days to complete, please wait until it's done. Thanks!

I have no opinion on the deletion or not of this article at this time. -- AJR | Talk 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn.  Grue  16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I don't see any justification for the claims of bad-faith on the nominator's part. -Splash^talk 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cart00ney

apparent nn selfref neologism Savidan 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism.--み使い Mitsukai 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Apparent lazy or bad faith nomination of a work in progress nine minutes after its creation [27]. I've also mentioned this on WT:AFD. See also previous discussions on WT:AFD of how AFD is in danger of getting external controls placed on it by the Foundation in reaction to the remarkably bad public relations the standard of conduct on AFD causes with the outside world. Did you make any good-faith attempt effort to contact the creator, an editor in good standing with a long contribution history? You might think a nomination is no big deal, but the actual content creators frequently feel differently - David Gerard 16:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and keep - David Gerard 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Gamaliel 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • David, I think your attempt to muddle the issue with vague references to a change in the system is irrelevant and is in bad-faith. The issue of external control is not relevant here. We need to look at the worthiness of this article on it's own. ---J.Smith 20:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep In fairly wide use. Possible Wiktionary candidate, but explaining the history of the term I think makes it encyclopedic enough. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• ~500 hits on Google Groups. At first glance, this is not really notable, but "george bush" (exact phrase) only gets one million or so hits there, while it gets 24 million in the real thing. Therefore, a rough estimate indicates "cart00ney" would roughly have equivalent notability as a phrase with 12,000 hits on Google. I can't really think of another metric to work out possible notability without being extremely familiar with Usenet, so consider this a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• All the hits being from Usenet begs the question of whether this term is notable outside of Usenet (i.e. if it deserves its own article). So far you have just demonstrated that it should be mentioned in the Usenet article. Savidan 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Usenet has a whole subculture of its own; it's ridiculous to expect every notable phrase it coins to be included in the main article. Johnleemk | Talk 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Internet slang. Friday (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Actually, that may not be the best target. Merge somewhere useful. Friday (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into barratry The Crow 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) And by the way, when did "neologism" become sufficient as a sole criterion for deletion?
  • "neologism" implies original research - David Gerard 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is some association between neologisms and original research, but to assume OR as a foregone conclusion is just lazy. The Crow 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Matthew Brown Ruby 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: of course it's a neologism, it says so right there in the article. Have you actually read WP:NEO? As for "nn", I re-googled for both spellings, and even restricting the search to just the news.admin.* groups I got 18,700 hits of which the first 100 only go back to 26 January. I'm still trying to work out WTF "selfref" can be referring to. HTH —Phil | Talk 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The article originally mentioned something about the phrase being applied to Wikipedia admins. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I hadn't spotted that. Crud, someone who's a worse nit-picker than me?. —Phil | Talk 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Even with the reference to wikipedia removed, if the majority of those google hits are from news.admin, this still seems pretty self-referential to me. If this phrase belonged to a listserv not frequented by wikipedians, it would have already been speedied. Savidan 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• What? How is NANAE/news.admin.* self-referential? All of the above predate Wikipedia. Are you mistaking usenet for a Wikipedia mailing list? Adrian Lamo ·· 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that many wikipedians use NANAE/news.admin.*, a fact which should become obvious just by reading this AfD. Unfortunately, it appears that even the most experienced editors conflate the notability guidelines with whatever they happen to be familiar with. Savidan 18:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, all that becomes clear by reading this AfD is that you've managed to attract a number of Wikipedians that read NANAE. In any event, many Wikipedians use the Internet, but we don't consider Internet memes self-referential either, because neither reference Wikipedia. In any event, notability doesn't have to be universal. Notability within a unique non-trivial subculture is still notability. :) Adrian Lamo ·· 09:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Appropriate and relevant article Fred Bauder 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Internet slang. Lightly used neologism that IMO doesn't support a separate article.--Isotope23 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, merge has already happened. No logical reason to keep a separate article.--Isotope23 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per David and Matt. Guettarda 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Internet slang. There is no evidence that this term is widely used outside Usenet with 5000 Google hits for an Internet term. [28]. Delete Merged into Internet slang. No reason to have a seperate article for a neologism.Capitalistroadster 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I've seen this in common use for years. Being an internet colloquialism doesn't make it non-notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The self-referential part, in case anyone missed it, has already been removed. Friday (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and shoot the nominator. Alphax ^τεχ 05:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, The fact that something is mainly used on usenet does not make it non-notable. Some of us have been on Usenet for 15 years or more! -- Arwel (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been around the net for 15+ years, and IMO having an entire article for this particular slang term is quite silly. Yes, we all think that the goings-on in our corner of the net are significant, but we're usually kidding ourselves. We've already got List of Internet slang and News.admin.net-abuse.email. Surely there's an appropriate place in one of those articles to put a couple sentences about this term? Friday (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Unless there is much more that can be said about the term, then Merge to List of Internet slang. It certainly should not simply be deleted in any case. older ≠ wiser 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and established neologism. Or merge as appropriate. Kappa
  • "Established neologism" - now there's an oxymoron for you! Denni ☯ 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to merge to internet slang as evidence above indicates. Regarding the process that brought this here: The second an article sticks its head into main space it's fair game. We tell neophytes this all the time, experianced editors should know it well enough. Also, what's with the nebulous threats about action by the "foundation"? - brenneman^{T}{L} 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that. Talk about invented drama. Sheesh. Friday (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per norm. 3H 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. Turnstep 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete move to wiktionary if they want it. Its just a word; no attempt has been made to improve it in any way that would make it more encyclopaedic despite complaints about it being AfDd after 9 minutes, clearly there is nothing substantial to add in 4 days. Justinc 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If this wasn't an article by a long-standing contributor, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, it would be a no brainer as neologisms are usually deleted. This silly exercise in self-righteous chestbeating and vague legalistic threats from people who should really know better is cluttering up the fact that this is a standard submission of a neologism article to AfD and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Gamaliel 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- no merge. Excellent article on this term. -- JJay 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Internet slang. It is a somewhat used neologism that clearly does not need its own separate article. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As it has now been merged I suggest it redirect to List of Internet slang. Merge and delete I don't believe is an available option in this case, for reasons of GFDL compliance. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. The closing administrator can still transfer the authorship information, should the result of the debate be delete. 2. Replacing a page with a redirect constitutes a delete in my book, although preferably it should be made so that the redirect cannot simply be reverted. Savidan 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Savidan is saying. I support a redirect if that redirect can be made in such a way so that it cannot be reverted. If this is not possible, I am fine with the article being deleted. A problem I have seen with many deleted or redirected articles particularly neologism is that they end up being reverted/recreated. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Internet slang. If O RLY? barely gets an article, which is easily the most used neologism on the internet, then certainly this one word that's only used on Usenet, should not. Rory096 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into List of Internet slang. David D. (Talk) 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As it has now been merged into the List of Internet slang this page can now be deleted without loss of content David D. (Talk) 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and delete is not an available option in this case, for reasons of GFDL compliance - see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion. --Stormie 22:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to this above. It's always an option. Savidan 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Just delete it outright. David D. (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, per Dustimagic. --DJH47 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then Merge /w List of Internet slang and send to wikinary. This is a definition of a word. Despite it's potential notability, it will never be encyclopedic. However it is very worthy of a dictionary entry and would be a great addition to that project. It also deserves a mention in the related list. ---J.Smith 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere - not notable enough for its own article. violet/riga (t) 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Has some value, but not enough. --Nlu (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Internet slang and redirect, as per Dustimagic and Rory096. --Stormie 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as suggested above (merge already done). It's marginally notable and states it's a neologism; there are plenty of jargon terms used in certain groups, like this, which do not warrant whole articles - the merge performed provides all the necessary information on this term. -- Mithent 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect The contents are certainly interesting, but as a standalone article, I don't see how this can escape WP:WINAD. Choess 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per cogent arguments above. Denni ☯ 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what part of neologism do you people not understand? And David Gerard's slap at the nomination is not only a violation of WP:AGF, but absurd. I'm also sick and tired of David Gerard's claims that he speaks for the Foundation. If this were the case, he could supply us with proof, which so far he has failed to do. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we understand the term quite well. From the page Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms: Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits - Turnstep 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- This article is a neologism. It's also not much more than a dictionary definition and I don't see it ever improving; thus it just isn't an article. Reyk 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More nonsense internet speak that no-one will ever want to look up. Keresaspa 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agonized over this one, since clearly people have strong feelings about it. However, the subject of the article just isn't noteable. If this were a term invented anywhere else other than the internet, there wouldn't even be a debate. The article doesn't amount to much more than a dictionary definition and it's unlikely that it ever will. I don't have any objection to a move to Wiktionary, but this just isn't noteable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I wouldn't have any problem with lower standards for inclusion, but it doesn't make sense to incluse something that would have been deleted in a heartbeat if it weren't related to the internet. NoIdeaNick 04:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly not a neologism, as the references attest to. It is currently a dicdef, but it could be much more, and as such needs editting, not deleting. Batmanand 15:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, emphasis on the speedy. Stifle 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to Draw Manga

Was tagged for {{prod}} but disputed. I believe that the article reads like an advert for the book series and that they are otherwise non-notable. Stifle 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not promotional. "They are originally printed in Japanese but are then translated into English. Both versions are published by Graphic-sha." Graphic-sha is not a vanity press. Kappa 15:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I don't personally agree that every book ever published is a good topic for an encyclopedia article, but there's no way this will get deleted. Keep as a legit book. If it's the wording of the article you don't like, that's a matter for editing, not deletion. Friday (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think we are planning to split it into an article for each book, at least not for the moment, but see WP:BEANS. Kappa 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable book series, but I don't think it needs to be split into seperate articles anytime soon.--み使い Mitsukai 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate book series about notable things on a non-vanity press. Not entirely sure why this should be at AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are over 40 books in this series in both Japanese and English. I think it is very notable. The page does need editing though, but hopefully its creation will get the ball rolling. Gerard Foley 15:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable book. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no reason to delete this. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm withdrawing, seven keeps in half an hour convinces me. Stifle 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)