Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 12 February 14 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] February 13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vikas Khanna

It was recently listed for Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikas Khanna)) but was speedied due to copyvio. Relisting the new version which, as far as i can find, is not a direct copy from anywhere. Tintin (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for the first listing : non-notable, vanity bio, self authored by the subject Batman2005 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain Tintin (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'll go out on a limb here. He's featured here and here and does have several books available on Amazon here. I don't like that someone tried to bypass this and create a Chef Vikas Khanna but he still seems more notable than some of the Afd's that have resulted in keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (Vote copied from the previous Afd)
  • Comment: I deleted the original as a copyvio, this is not the same content. No vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wknight94. Mikker ... 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wknight94. --Siva1979Talk to me05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wknight94. --Terence Ong 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep barely crosses the notability line, but on the notable side Avi 15:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wknight94. - Ganeshk (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wknight94. utcursch | talk 11:45, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty nest

Original research, published in vanity press –Joke 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Joke 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and self-promotion. --Christopher Thomas 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, creator's userpage explain's that it's his book that contains this info. Grandmasterka 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Royal Blue 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep not just because already published by Penta Publishing, and discussed in media, but not in conflict with the heading under which it is presented: "Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang." I can understand that scientific standards are highest when presenting information, yet Wikipedia has its own standards for presenting information; they have not been violated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) on 02:10, 13 February 2006
See Wikipedia:Verifiability for details on why this is not a suitable reference for the Big Bang article (self-published material is only useful as a reference for articles about the published material itself). If you want to make a case for it being a noteworthy or important publication (per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance), then please provide links to other sources that talk about your book. While neither "notability" nor "importance" is a rules-mandated requirement for an article's existence, you'll have a much easier time getting "keep" votes if you can demonstrate them. --Christopher Thomas 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, delete the page. Hopefully I'll can get it back on once more is published about the idea. Thank you for your time. Good gatekeeping! FredrickS
  • Delete as per royboycrashfan. Blnguyen 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mikker ... 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. this is very disturbing.,,,,,Ariele 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Redirect to Empty Nest... nah, Richard Mulligan wouldn't be too thrilled about that.) --Kinu 05:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Per nom. Also no relevant Google hits for "Empty Nest" and "Big Bang" together.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 13, 2006, 07:25 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --ScienceApologist 15:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Boderline {{nonsense}} Avi 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Empty nest syndrome Empty Nest (TV show) per Ikkyu. I will add some disambiguation language to the start of that article for anyone looking for Empty nest syndrome TMS63112 18:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. If this ever gets in a peer-reviewed publication I'll change my mind. —rodii 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Empty nest syndrome per TMS63112. Reasonable search term for that article. --Allen 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense and Redirect to Empty nest syndrome as above. -- Mithent 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense (or possible redirect). Cedars 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect to Empty nest syndrome or Empty Nest (TV show); or make a disambig out of it. Ikkyu2 08:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Empty Nest. Delete current content as original research. dbtfztalk 06:35, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Eastaugh

Non notable vanity page. OCNative 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No debate. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dustimagic! (talk/contribs) 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - in the world of debate, winning the (international) Worlds is notable. —ERcheck @ 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Arbustoo 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ERcheck. Makemi 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No evidence this is a vanity page; original author has worked on a slew of articles in the general debating field. It's really inappropriate to see the "vanity" label so capriciously thrown around in disputes without even a minimal effort to verify it. If the championship is notable enough to deserve its own article, it's hard to make a case that champions aren't notable. Monicasdude 01:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep winner of internationally recognised contest. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete 338 google results. That is not enough verifiable info for an article. Highly suspiscious, this is probably vanity. Lotsofissues 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is not the world championships - It only applies to university students. I wonder what would happen if someone put up bios for everybody who won a gold medal at the University Games (sport). The other thing which concerns me is that it only applies to the English speaking world, eg AUS, USA, UK and CAN (compare to International Mathematics Olympiad, Physics, etc, where there are many countries, and especially communist countries and some others, where the education dept of the government will separate talented students into separate maths/science academies for years and get professors to train them - are they eligible, maybe I should put their articles also; this is a much higher standard of scrutiny/pressure than a university club). I'm also less inclined to keep because debating is by nature extremely subjective, so that it is harder to extablish credibility (ie. skill). Blnguyen 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it looks quite internatinal to me from looking at the page - teams from South Africa, Thailand, Barbados, Israel, and Bosnia have participated. You're disinclined because debating is subjective?! So is figure skating and hundreds of other activities, but that's no reason to not have an article on people who have won notable events. Turnstep 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, that's fine, so what do people think if I put up articles on Olympiad winners??Blnguyen 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Also note that he was third individually and not an individual champion as it seems to imply. I have changed this in the first line of the title. Also these "world championships" refer only to English debating, and that is rather restrictive then isn't it??Blnguyen 02:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Please don't use the "vanity" tag without evidence. Also, while Google hits are useful, they aren't a be-all-and-end-all test for notability. Camillus (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete' I don't think it's vanity, but I don't think it's notable either. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Garglebutt. Mikker ... 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Garglebutt. --ZsinjTalk 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per User:Garglebutt.,,,,,Ariele 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable accomplishment. There is only one winning team per year. Turnstep 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Turnstep. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Wikipedia can include anime, then it can certainly include a debate champion. Don't you think? Logophile 06:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per † Ðy§ep§ion †. Alternatively, smerge just his name to the World Universities Debating Championship#Past hosts and champions, which could be done for all the winning universities. Zunaid 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable achievement. -- Fenster 16:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Blnguyen. Awards in colleigate debate are great on a résumé, but are hardly encyclopedic. Wiki4Life 04:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Achievements are very notable in their sphere. Note also that Wiki4Life is new handle created to vote on two debating related VfD pages. -- TrinityC 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Debating achievements are encylopedic, and additional biographical details and achievements warrant entry. -- BfDx 06:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's already been a precedent established that university debaters are not notable enough for Wikipedia entries per se (see, frex, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ranjan Agarwal, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jason Brent, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kevin Massie, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brent Patterson, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Casey Halladay.) I haven't seen a convincing argument here to change that precedent. Delete. Bearcat 09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Reading the VfD in the above mentioned cases, from what is preserved, it seems that none of the nominees won the "Worlds". They did well, were in the "top", or runners up. The subject of this article won the international "worlds". So, more notable. —ERcheck @ 05:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the first sentence of the article. May need a slight rewrite to avoid peacock terms. Stifle 11:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete -- winning a meaningless contest doesn't mean anything. -- GWO 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment-- Meaningless to whom? Logophile 14:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per Bearcat. Spelling bee winners don't seem to get articles and those competitions get more attention than the debating ones. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: Debating is almost automatically vanity, but, still, an achievement of sorts with some degree of notability. Peter Grey 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ðy§ep§ion. Master and Commander 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (comment restored by Syrthiss 15:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
    • Syrthiss's logic and behavior on this are beyond comprehension. Look at the edit history on Matthew Vassar and you'll see there is a history of rampant vandalism from numerous IPs, and User:Master and Commander comes out of nowhere and his first edits are in support of the vandal. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to clean up that article, and was confident that the user was the vandal. Suddenly, when the user slips up doesn't log in, revealing their IP address to be one of those used by the vandal, their identity became pretty clear (as if it wasn't before). A persistent Wikipedia vandal with such bad-faith behavior should not be supported this way. TrinityC 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: We now have proof that User:Master and Commander is a sockpuppet of the Matthew Vassar vandal. See this edit [1] where he forgot to login and left his IP address (and then corrected it), and then examine this edit [2] from that same IP address, vandalizing the Matthew Vassar article. Please ban this user and delete his edits (and current VfD votes). Thanks! TrinityC 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you. Proving that someone uses two different IDs doesn't mean anything if they don't use both of those IDs to vote. If you can prove that User:Master and Commander and User:Wiki4Life are the same, that's another story because they both actually voted. Regardless, it's up to an admin to decide what to do. Personally, I think the self-defense by Master and Commander should be restored as well since it may weigh in on the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restored commentary from Master and Commander by Syrthiss 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC) - If you go to my talk page User talk:Master and Commander, you will see that TrinityC has already been warned by Syrthiss "about making accusations of sockpuppetry" about me. I am not the Matthew Vassar vandal; all I did was remove twice remove boxes that TrinityC invented, which were not in accordance with wikipedia rules. Syrthiss also advised TrinityC "against placing their own made up vandalism notice" on the article. TrinityC is the only person who has accused me of sockpuppetry and vandalism. Please do not make false accusations about me. Furthermore, I am not User:Wiki4Life, and I do not see how my three word vote is almost identical to Wiki4Life's. There are a number of 3-word votes that are identically worded, but they are not accused of sockpuppetry; the reason for this is that it's standard format for a vote. Again, I ask you TrinityC to stop making accusations against me, especially in light of the warning you already received about this. Thank you. Master and Commander 11:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: For the records, I strongly object to the removal of User:Master and Commander's vote and self-defense. The proof is that User:Master and Commander and User:128.12.20.66 are the same but those two IDs have not been voted in this Afd. The secondary accusation is that User:Master and Commander and User:Wiki4Life are the same - and that's the basis for the vote deletion. That secondary accusation has not been proven as far as I can tell. For all I can tell, Wiki4Life could be someone that just recently created a user account. My reverting of the vote deletion was, in turn, reverted. This is not appropriate for a non-admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
NO, the secondary accustion is NOT the basis for the vote deletion. The only vote which was deleted was that of the sockpuppet User:Master and Commander on the basis of the clear proof that he is a sockpuppet. User:Wiki4Life's vote remains 100% intact. I'm sure that User:Wknight94 is acting in good faith, but for some reason cannot see that the vote is still clearly there! TrinityC 12:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
He is a sockpuppet with User:128.12.20.66 - that is clear. It is not so clear that he is a sockpuppet with User:Wiki4Life. As far as I can tell, User:Wiki4Life and User:Master and Commander should each be allowed to vote. Where is the duplicate vote? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My point is that it is a bad faith vote from a bad-faith user and vandal. He is simply objecting to this debater's bio because he is also a debater and his own vanity bio has been rejected from being grafted onto the Matthew Vassar article as he has attempted to do many times. TrinityC 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You claimed sockpuppetry, not bad faith. You don't appear to have proof of either. Even if you're right about both, it's in very bad taste to remove other people's comments/votes. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty clear there's proof of both. But sorry for removing the comments/votes; I did not realize the etiquette on Talk pages is different than on article pages, and that we should leave vandal's comments in place and just annotate them with criticisms. Which is why I've fixed it now. TrinityC 18:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no proof that the same person voted twice here. That's what sockpuppetry is. Using two IDs is not sockpuppetry - it's only when they are used for ballot box stuffing. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. --Syrthiss 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The World University Debating Championships is the largest student event in the world. Winning it is far more notable than other examples given above. HHR 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virus_and_leukaemia_in_man

This is the complete text of somebody's research paper, including the original page numbers. All sorts of reasons to delete this. Xyzzyplugh 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Its an obvious copy and paste from a publication, I've blanked (except AFD notice) and put copyvio notice. Mike (T C) 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dustimagic! (talk/contribs) 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Copyvio and WP:NOR Avi 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Avi. Makemi 01:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Royal Blue 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above.Blnguyen 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per what everyone else said --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Avi. Mikker ... 03:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and original research.,,,,,Ariele 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense Terizmo 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:PN is this really what you mean? Makemi 04:19, 13 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 - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informedbanking.com

Non-notable website. Google shows only 1 website linking to them. Xyzzyplugh 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the actual page before deleting, especially about the fact that the site has been down the past several years due to hackers. Also, there are several Google references, from the Swiss Gnome's page, to Qualisteam, in France. Furthermore, I imagine you are requesting the deletion on the grounds that you feel this addition is SPAM or advertising. I have to disagree. There is a real person who wrote that entry, without bias towards the benefit of visiting the site, nor encouraging any users to visit the site.
To review the history of the site, please see the Way Back Engine.
Regards - InformedBanker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informedbanker (talk • contribs) at 00:36, 13 February 2006
The article is being proposed for deletion because the subject, your website, is not notable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28websites%29 --Xyzzyplugh 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:WEB (also no Alexa rank), advertising/promotion. —ERcheck @ 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • ERcheck, just FYI, Alexa is, at the moment, not a WP:WEB criterion. --Perfecto 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I am aware that Alexa is not a criteria, but it gives a sense of significance of the site (see Wikipedia:Google test.) —ERcheck @ 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I missed the Web criterion page. After reading the main criteria page, I assumed as long as it was not advertising/spam, it would be fine. You've got my OK to delete. - InformedBanker
    • Comment - ok to speedy delete per article creator and only contributor (A7) —ERcheck @ 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. With few Google hits and no Alexa data, this is wholly non-notable. Royal Blue 02:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G7 per the above comment by InformedBanker. --ZsinjTalk 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom and advertisement.,,,,,Ariele 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Royal Blue. Mikker ... 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per spam Tawker 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Per {{db-author}} request above Avi 16:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above ComputerJoe 17:17, 13 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.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courageism

Delete. Google only shows 10 hits on this word, making it not suitable for wikipedia, wiktionary or anyplace else. Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable neologism. -- Mithent 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mithent Avi 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mithent. Makemi 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Royal Blue 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteism. Zarquon 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I didn't know Bush had a Wiki account --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not sufficiently cromulent. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bad article 64.194.44.220 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.,,,,,Ariele 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. --Kinu 07:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mithent -21:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dyspepsion (hee hee). dbtfztalk 06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of system architecture

Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it? -- Perfecto 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

⇒⇒ It means a lot of work, but I think it can be combined with Technical architecture as a general (Technical) Architecture article (in particular, this is a Systems Architecture article and Technical Architecture is a Software Architecture article). I am sure I can find enough relevant references. I have (privately) saved this article, so if you want to delete until I (or someone else) can get around to doing the edit, it's OK by me. As it stands, it really is not appropriate to Wikipedia, but it has a lot of good content.

  • Delete insufficient references/original research (cited within the article!)⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original research. Arbustoo 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research/how to. Makemi 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original research and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Royal Blue 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete those principles are not notable. Fargo3455 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per nom. Article could be re-written.,,,,,Ariele 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original research. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 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 merge and redirect to military strategy. Babajobu 02:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of military strategy

Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Redirect to The Art of War. Arbustoo 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Main article for section of Military strategy. References were poorly formatted. Have reformatted them - adds clarity to sources (notable, historical military documents). —ERcheck @ 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Redirect to Military strategy Avi 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into military strategy; there isn't enought material to justify an article split here. —Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into military strategy per above. Royal Blue 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Blnguyen 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Lok. Siva1979Talk to me 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Phr 13:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there is ample scope to have a separate article devoted to the principles of military strategy. As it stands, this article isn't it, but that is no reason to delete it. Geoff/Gsl 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Military strategy. This article is all crap, btw, so I sympathize with the deletionists, but its a possible search term so a redirect is more fitting. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:59, 20 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, defaults to a keeper. Ifnord 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design principles and elements

Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but needs a wikify. Has useful characteristics of design that should be expanded. Arbustoo 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. I've added {{wikify}} to the article. Royal Blue 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per nom. Keep Article could be has been re-written - I too agree it has potential.,,,,,Ariele 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Ariele 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete truisms without any real foundation, a mishmash of the first week of a graphic design I course. Definitely not the case that "every design discipline" (from urban planning to software engineering to instructional design?) shares elements at this level. The "every design discipline" stuff is handled better at design, the specifics at graphic design or interior design. —rodii 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although this is the kind of crap they teach in basic design classes, I think random liberal arts curriculum like this is too indiscriminate to write articles about. -- Krash (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- I wikified the article a bit, I think it has potential. DVD+ R/W 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I appreciate the work you've done, but I really think this article is hopeless. It's basically a very short interior design article, or perhaps graphic design, but as I alluded to above, design writ large has many, many disciplines, and many of them don't make any use of the "principles and elements" in the article. Software architecture doesn't; instructional design doesn't (much); computer architecture doesn't; antenna design doesn't... and so on. So this article isn't really about "design," and the things it describes certainly aren't "basic design tactics in every design discipline." What they are about is graphic design, and if you look there you see "elements of design" and "principles of design," in context and more complete. So, yeah, the article does have potential--you can see the potential fulfilled already on an preexisting page. This article is just a brief rehash of every graphic design textbook. So I think at best a redirect to graphic design is in order--this is a case of someone with a little bit of content to share creating an article without bothering to see if it already exists on Wikipedia. —rodii 03:29, 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 despite the sockfest, there was no consensus between established Wikipedias to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AbleNET

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete, very small user base, which may be made up of clones/bots. Not notable for listing on Wikipedia. Every IRC network that comes along does not need a Wikipedia entry, only those that are notable. (IE: efnet, undernet, dalnet, ect) 3H 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, This article is a disappointment. The size of the userbase is not the issue, the issue regarding this article is the lack of importance in the history of IRC. If there is history, this information should be published and cited from credible sources. This article is also very short. It lacks content and only contains a brief discription of the network. Any established IRC network would have description, history, userbase, sample of popular channels, importance on the history of IRC, and how it impacted the IRC community. It could even include a map of the servers linked to the IRC network. One should also include details regarding the founder(s) and prominent IRCops. For example, DALnet and EFnet have both impacted and even excelled in spreading popularity of IRC to both experienced and novice Internet users. This article would be worth of keeping if it were expanded with more credible information. RB 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I logged on to this network and it only had under 70 users. I think this network is too obscure to be worthy of a wikipedia listing as there are hundreds of minor IRC networks about the same size. At the least, it ought to be removed from the block of IRC networks since it doesn't belong alongside Dalnet and the like. 206.106.75.41 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This claim refuted by mainstream indexing sites such as SearchIRC.com and NetSplit.de Santavez 04:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, The userbase are legitimate users, but it is a small network. Perhaps removal from the sidebar is justified, but I think total deletion of the article isn't necessary. Perrinw0lf 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Logged onto network and it has nearly 200 users. Know most of them and very few are bots, rest are actual users. No harm being done at all. Would recommend to keep it same as every one elses as effort has been made to do this. More credible information can very well be added if we were giving the chance to stay. Until very recently, a lot of people from this site didn't know to some full extent how wikipedia worked. Now we do. --81.100.49.60 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I say keep it. A lot of good people on the server, and the owner is very friendly even though he loves pointing on spelling flaws. Is it really hurting anything to keep it listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.76.236.84 (talk • contribs)

(I edited the beginnings of the entries to reflect the votes thus far) 3H 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per norm. unencyclopedic. 67.43.193.172 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Size is irrelevant in an encyclopedia, the goal of which is to collect a through reference of information. Were any reference to exlude a subject simply because it was obscure, it would have defeated its own purpose, which is to provide factual information on things we don't know already. It is "unencyclopaedic" to exclude information, not to retain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.156.251 (talk • contribs) on 01:18, 13 February 2006
  • Delete, not notable. no importance or information worthy of a Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.250.194 (talk • contribs) on 01:30, 13 February 2006
  • Keep, There seem to be other IRC networks that have even less users or around the same amount, which continue to have a functioning article on Wikipedia. Why did this person single this one out? The fact that this article was singled out seems to indicate some kind of personal vendetta. I have reviewed the rules and consider his claim to be illegimate. As quoted, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia"; please stop trying to make it into one. Mikecnn 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, "Notability" and "importance" are completely relative terms. If one were to browse the entirity of Wikipedia, one would most likely come across a dozen articles that one did not personally believe deserved their own page. As has been said, singling out the AbleNET article for deletion with the given reasoning rings of personal politics. If it causes you no harm, leave it be. Saying that the article is irrelevant or that any network does not "deserve" an article at all is, in fact, disrespectful in the way that it belittles the efforts of the network and it's members. Everything is relevant to something or someone even if that someone is not you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathbar (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, If you're going to complain about the entry being short, there's plenty of other entries to go after. There's no reason to delete it. It's important to the users, DALnet and EFnet are irrelevant to me, but that doesn't mean I'm going around trying to get their entries deleted, because I know that they are important to other people. Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's not full of good people. Way to go Anthony for keeping up such an awesome network, we really do appreciate your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meg (talk • contribs)
  • Keep

As the Founder and Administrator I assure you that we've been in rotation since 2001. We don't have have a proliferation of clone bots and/or drones because we heavily filter our userbase to disallow these things. We respect IRC and the related communities. We contribute to the Wikipedia community as well as the IRC community. In turn, our communities respect us and the manner in which we strive to deliver quality. While we are not as superficially large as other networks we are equally relevant. This should not become a forum for irc politics because a person from one 'network' feels the need to reduce the relevance of another. AbleNET is relevant in that it continues a long chronological history dating back to some of the former great IRC Networks such as InnerNET and its community has a very distinct legacy. I don't know why we were 'singled out', nor is it appreciated. I don't want to get into a war of words. It is unethical to vandalize and troll our entry in such a manner and then to visit us to incite argument.

[19:33] * Fro (woooo@dsl-41.hoosier.net) has joined #ablenet
[19:34] <Fro> just so you guys know, we're getting your article deleted from wikipedia

Efnet, undernet and Dalnet are not the only relevant networks and to consider them as so is a bias toward their size without respect to contribution. To delete our entry would be unfair and incite movement against other Networks listed for repeat action by this or other individuals. To use the term 'unencyclopedic' equally discredits our peers.

The mission for any 'encylopedia' is to gather information in a factual manner. To use an analogy; Switzerland is not consider irrelevant in the forum of world because of their size. To use 'size' as an argument is narrow in both thought and focus.

We respectfully implore the administration of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community to recognize our right to exist and our right to equality amongst our colleagues and peers in the IRC community as well as the Internet Community at large.

Respectfully,

Anthony Sanchez

Santavez 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I still fail to see how AbleNET is relevant to IRC. After googling AbleNET I do not see any credible mention of said network or it's connection to IRC history or lore. Please do not use IRC logs as they can be easily faked, especially when using them to further your own arguement. There are hundreds of IRC networks, that doesn't mean they all deserve a Wikipedia article. Nominating this article for deletion is not "disrespecting" your network. It is keeping the material on Wikipedia relevant. Anyone can start up an IRC network, although unless they have encyclopedic history or relevance, they should not have a Wikipedia article. That is why AbleNET has been nominated for deletion. 3H 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • An encyclopedia has no bias. It is simply a collection of factual articles. The use of Google alone does not denote Thorough research. You've already stated your opinion. Please refrain from adding addendums in an attempt to discredit the statements of others. Thank you. Santavez 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I will continue to type as I see fit. Please consult the Wikipedia help files/FAQs before inventing your own policy. Thanks :) 3H 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I apologize to anyone else who has become involved or noticed this thread. I consider my discussion with 3H concluded; due to the inciteful and inflammatory nature of his responses in addition to their decision to delete sections of my responses. I stand by AbleNET and it stands on its own merits. Information is no less relevant because a particular individual(s) find it lacking in importance. Our listing deserves to remain if for no other reason than for the sake of knowledge and information. Regardless of opinions toward importance, knowledge of any amount can not be discounted as irrelevant so long as it is factual. As per the Articles_for_deletion, this user has violated AfD ettiquette (see below) and I will no longer take part in his or her discussions.
"Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before   
nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised."


"Please make your recommendation only once.  If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets 
(multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to make multiple recommendations, such additional
recommendations will be discounted."

Santavez 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

            • Nothing I said was inflammatory, I am merely stating the obvious about an unknown IRC network, and it's lack of relevance for inclusion in Wikipedia. Don't take it personal, as I am monitoring other listed IRC networks as well. The information you have on this article is not supported by any credible sources. It contains original research or unverified claims, which along with reasons already mentioned, further validation for this article's deletion. 3H 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are real people, not bots. the network might not be large but it's the quality of userbase that counts. also, in the AfD etiquette and AfD footer on articles for deletion log it asks to 'Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating.' in bold, which hasn't been done at all by the user who submitted us for deletion. After he submitted it, another user - User:206.106.75.41|206.106.75.41 - who posted after him, came to the network and said it was submitted. Then a few others, with ips like of the people who voted 'delete' joined the network and insulted it. It seems more like a personal issue than a good reason to nominate the page for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.56.75 (talk • contribs)
    • network was notified prior to NFD by user "Fro". Original article author has also been notified via Talk page. Have a great day :) 3H 02:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Only it was not, why tell a lie. Have a great day you too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.56.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, smells of WP:VSCA. Royal Blue 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We don't currently have clear standards of notability for IRC networks. I do submit though, that this nomination is probably motivated by IRC politics, and AbleNet has been extant since 2001, making it middle-aged for an IRC network. Duration of service is important in determining IRC network notability, and as such I feel we should keep. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete like what Royal Blue said, it looks like spam/ad --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As an encyclopedia of facts, especially one such as this, I believe that every fact is something that should be recorded for informational purposes. Without a listing and description of each of the IRC network, how is the IRC entry complete? As for being 'obscure,' I know that I come to Wiki just for the very reason that it will have the obscure entries other websites do not. -- For those who have an issue with the way the page is set up, could you not contact the owner and lay out said issues to him, thus prompting a change in the tone of the article so that it doesn't seem like a 'spam' or an 'ad,' instead of demanding deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.214.240 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete As said before, this article is not meant to be a "fact used for informational purposes", but merely a glorified advertisement for the ableNET network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.193.172 (talk • contribs)
If the article will be deleted because the majority feels the network's size or history does not merit inclusion is one thing, but to say that the article's sole purpose is to be an advertisement is grossly inaccurate and insulting. I started this article and I feel strongly about this issue, so please do not take my response to be some kind of attack against you personally. Mikecnn 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place for every IRC server to have their own article. --ZsinjTalk 03:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I do not know if anyone take my word for it, but AbleNET was indeed started 5 years ago 2001 and what the article states is true, there are no fake logs and no lack of credible sources. AbleNET split from Afternet due to disputes between administrators, there were more then one net formed after the split, WhatNET was also splitted from afternet in about the same timeperiod. What might be uninteresting to some is more interesting to others, keeping the network together in 5 years qualify it in my book to be noticed on this site, not only the networks who grow fast due to illegal filetrading channels deserves their name in the spotlight. As for verification of the network age you can check the domain creation date wich is 28 May 2001. Magic_mirc.net
  • Delete nn and as per Zsinj. --Sleepyhead 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I truly dislike people who create accounts for the sole purpose of nominating an article to AfD. It only fuels the proposals to set a minimum bar. The nominating user, RB, has edited exactly one article in Wikipedia - this one. This smells like a personal feud. Please take your battles elsewhere, or at least make the effort to make some positive contributions to Wikipedia before nominating something for deletion. As far as the article itself, it seems harmless enough, and an IRC server operating since 2001 meets notability until such time as we draft notability guidelines for all the IRC articles. Turnstep 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please learn how Wikipedia operates before making claims and use the history fuction to find the person who made the AfD. I am the one who nominated the article for AfD. Don't know why the other user put his/her nomination on the top. 3H 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I was wrong about the nominator, but my point still stands: your account was also created just before the creation of this AFD. Turnstep 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, As an individual in the educational field, I find information of all types to be relevant. This article, while it may not be personally useful, is useful to the general public. From reading it, I have departed with a knowledge I otherwise did not have regarding AbleNET and its peripheral IRC networks and services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.144.235 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 February 2006
  • Comment: The closing admin might note that the original nominator was an extremely new single-purpose account, so it's not out of the question to give contributions by anons in this AfD a bit more weight than is usual. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock flood, WP:WEB. Stifle 11:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please elaborate. The only 'socks' appear to be the accounts that were registered on Feb. 13, 2006 with the distinct purpose of attempting to maliciously remove this article. i.e. 3H and RB.
      • I would like to point out the Anonymous user claming me to be a "sock" and all others who voted delete is in fact Santavez. (Just so you know Santavez, everyone can check the history to see that you posted that) He failed to sign his name to look like a different user. Admins can verify IPs for socks. 3H 15:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • As a network administrator, I am counting on their ability to verify IP addresses. To claim that it is I that is the 'sock' to vote delete on an article I contributed to is, for lack of a better word, ludicrous and the claims are baseless. While not as frequent as some, I have been using my account to contribute and correct grammatical errors far beyond 13 Feb 06 and while this may appear hypocritical to an extent (and for that I apologize), it is inconsiderate to verbally barrage others in the name of 'self defense'. The best I can say is that I really wish it had never come to this in the first place and I am baffled by your motivations. Santavez 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I agree that "sock flood" is not a reasonable deletion justification. My other reason and vote stand. Stifle 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I also suspect that the nomination may be WP:POINT. Stifle 14:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • An IRC network is not a web site. Please consider amending your vote to cite another guideline. Thanks! :) Adrian Lamo ·· 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this nomination is not appropriate. As Adrian Lamo points out, we don't have notability standards for IRC networks. Turnstep was wrong about the nominator: indeed, 3H nominated this article... after making about 5 other edits [3], and joining wikipedia minutes before. I agree with Stifle: I believe 3H is making a WP:POINT here. Furthermore, 3H is making way more contributions to this discussion than are appropriate. As for AbleNET, it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, but the article isn't in bad shape, and if minor IRC networks are worthy of inclusion, I don't see why this one couldn't be included. Mangojuice 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • arguing your point when someone attempts to defame you is not against Wikipedia, nor should any previous contributions to Wikipedia. 3H 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've been using Ablenet for several years, they have a strict policy in place which keeps out illegal traffic and bots, the number of hits an IRC server gets in a search engine is completely irrelevant in this case, the size of a server has little importance, and encyclopedias are for holding information, are they not? -Ashex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.108.94 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 February 2006
  • Keep as per Santavez Adamn 08:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Entry is unencyclopedic, glorified ad for Ablenet IRC network in an attempt to gain users. Original authors had no intent to chronicle the history of their IRC network, but to promote it and gain more users for their service. Furthermore, history of said IRC network would be unnotable, equivalent to me putting the history of my personal family on wikipedia or the history of my small sandwich shop in Wikipedia. Keep voters appear to be a flood of Ablenet administrators as opposed to actual Wikipedia users, who are interested in keeping their advertising. 69.243.128.26 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of above. WP:WEB. Does not make a claim to notability. I would advise the closing admin to take a good look at how many edits some of these keep nearly all of these users have. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grabcart

An ip removed the prod tag without comment, so I'm bringing it here. Website that fails WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Perfecto 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alexa traffic rank of 616,399 [4]. Mikker ... 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Royal Blue 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blnguyen 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fargo3455 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per article Amazon.com (Reference: [www.grabcart.com]),,,,,Ariele 04:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 16:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insight Meditation Society

Creator removed the prod tag without comment or expansion, so I'm bringing it here. Reason to delete: Non-notable organisation.-- Perfecto 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable Aussie Alchemist 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Royal Blue 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn .Blnguyen 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Mikker ... 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 00:22, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carpal_Solution_Therapy

Delete. Page is just an advertisement for a commercial product. All google links on this topic appear to me to be part of a network of pages by the same company to hawk its product. Xyzzyplugh 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

More from me on this. What at first glance appear to be message boards discussing this product's use for treating carpal tunnel syndrome actually are just fronts for pushing this product, which can be seen by all the links back to commercial websites selling the product. Note the text at the bottom of the page on http://www.handhealth.info/ --Xyzzyplugh 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. —ERcheck @ 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -ads.Blnguyen 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. Mikker ... 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I may need them from typing "delete" so often at this rate ... Adrian Lamo ·· 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another reason to mention WP:VSCA. Makemi 06:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete We need a speedy category for Blatant Ads Avi 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant advert, and I agree with Avi. Stifle 11:52, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Disclosure Project

I am not an expert in the area -- or particularly well-acquainted, for that matter, in the area -- but gut feeling-wise it simply doesn't feel notable enough. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. I think their webpage is at [5], which seems to be a different address to the one linked to under external links. I would lean towards removing this on grounds of not being verifiable or notable. As far as I can tell all of the refernces in the article where produced by the organisation itself. --Martyman-(talk) 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like to see where this is headed. It could use some tidying up --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry....I still don't understand...why delete? Please explain. Is this article about UFO's? No. I have not been drinking.,,,,,Keep per same reason given by User:Dysepsion.....Ariele 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable organisation. No verifiable evidence of their efforts. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential. See how it stands when verifiable entries are added. Vufors 06:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (Over the years there has been a concerted effort by some UFO researchers to recover UFO files from the Australian Government. Independent researchers like Bill Chalker spent years sifting through military files. In say this the Australian Disclosure Project article which is not posted on this site by the user: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u this version on this site is a misrepresentation of the true article held at the Disclosure web page. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u have kept up with their continual disruptions deleting all and every additional information posted to this page. They omit and disregarded the efforts of many Australian ufologists reverting and posting their own version of the Australian Disclosure Project and Australian Ufology History. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u are trying to create a biased and distorted version of Australian UFO History and do so with the blessing of you Wiki voters. If this is what Wiki is all about then one has to wonder if the information on the rest of the Wiki server is verifiable and truly helpful information.
    • Comment, This Anon ISP was revered on this very same page for like attacks. [6]Vufors 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete AUFORN researchers have apparently given up on Wikipedia and trying to add content on this disputed page as well as on Australian Ufology due to constant deletion, harrassment and disruption by Vufors and Auforn4u who are both related to IP 202.83.73.188. Both of these usernames misrepresent the two organisations concerned (VUFORS and AUFORN) and the information provided on either article at the moment is not vouched for by them. See Talk:AUFORN and User talk:Vufors for clarification. --Zeug 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs more work. with National Archives of Australia info, over time. Auforn4u 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)" . Capitalistroadster 04:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 09:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete seen, seems notable enough. Any other problems can be handled through non-AfD means. Turnstep 18:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, This project was only formed in 2003 (see: disclosure.freewebpage.org/Brisbane%20paper.htm ). AURA which is the people running the project has 8 memebers while AUFORN the overseeing body has only around 100 members Australia wide {see: disclosure.freewebpage.org/FAQ%20Aura1deb.htm#what_is_AURA ). If this is deemed notable you are opeing the door to a great many groups this small. --Martyman-(talk) 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree AUFORN on its own is not 'notable', AUFORN is an apparatus for a commercial magazine, and have in the past, staked a claim (Bogus) that this idea originated through them? As if no one in the past has question Governments departments on what they do, have or hold on various topics… preposterous claim.Vufors 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • VUFORS. You really have no idea the workings of AUFORN have you. We are like any other non profit group, the same as PRA, UFORQ, VUFORS the real one and UFOR NSW. If you the User VUFORS allowed the real history of Australian Ufology to be posted you might find out who actually worked for the military while presenting themselves as UFO researchers hidden within UFO groups. 'your loss. AUFORN 22.08 February 2006 (UTC) Delete
      • There is precedence for this project, task or movement; I just have to get the reference(s) from the NAA. Vufors 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough Avi 00:23, 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 Speedy delete --Durin 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouija spirits named moishe

Delete Not encyclopedic.. unless I guess we make a series of them. Aaronw 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I couldn't confirm any of this with some quick Google searches, so I suspect this is a hoax. Unless someone can provide sources, my ouija board spells out the letters D-E-L-E-T-E. Zarquon 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a hoax. Mikker ... 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. article is also heavily POV. -- MisterHand 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • * Delete as uncyclo. Blnguyen 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable ghost. But I do fear it will haunt us for our defiance. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete more twilight zone unverifiable and/or original research and possible hoax. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ridiculousness. It makes me sad that WP:PN is so strict. Makemi 06:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My horoscope told me today that I should delete hoax articles, not to mention the fact that I lived in Andalucia (southern Spain) for a number of years and haven't heard of this particular little nugget.--み使い Mitsukai 15:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable paranormal cruft. -- Mithent 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--unverifiable. -68.2.124.34 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Rediculous, hoax, OY VEY Avi 00:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Religion of Love

Delete, Original research Mr Adequate 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly original research --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wow... never seen anything like this. Clear or. Mikker ... 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. Blnguyen 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Love is dead. Also, original research. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete huge essay uploaded in five minutes. Obvious original research. Not encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles can't use terms such as "I hope...", "I feel...", "I believe..." etc. We have a pefectly good article on Love. Poster should leave this for his own personal web page, not WP. Camillus (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fargo3455 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete although I don't agree with the article's content, it does cite references.,,,,,Ariele 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. The author should set up his own web page. Capitalistroadster 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although there are sources, there's a big difference between using sources to back up a widely held opinion, or to get basic facts, and using resources as a springboard for creating a whole philosophy, which is what this seems to be doing. Makemi 06:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Lo, brothers and sisters, let us read from the Book of Deleteus Strongus, Chapter 1, Verse 5, in which it says, verily thus: And there be not a Wikipedian on this Blessed Earth who shall stand for the nonsense, for lo, it is a massive waste of space and bandwidth. And thus it is so.--み使い Mitsukai 15:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Makemi. --Allen 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR and per Mitsukai (The blessed prophet Wales has forseen the proliferation of such rediculosity as doth the fungi grow on the rotting corpses, and has enlightened us with the knowledge of the self-actualization of the powers of the delete; may it be speedily in our days, Ramen.) Avi 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - even if it weren't OR, it looks to be far from the standard of quality we're trying to maintain here. --Calamari 01:41, 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 Deleted by Marudubshinki as copyvio -SCEhardT 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Baldwin

non-notable biography which provices no sources, also his work on the atomic bomb is non-verifiable. This information should be covered in his sons article. Batman2005 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as copyright violation. Mikker ... 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. The POV can be fixed, but it won't help the article in this vote. --ZsinjTalk 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable Avi 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, CSD:A8 copyvio less than 48 hours old. Stifle 11:53, 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 speedy deleted as copyvio, previously short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spice weasel

Delete. It's unneccesary and unencyclopdiac.

original unsigned nomination by Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL (talk · contribs)

altered to "I recommend we keep this scholarly article" as unsigned edit by 158.158.240.231 (talk · contribs)

Hmm, scholarly, I think not...sounds like an advertisement and with no sourcing material to back it up...i say DELETE Batman2005 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been vandalized. Like someone ele said, my original vote was to delete. -Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Buh? So ... you're nominating this to be kept? Um. Merge with Futurama? Adrian Lamo ·· 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • NO, he's not nominating this to be kept. A vandal changed the message to say that. Previously, it said "Delete. It's unneccesary and unencyclopdiac." If it sounds weird, it probably is.--Lifthrasir 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought it went "if it sounds weird, you're probably reading AfD" :) Adrian Lamo ·· 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this non-notable Futurama fancruft. BAM! Zarquon 02:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Mikker ... 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unless this is already covered in Futurama, it should be merged into it, as by precedent for other recurring concepts or ... weasels ... from popular animated series. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is poorly written and Futuramacruft. Redirect to Futurama. Royal Blue 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In the Futurama episode My Three Suns, the spice weasel is just a throwaway remark - "give the whole thing a good blast from your spice weasel" - so the elaboration is not canonical. Besides, it's cut&paste from [7]. Tearlach 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Marked as such. Royal Blue 03:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tearlach. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, nonsense. --ZsinjTalk 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per User:Zsinj,,,,,Ariele 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flarians

This trilogy, author, and subject seem to be completely non-notable. Absolutely no hits for search:"Zach Chapman" Flarians or search "Zachary Chapman" Flarians. Delete Makemi 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I AfD'd the article about 5 seconds after Makemi did. definitely non-notable, probably in a book he wrote himself. Also, Naden'Zarr'Jin seems to be about a character in this book. Should probably also be deleted. Anabanana459 02:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I originally passed up the page as an excerpt from a novel, but when prompted by Makemi, I Google searched it and its author and got zero results. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Left a note on the creator's talk page informing him of the AFD; it is yet to be seen if he takes interest. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Mikker ... 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Naden'Zarr'Jin is now bundled with this AfD. Makemi 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete that too. Mikker ... 04:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete delete them both Avi 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Complete nonsense (prob. not even a book) and def. non-notable. Some bored guy wrote this up during computer class. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:09, 17 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. Although there were claims to notability in this article, they were neither specific nor terribly credible, e.g. "Her science was humane since she wrote her first book about life when she was five years old."
brenneman{T}{L} 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriela Galvão

non-notable bio. Batman2005 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If its a non-notable bio, can't you just speedy it? --Lifthrasir 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy. Mikker ... 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless i'm mistaken it can't be speedied because the author makes claims to notability. Batman2005 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, junk. Royal Blue 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have tagged it Speedy delete as no assertn of notability.Blnguyen 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trae

non-notable, non-encyclopedic, nonsense...should I go on? Batman2005 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • ...and vanity. Delete. Royal Blue 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this rubbish.Blnguyen 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The guy appears to be reasonably notable. He's got CDs on Amazon.com and an entry at Allmusic.com, for example. The article just needs to be cleaned up. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind. Delete per WP:MUSIC. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - you probably should at least pretend to know something about the artist and genre before you propose a deletion. Notable, encyclopedic, definately not vanity. --129.133.144.100 06:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Give me a break...one or two mentions on Amazon.com DOES NOT denote notability. If you look, his "CD's" were compilations with other artists and were ranked 90,000th for the past few days. This person is no more notable than I am and doens't warrant inclusion here. 4.224.192.146 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note this comment is most likely from the nominator's IP. Check the IPs contribs. --HasNoClue 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For anything music related please check WP:MUSIC and Allmusic.com before reaching conclusions. He is noted on Allmusic which states that he has released 2 albums. So it's not vanity, it's notable, it's encyclopedic, and it's not nonsense. --TheMidnighters 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Before my original deletion tag i checked Allmusic and read WP:MUSIC and still believe that he is not notable enough to be included here. JUST because you've released two albums doesn't infer notability. Like the IP poster above said...his albums were ranked 90,000th or lower on the Amazon.com website. Nobody had submitted reviews, I just returned from my local Best Buy, they had no album of his. Allmusic.com is very much like IMDB.com, i could submit my name to it and it would be included in a future update, its not reliable. What is more reliable is checking google...which brings FEW mentions of this "notable" rapper. I stand by my deletion tag as non-notable and probably a vanity page. Batman2005 00:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Hasn't released two albums on any major label; Google returns 0 for "Trae Thompson"+"guerril[l]a maab", and if the label doesn't have a Wikipedia article, how much less notable must its artist(s) be? Melchoir 06:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's just a ridiculous thing to search for. Try searching trae maab - 20,500 results. All of the first page is about the article subject. --HasNoClue 16:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Possible speedy. Stifle 11:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Note, I just googled "trae maab" and the article says and I quote "trae inked a deal with his own G-Maab Entertainmen." Can I ink a deal with my own company and release an album? Batman2005 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I did the same thing, and I was about to say that. Melchoir 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Err, did you read that he's now signed to Rap-A-Lot, a well known label? Did you notice 20000+ google hits? If you weirdos are gonna delete it I can't stop you, I just hope you dont think that you're somehow making Wikipedia better by getting rid of an artist you've never heard of. Have fun with that. --HasNoClue 02:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, how many non notable artists have singles that go for 70 bucks on ebay? [8] --HasNoClue 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, it would appear you are the one who "HasNoClue." I made an effort to find information on this artist. I tried to find a cd at my local music store....nothing. Tried to find mention of him on reputable web-pages like billboard charts, or the like...nothing. If he's now signed with "Rap-a-Lot" records....great! When he's satisfied the criteria for inclusion here....which by the way is TWO albums released on a well known/major record label...then by all means...include him. The article as is reads as vanity and non-notable content. I'm also looking through ebay and don't see a $70.00 single for this artist anywhere...do you have a link for that? And please, leave your personal "weirdo" attacks out of here, or you'll be blocked from editing here. Batman2005 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted the link to the $70 single in my last entry here. You want it again? Here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4829386147&category=306. Here's 50+ blog posts that mention one of his songs: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=trae+swang&btnG=Search+Blogs --HasNoClue 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's proof that he's had rotation on a radio network: http://www.hot933.fm/countdown/e_quest.aspx . Here's proof that he was featured in a major music magazine: http://www.xlr8r.com/reviews.php?uid=666B1B0CF8612ADF3F59ACD35864BDCF . Here's an interview with him: http://www.ballerstatus.net/features/read/id/21851280/ . This shows that his was one of the top songs in rotation on a radio station recently: http://www.puroparty.com/radiostats.php . I really don't think there's any argument anymore, but if this isn't enough proof for you to take down your nomination, I propose that it be relisted with the new evidence. That's fair. --HasNoClue 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No, because he was listed as non-notable. And does not meet the Music requirements of having released TWO albums on a major label. We'll let a moderator determine the outcome of the debate. What you've provided is that at least 12 people bid on a cd of his, and a few people talk about him on blogs. Batman2005 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Those links do not appear to be national stations or major media. Melchoir 10:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the radio stations, but the magazine XLR8R listed as a major music media in WP:MUSIC. And even if it weren't major, I think that all the things I mentioned taken together make this article perfectly legitimate for Wikipedia. He has recorded with platinum-selling artists. What more do you want? --HasNoClue 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question If he's SOOOO NOTABLE...why is only one person defending that notability? 4.224.90.189 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked ProQuest for any mention of this person, and the only "Trae Thompson" I found is a staff reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram who usually covers sports stories. Same guy? Crypticfirefly 05:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, Batman, the WP:MUSIC page clearly states that they only have to meet one or more of the qualifications. Are you suggesting that every musical artist on wikipedia has to have 2 albums on a major label? You're wrong. Secondly, I proved that his music is in demand enough to fetch 70 dollars per single (if you want to know why that is notable i suggest reading up on economics), I proved that he has had heavy rotation on radio stations, I proved that he's been reviewed by a major music mag, I proved that he is mentioned on numerous blogs, AND I proved that he has worked with extremely well-known artists like The Game and Paul Wall (see the interview for that info). To the other guy, my guess is that I'm the only person defending notability 1. because the nomination is old, 2. because Wikipedia editors don't tend to be fans of the genre that he's in, and 3. because 90% of the people who vote on this stuff consider themselves 'deletionists' and take pride, for some ridiculous reason, in removing stuff that they haven't heard of or don't care about. And no, it's not the same guy, cryptic. --HasNoClue 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Implying that I know nothing of economics won't help you win the argument. Clearly the consensus here is "delete." As such i'm through with your childish ways and lame attempts to protect the article of a clearly non-notable "rapper." Batman2005 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, you ignored all the legitimate points I made. Clearly the consensus here was uninformed and I'm willing to bet that it'll be keep if it's relisted with the evidence i posted. Furthermore, you demonstrated your lack of knowledge about notability requirements by stating that an artist had to have 2 albums on a major label to be notable (you should probably go nominate all independent artists for deletion, since they don't meet that requirement). I'm also confused by the quotation marks around "rapper". What are you trying to imply here? --HasNoClue 06:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No my friend, I didn't ignore any post that you made. I just chose not to respond to the same stuff i've been responding to the entire time. This guy is not notable. Period. I'm sorry you feel like you need to admonish me and say that I don't know what I'm talking about. It must be difficult for you to be up against so many people who claerly deem this artist non-notable. Are you Trae? I'm guessing you just might be. Sorry kiddie, don't let your feelings get hurt, you'll make it big one day! Batman2005 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete without prejudice as non-notable. Ifnord 00:04, 18 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 & redirect to morris dance. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morris music

Non notable, possibly vanity Garglebutt / (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, article for self-promotion. Mikker ... 02:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, spam, cruft, and POV. Royal Blue 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this, but suggest a redirect to morris dance. That's what I hoped the article might relate to when I saw the title. Smerdis of Tlön 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, agree with redirect. Makemi 06:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete vanispamlistcruft Avi 16:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hasn't even released an album yet? And agree with redirect, I thought it would be about music for morris dances. -- Mithent 16:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per above. The current entries are non-notable. The section on music for Morris in the main Morris dance article is sufficient for now, no reason for another article for that subtopic. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect Facts&moreFacts 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, per above. Kuru talk 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, per above. --Johnnyw 11:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinny Kaye

6 Google hits. delete

Lotsofissues 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- user created vanity articles related to previously deleted and often re-created articles The Last Memento Of The Beatles , Sam Leach, Little Angel, Drops Of Light and Vincent Ruello. - Longhair 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable musician. Vincent Ruello (his real name) is currrently tagged for speedy deletion. --Martyman-(talk) 02:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mikker ... 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV vanity page. Royal Blue 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Longhair. Blnguyen 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable topic,,,,Ariele 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Vincent Ruello has already been speedied. No evidence that he had two hits albeit minor in Australia and I am old enough to remember the decade. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. *drew 08:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Roisterer 09:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{db-bio}} Avi 00:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as repost of content from many-times-over deleted Vincent Ruello. Snottygobble 00:09, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Operations Group (United States)

This information is covered in about 9 or 10 other articles on Special Forces in the United States, any information here that is not covered in those should be merged Batman2005 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, though this is Articles for deletion, not Articles for merging. Royal Blue 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I know its articles for deletion. Which is why i listed it and said that after pulling any relevant information...the article should be deleted. Batman2005 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary Or possibly keep as a kind of disambiguation page. Crypticfirefly 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
If there are "9 or 10 other articles on Special Forces in the United States," then a disambiguation page makes sense, then. I'd suggest a Merge and Redirect. JKBrooks85 15:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article is covered in depth in the SOCOM article. SOG is the same, so either delete or redirect to SOCOM. 4.224.99.88 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous users cannot vote here. Sorry. --Nkcs 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes they can. JIP | Talk 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.,,,,,Ariele 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no point in making it hard for people to find our articles on Special forces Night Gyr 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. I put a prod tag on an article after I merged it with a better one. (The reason I did a prod instead of a redirect is that the title was non-standard and possibly ambiguous, and nothing linked to it. However, someone came along and changed it to a redirect saying the WP:GFDL required keeping the original after a merge. So what's story with this AfD regarding merge or delete and redirect? Was my editor wrong or am I missing something? Thatcher131 05:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If we Merge we need to record the original authors so they can get credit, as required by the GFDL. This could probably actually be accomplished by copying the page history to the talk page of the new article, but keeping the old one as a redirect is the most thorough way. Night Gyr 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys are missing the point. "Special Operations Group" is a laymans term for "SOCOM." There's nothing to merge as all the information contained in this article is already covered in-depth in the SOCOM article. Simply redirect the term "Special Operations Group" to the "SOCOM" article. Batman2005 18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I voted redirect, not merge. Night Gyr 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, per Night Gyr's reasons. --OneEuropeanHeart 02:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, same as above. --Nkcs 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The World Via Uriah

Not-notable vanity page Mikker ... 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn newspaper. Royal Blue 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete distribution < 5000 . Adrian Lamo ·· 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Kinu 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -embarrasing vanity.Blnguyen 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. Makemi 06:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. *drew 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Vancarlimospacecraft or whatever that is. Avi 00:50, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Danial Boreing

Vanity page, doesn't meet WP:BIO DVD+ R/W 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. What shows up in google demonstrates the article fails WP:BIO. Mikker ... 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep working on a somewhat notable movie project[9]. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.,,,,,Ariele 04:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Adrian; notability confirmed by IMDB entry and Hollywood Reporter. Monicasdude 05:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough as of yet Avi 00:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; come back when he's done something. Melchoir 06:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, who knows whether his movie will sell fifty or fifty million tickets? Anyone can get an IMDB entry. When the movie is released and has some critical reviews, then a Wikipedia article might be in order. Not before. Incidentally, might be worth a userfy. Stifle 11:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Stifle. User:Mrhigg is the subject (either that or this image is a copyvio). He might like to userfy this page. AndyJones 22:44, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck Truck

  • Delete, completely unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that a slang phrase used by some students to describe the bus that transports students between Wellesley College, Harvard University, and MIT is encyclopedic. Besides notability concerns, much of this (brief) article consists of original research: i.e., "It is widely shared perception among Harvard amd MIT male students that Wellesley students are eager to have sex because Wellesley is a females-only institution." -- as a Wellesley alum, I agree that this perception probably does exist among students, but I really can't see how this could be cited using an acceptable published source. Delete. Catamorphism 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--Wikipedia is not citeable in any case. This term is popularly known and used and the entry is valid. Why make entries editable by any one if you're going to try to take them down single-handedly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.222.40 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy so that you can understand the policies of Wikipedia. Catamorphism 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--seems to pass the requirements of objectiveness and verifiability. keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.19.140 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense-notable. Although a published topic, it is not one of notability, an unfortunate mistake for the aforementioned publishers. --ZsinjTalk 03:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't believe that this qualifies as nonsense according to the CSD. It's coherently written and somewhat accurate -- the problem is that it violates WP:NOR and is not notable. Catamorphism 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting me. I have edited my previous vote. --ZsinjTalk
  • Keep, has been noted in reputable publications. Bad ideas 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Neutralitytalk 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and nn.Blnguyen 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable to me. Mikker ... 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete despite being excessively vulgar (which I know is not grounds for deletion) also refers to a relatively localized term with little or no value to persons outside of the Wellesley/Harvard/MIT circles. Either delete or include a small note about it on the respective schools trivia sections. Batman2005 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I will remove the offending language that implies original research. Although this seems to have a narrow reach, by standard measures of notability this qualifies. Do a google search -- you will find many, many results. Also, you will notice that I have cited this article rather extensively. One of those citations is from a national publication that published an entire article about issues of secuality at Wellesley and discussed the fuck truck. I did not post this as a joke or to be offensive. The fact is, if this was a post about, say, a faculty exchange program between the two schools that (for some reason) had been discussed in the national press and was extremely well known to essentially all students at both schools (I am a graduate of one of them), and thus was at least as encycopedic as a school fight song (we have an extensive list), there is no way that this would be up for deletion. The fact is, this discussion is occurring because someone is offended. But, of course, the fact that something causes offense makes it no less notable. Wikipedia should contain encyclopedic or not, and I have made it my mission to post challenging information (see my userpage for a discusson of what I am up to). Please focus on the notability of this post and not the fact that you may be offended by it or find it silly.Interestingstuffadder 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't find this article offensive, and no one else who commented here said they found it offensive. One person said it was vulgar, but that's not the same thing as being offended by it. And yes, I would also probably AFD an article about a Harvard/Wellesley/MIT faculty exchange program. That sort of thing would belong in the article about Harvard, Wellesley, and/or MIT. Catamorphism 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Although offense has not been explicitly stated, I have to suspect that it underlies the attack on an article like this. Or if not offense, a general instinct to be hostile to entries that seem vulgar or humorous, which may be justified as such qualities are frequent touchstones of vandalism, but I think we all can acknowledge that whatever this is it is not vandalism. The fact remains, these are three institutions that have an extremely prominent role in our society. Perhaps that is why the Harvard Lampoon, the Harvard Crimson and numerous dormitories at Harvard (see Dunster House) have well established wikipedia presences while, having followed similar deletion debates, it seems that college humor magazines, newspapers, and dormitories are often challenged as non-notable. Also, may I ask again why college fight songs (see For Boston) have any place on Wikipedia when something like this entry, which has documented national notability does not? Interestingstuffadder 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please, can we assume good faith and not try to read all sorts of secret intentions into people's actions? In addition, if you think that the college fight song articles, or any other articles, are non-notable, you are welcome to propose them for deletion. "There are other non-notable articles on Wikipedia" is never a good reason to keep an article. Catamorphism 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Let's be clear; I was not calling into question your good faith in particular. I am just pointing out a pattern I have noticed -- provocative or "vulgar" articles seem to draw quite a bit more scrutiny than similarly notable non-provocative, non-vulgar articles. Also, my point about those articles is that they are notable, as evidenced by the long-term consensus regarding their existence that is apparent in that some have been up for a long time, these articles are frequently edited by experienced users and (as for the fight songs), new articles in the same category frequently pop up. Also, thank you for your excellent edits to this article. As pointed out below, this article's quality now stands out. Interestingstuffadder 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd like to say redirect, as it's main importance is to the culture of those two schools, but I can't find any reason to prefer redirecting to one school over another, so Keep it is. I hope no-one would disagree that this should be mentioned in the schools in question. I've added a mention of it to their articles, in any case. And if this is deleted, I'll move the content into one article or other. (probably Wellesley, I guess) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This post implies a good justification for keeping this as its own article -- this relates to three seperate schools and would probably have a place on any of their pages...it is simply more efficient to keep this as a seperate page and link to it from the schools' pages. Interestingstuffadder 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think merging it into Wellesley College is fine. It's a bus run by Wellesley, I'm not sure why there's any ambiguity about which school it's most relevant to. Also, if the article is kept, I would support renaming it to "Wellesley College Senate Bus" and creating redirects for "Fuck Truck" and "Senate Bus". Making "Fuck Truck" be the primary title for the article is rather POV, since it implies a primary purpose for the bus that not everyone would agree is its primary purpose. Catamorphism 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: the problem with renaming is that this a case where the 'official' name is far, far less well known than the colloquial name (it certainly hasn't been mentioned in the national press), and thus the less notable name. Also, whatever form this article takes (including if it is merged into something else, although I remain opposed to it...I imagine that if we merge this into the Wellesley page there will be a natural revert war), the term 'fuck truck' and the sexual connotations of this service needs to be a part of that final form, as this role, though admittedly not the bus's only role, is what makes this service notable. Interestingstuffadder 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sufficiently notable. I tagged it for cleanup shortly after the author created it; I would have sent it to AfD if I didn't think it had a chance of being a passable article. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vulgar and non-notable. Also appears in yearly Harvard Student Agencies publication, The Unofficial Guide to Life at Harvard. Must everything that has been published appear in Wikipedia? Ikkyu2 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Rename per Catamorphism. --Allen 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable Avi 01:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and vulgar. That said, Wellesley College does not have any information on student life. Cedars 02:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and inform submitter that it might be best directed to Urban Dictionary. Haikupoet 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Talked about in notable publications and a notable part of student life for these notable institutions. Notable info such as this- with notable references and written in a notably encyclopedic manner for a notable online encyclopedia- should never be tossed out like yesterday's no longer notable and quite notably leftover spam.-- JJay 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You won't get the "most notable Barnstar for most uses of the word 'notable' in a sentence" that way, sir. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Wellesley College. Things like the Harvard Lampoon have significance and notability beyond their own university, but it's hard to see how university buses would. Schizombie 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename and include the slang term in the article. Maybe I'm betraying my age, but when I hear the term "fuck truck" I assume that a van (or pickup truck with a cap) with a matress in back is being referred to, nothing to do with Wellesley College. Crypticfirefly 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Do Not Rename: this is notable, as evidenced by widespread media attention and the statute of these institutions. Do not rename for reasons mentioned by a poster above -- this is not notable simply because it is a bus rinning between these insitutions but because it has taken on a life as its on as the "fuck truck"...if it were simply the senate shuttle (or whatever it is called) it would most likely not be notable...it is the fuck truck that has attracted so much attention. Captaintruth 04:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not rename, largely for the same reasons as per Captaintruth; it's a good thing I waited to chime in. This article is already at the 99th percentile of journalistic quality around here, and it's still just a stub! Melchoir 06:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I have edited the article to add some information, I still think that it should be deleted and the content merged with Wellesley College. At this point, I don't think the article qualifies as original research anymore. Catamorphism 08:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Don't you fear that dropping this into the Wellesley article (which at this point is not a particuarly long or detailed article) would incite a battle there? If you think this information is notable enough to be included on the Wellesley page (and it has become far more indisputably notable and has become a nearly-excellent short article because of your fine additions), wouldn't it make more sense to let it keep its own page as a pragmatic response to what would inevitably happen to it if added to the Wellesley page?Interestingstuffadder 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: We can't predict the future. If adding this to the Wellesley page caused an edit war, that would have to be dealt with using the usual policies for dealing with an edit war. The question to be resolved is whether this topic is notable enough to deserve a separate article. If it's not notable, then "adding it somewhere else would cause an edit war" doesn't justify keeping it. Catamorphism 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: True, we cannot predict the future. However, we are to the point here where there is no clear consensus for deletion. Many of the "Keeps" are from experienced users. I am sure that even you can admit that even if this article is not notable (and I believe that it is, just to be clear), that the numerous media references combined with the stature of the institutions means that this article is at least close to the grey area between notability and non-notability. Perhaps the difference between us is that I do tend to be inclusionist when it comes to wikipedia -- if something is in (or even near) this grey area I tend to lean towards keeping it. That said, acknowledging the expressed will of many experienced users and the fact that there is at least some ambiguity as to this article's notability, what will really be lost by erring on the side of inclusion and keeping what has become, largely through your own efforts, a quite well written and well researched article? Interestingstuffadder 03:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of local slang. Try Urban Dictionary. -- GWO 15:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: But this is not merely local slang. It is slang that has been discussed in national and regional publications. It is slang that exists because of a basic issue facing single-sex college education. That is, although this term originated as local slang, its notability and ramifications have clearly (as shown by the multiple credible sources cited in this exceptionally well-cited article) transcended those origins. Interestingstuffadder 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am a current student at Harvard and the term "fuck truck" is familiar to the majority of undergraduates (if not all). If you asked us where to catch the Senate Bus, you would only get confused stares. Additionally, the "fuck truck" is widely known amongst college students in the greater Boston area excluding Harvard and MIT and may be a good resource for people who want to learn where the term originated. If the information is incorrect or bias, then people will edit it. I'm new so I don't understand this whole "No original research" thing. It seems that many other entries at Wikipedia should be deleted if we strictly followed this rule. Pbui 03:52, 14 February 2006
Comment I think we're past the no original research point already. I don't think I've seen any other Wikipedia article of this length containing this many references. Interestingstuffadder 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Pbui, "many other entries at Wikipedia should be deleted if we followed this rule" is an argument for nominating those "other entries" for deletion (or for improving them so they don't contain original research), not for keeping an article that violates policies. However, as I said above, this article is no longer original research. I still believe it's not notable. Catamorphism 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Although I agree with Catamorphism's point about Pbui's original research point, let's be sure it is clear that this is not the user's only argument. The user also provides firsthand evidence of widespread notability among most students in America's leading "college town". Interestingstuffadder 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As of yet, no one has presented any evidence that any significant percentage of people outside Massachusetts have heard of the "Fuck Truck" term. Catamorphism 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: In fact this evidence has been presented. Everyone who read the Roling Stone article -- that is, everyone who read an article in one of the highest-circulation national magazines, has heard of the "Fuck Truck". Either way, it is unclear to me why you are implying that the opionion of numerous experienced users who have voted to keep aren't enough to indicate no consensus for deletion and thus wrap up this debate just because arbitrary evidentiary standards you propose (eg unfamiliar outside of Mass, which doesn't seem like a particuarly useful line for notability since so many people are educated in Mass and fan out across out country and world) have not been met. Interestingstuffadder 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How many people read that Rolling Stone article and considered the Fuck Truck notable, and still remember it, I wonder? I can't get past "so what" about this: so a bus was nicknamed the "Fuck Truck," so what. Have any notable people begun relationships because of this bus? Any notable people conceived as a result of its runs? Sure, people educated in Mass. have gone on to live in other places, but how many would bother to mention the Fuck Truck in those other places? As buses go, it's no Furthur. One of the most notable buses, the No. 2857 bus doesn't even have its own article. Will the "Fuck Truck" be in a museum someday, like those two? I doubt it. Fuck Truck isn't even as notable as Short bus IMO. Schizombie 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia and it's important to avoid systemic bias, like assuming that something that people in a particular part of the US may have heard of is important to the rest of the world. As Schizombie said, being mentioned in a national magazine is not a sign of notability on its own (I could pull the latest issue of Rolling Stone off my shelf and make a list of 100 things mentioned in it, most of which wouldn't be notable). I'll respect whatever consensus that this deletion debate comes to after the full five days. Catamorphism 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a very localized slang term, and borderline campus-cruft. If it is kept, it should certainly be moved to the official name given for the bus and Fuck Truck should be a redirect. --DDG 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Why delete and rewrite. Why not just rewrite? If I am not mistaken, this mention of other fuck trucks seems to debunk the notion, discussed above, that the fuck truck phenonenon is limited to Welleslty/MIT/Harvard. Thus, this speaks to more widespread notability as a shared concept among American college students. Interestingstuffadder 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Note I went ahead and added this user's information to the article. Apparently the argument that this is a localized Boston term was unfounded. Interestingstuffadder 06:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, now it went from not notable to not notable and also containing unverified information. This strikes me as a slang dictionary entry that is straining at being encyclopedic. Schizombie 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm..isn't constant improvement a mark of Wikipedia? Where else do we require that an article be 100% complete in order to be kept? Are the standards for avoiding deletion that strict? We did add need citation tags to these terms ...I am sure that the collaborative character of Wikipediua will lead to these references coming out of the woodwork...I may even track them down if I get a chance. Either way, this still doesn;t look like a consensus for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's notable regardless of whether the term is used at one or five or twenty colleges, except for a slang dictionary. Lacking references for additional uses doesn't help its case for survival, and yet tracking them down doesn't strike me as particularly worthwhile. The usage seems more common in conjunction with porn sites or as someone else noted above, 1970s vans. And even including those things...I still just don't see how it's encyclopedic. Some people said add it to Urban Dictionary. Actually, it's already there http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuck+truck Schizombie 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite (move to Wiktionary?) per Choster. It has to be a fairly common term. I hadn't heard of the MIT-Wellesley fuck truck but there's one between UC Berkeley and Mills College and probably anywhere else where there's demand for such a thing. Phr 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn term [10]. PJM 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: of course a google search for these general terms will return a bunch of trash (an inevitable result of having the word "fuck" involved). Do a more specific search...even just add in the word "college" and you will start seeing difference. All of the 10 references for this article (pretty exceptional for an article of this length, I might add) were found through google. Interestingstuffadder 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[11]. I'm still not impressed; sorry. Incidentally, if this actually was a widely used term, my first Google search would've returned more examples of specific usage. PJM 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I respect your point of view . Either way, as I said above, at this point there is clearly not currently a consensus for deletion anyway. Interestingstuffadder 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As I do yours. Cheers. PJM 19:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. --DanielCD 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, protologism. Ifnord 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"'Delete'", not notable and a stereotype imposed upon the character of all Wellesley Women. Very offensive. Vote by User:149.130.224.66 CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment:offensiveness is not a valid basis for deletion

Delete or cleanup. I'm a student at MIT and am familiar with this term and its connotations and can attest to its existence and whatnot. However, I feel that the present article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if the title was changed to a less colloquial term, with "Fuck truck" included as an "also known as". The article could use some cleanup. Isopropyl 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rakuen (game)

Delete Looks to be a MMORPG of some kind, but the only info I can find is at [12], which is... fairly incomplete Aaronw 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. Mikker ... 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 64.194.44.220 21:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:03, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto

A search for his full name yields zero hits on Google. Plus, the article's writing hints at vanity. Delete. Acetic Acid 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn + vanity. Mikker ... 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but send that hilarious looking picture to BJAODN cause its funny! Batman2005 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Pandora's Box (Alberto). --Kinu 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: Pandora's Box (Alberto) has been nominated for deletion. see below. Mikker ... 06:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to fit for nn. JACooks 01:49, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of words punned off Nintendo

Listcruft. Little encyclopedic value and unlikely to even if the list is more complete. Delete CHANLORD[T]/[C] 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep seems notable and useful enough. Could be expanded. Mikker ... 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft and pointless. Batman2005 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither the place for lists of random things nor dictionary-like lists of words. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fail to see the point of this. If by some chance the article is kept, the title should be changed. "Punned" is a real word, and its usage is correct here, but the title still looks ungrammatical. 23skidoo 06:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable listcruft. --Kinu 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn cruft.Blnguyen 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a list of words, of interest to a very limited number of people and apparently created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:57, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandora's Box (Alberto)

Non-notable album of non-notable artist - artist's article is also up for deletion Mikker ... 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Batman2005 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Alberto. --Kinu 07:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as with Alberto. Acetic Acid 10:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:04, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katya dahl

Hoax/Vanity. Claims to be a 15 year old actress/published poet. Nothing on IMDb, google returns 7 unique google hits, none of which confirm article's claims. TheMidnighters 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd actually researched all of the above earlier today, but was too lazy to nominate it. If only there were an easier way to nominate articles for deletion... --Maxamegalon2000 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mikker ... 04:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully she won't grow up to be another diva. Regardless, delete.--み使い Mitsukai 16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable right now. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article does not explain why this person is notable. Gerard Foley 21:15, 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 keep. Ifnord 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalgaranga crater

Seriously non-notable. Mikker ... 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Does Britannica having a page on it have any bearing on its notability? --Kinu 05:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Nachoman-au 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although not visually spectacular, it has scientific importance and is notable in Western Australia. Nachoman-au 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nachoman-au. --Canley 08:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable per Nachoman-au. Much better to see an article on this than one on a minor Idol contestant. MLA 10:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable to me. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable geographical feature appearing in other encyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Scientific verifiable article --Martyman-(talk) 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable geographic feature. Cnwb 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is a notable geographic feature with scientific interest could you (somone) maybe expand the entry to explain it? Thatcher131 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ...maelgwntalk 11:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per comments above. --Bduke 07:52, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moku

WP:NOT a dictionary, info should be in Go (placed info on talk:go) Mikker ... 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The information should be included in the Go article, not here. --Falcorian (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary definition. The English term is point anyway. --Zundark 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. It's one line of text so it will be easy enough to replicate if someone wants to re-create and expand (not sure how - but if...). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 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 delete.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G0y

Unremarkable protologism with roughly 500 Google hits on a restrictive search[13], few of which are related. No evidence of widespread use. No vote. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN and we're not a dictionary. Mikker ... 04:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • D0l0t0. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and bet my last dollar that this is made up one day at school. --Kinu 05:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu. -- Krash (Talk) 22:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep / Merge a significant term in gay forums and IRC rooms, as stupid as it sounds. [14] --Tintin2 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and see if UrbanDictionary wants it. Haikupoet 02:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep / Merge as above. While it sounds ridiculous it is a significant term in forums/chat. Prepbot 05:18, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VectorCast

NN software, advertisement. 551 Google hits [15] --Fang Aili 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Mikker ... 04:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Forbsey 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 00:05, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart humor

patent nonsense Savidan 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete -- I tagged it as {{db-nonsense}}. bikeable (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krambox radio

Non-notable; ad; only 301 google hits [16]... Mikker ... 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't seem too notable, and reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu 05:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do the kind of people who submit these things think "cool name"="automatic WP entry"?--み使い Mitsukai 16:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.,,,,,Ariele 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- 8 subscribers through Yahoo Podcast, and very little interest on podcastalley.com. Best we've got. Cue podcast creator to come in and futilely defend his right to promote in Wikipedia. Haikupoet 02:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Packaged cake

nn, unverifable neologism Savidan 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom & WP:NOT. Mikker ... 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Virtually nothing on google. Delete in accordance to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Forbsey 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NFT, which I'd bet my package that this is. --Kinu 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:07, 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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff winterberg

non-notable bio, 107 unique ghits, member of one marginally notable band, but not notable himself. Delete Makemi 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Mikker ... 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom 3H 05:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in defense of this entry, jeff winterberg has shown photos in the u.s., japan and europe. his book is distributed in the u.s., europe, asia and australia. apart from its artistic merit, his photos have documented some of the most influential and underrepresented music of the u.s. underground. many of these bands were formative precursors to modern styles such as grunge or emo or hardcore. stories featuring him and his photos have appeared in magazines such as tokion, the fader, visionaire, alternative press and vice among others. this entry should be saved due to the cultural significance of his photo work alone. Harumph 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, notable photographer. Kappa 01:40, 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 NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoffrey Martin

non-notable bio, possible vanity Savidan 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not vanity, I know of this mathematician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.128.60 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Seems to be a published academic. That's notable enough. Mikker ... 05:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Being published is a requirement for tenure at many universities. This reasoning would indicate a necessity for articles on many professors. --C S (Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article contains little of his contribution to maths. However, it does tell us his nickname is fluffy and his favourite sports. As yet, it does not establish that he is notable enough for an article. Following representations of BLNguyen, I am changing my vote to keep. I have cleaned up this article mainly by removing extraneous fluff. I will hope that someone more knowledgeble than I about maths to flesh out the article.Capitalistroadster 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This appears to refer to Geoffrey K Martin, Associate Professor and Chair at the University of Toledo math faculty [17]. I don't think he passes the 'professor test' for notability, and some of the details look dubious. I can find no verification of "The Geoff strategy in Tetris", and the same editor has posted some unlikely stuff to Tetris: "In 1985 The Geoff was born, leading to widespread panic, and minor rioting" [18]. Tearlach 08:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; while I am reluctant to delete anyone with the nickname "Fluffy", he is otherwise non-notable. --Roisterer 09:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: The editor of this article is clearly a shady character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.128.60 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and cleanup . See his list of publications. It is very difficult to write pure mathematics papers, because you cannot do experiments/surveys, etc. You have to prove your new theorems etc, so 9 publications is notable. Blnguyen 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, having nine publications (over 20 years) is not a mark of distinction in the field, but neither is it something to be ashamed of. One should consider the worth of the publications rather than the number. --C S (Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, no vote On the one hand, if he's the chair of his department, that seems to indicate notability above his peers; on the other hand, why is he just an associate professor? Melchoir 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You're kidding right? Being chair is not a notable thing; in fact, it's a job one is often saddled with and top researchers can get out of it due to the pressing needs of their research. --C S (Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with Blnguyen, he seems to be an acomplished mathematician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.54.100 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: I have fixed up the information in this site and got rid of the outright wrong details. Not really much left is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.128.60 (talk • contribs)
  • comment 130.102.128.60 which has made three comments here is the IP number for proxy2.uq.edu.au. There appears to also be a Pure Maths undergraduate at UQ called Geoff Martin [19][20]. Geoffrey Martin appears to be Chair of the Faculty of Mathematics at UToledo. [21], but earned his Ph.D. at Stony Brook University[22]. Are we sure this article is about one person!? --Scott Davis Talk 12:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've not seen a convincing reason for notability and there is nothing in the article to indicate his mathematical accomplishments. --C S (Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everground

vanity page for nn gaming group Savidan 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. Mikker ... 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Makemi 05:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Forbsey 06:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. *drew 08:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep May not be a vanity page. Found their website Everground. Suggest merging with an article on gamers and expand to include others such as a co-ed team.,,,,,Ariele 01:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, {{nn-club}}, tagged. Stifle 11:58, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Times Square Church

This page is clearly an advertisement for the Times Square Church. The use of a first-person perspective, an unstructured format, business hours, and mailing address are clear indications that this article serves no purpose other than to advertise. The introduction to the article is a direct copy-and-paste from this section on the Time Square Church’s website. The Statement of Faith section is a direct copy-and-paste from this section. I tagged the article requesting a complete rewrite. However, the page has been up for about 1½ years, and there have only been 20 edits, which were all direct copy-and-pastes from the church's main webpage. Since a rewrite request failed, and since nobody is jumping on this article to improve it, my vote is nothing less than Delete. (Notorious4life 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

  • Delete: Blatant advertising Forbsey 06:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If there was anything notable about the church, attendees or activities that occurred there, maybe rewrite, but that offer has apparently already been made, Thatcher131 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ads.Blnguyen 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Re-write or incorporate into a new article titled "Tent-Revivals in America" or something similar to it.,,,,,Ariele 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This church actually bought a Broadway theatre to hold its services in (the Mark Hellinger Theatre). 8,000 attendees a week, in a venue with an unusual history, in a prominent location, seems to add up to notability. While most individual churches are non-notable, this one looks like it is notable. --Metropolitan90 10:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. If the church is as notable as you claim, how come there is no information present in the current article to illustrate its notability? (Notorious4life 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep I cut out the advertising/copyvio, its now a reasonable stub -- Astrokey44|talk 15:57, 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 modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gundam Gates

Non-notable ... gaming type thing. Of some sort. Yes. It has to do with games, and it's non-notable, and that's all I could figure out.

Adrian Lamo ·· 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Avi 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fanfic/online roleplay. If the link is *.ezboard.com/*, it's nn. (Plus, the link is to an ezboard that doesn't even work any more.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:VSCA. Stifle 16:52, 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 speedy delete --Durin 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oudentheism

Non-notable neologism (and what is wrong with atheist?) Avi 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Just because I added a source, does not mean I have changed my vote. Feynman was an atheist; Oudentheism is a non-notable neologism that should be deleted, or at best transwikied to wiktionary.-- Avi 06:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I should change my vote to Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to create neologisms to give the veneer of authority; once this word becomes accepted, and thus notable, outside of wikipedia, then it may deserve a place here. -- Avi 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Definitely needs sources for all listed persons, if not provided then Delete as unverifiable and possible hoax, else keep. TheRingess 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to Strong Delete. TheRingess 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Word made up on Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Avi,
I understand what you're saying, both about non-notability and wikipedia purpose. Please be assured that the contribution was not intended as a hoax or any claim of authority, but your succint comment reminded me that wikipedia aims at authority and is not the right place to suggest a new term.
By way of explanation, it just seemed to me that oudentheism, 'no gods', describes something different from atheism 'without gods'. As I understand it the privative a- prefix in Greek means 'without', so atheism refers to those who are 'godless','without gods' or who 'have no gods' whereas oudentheism refers to the explicit premise or proposition that there are zero gods.
In any case, good on you for adding the citations. Feel free to delete. Cheers.
I added both sources (and the Feynman quote) to Wikiquote for future reference. Thanks for being bold.-- Avi 02:06, 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 complicated.. Counting, I see 25 "votes" for deletion, 12 for keep, and 5 for merge to Islamophobia. However, four of the keep votes come from anonymous voters, one from a user with two edits, and one unsigned vote, which is discounted. Using some judgement here, I think that this is strong enough to delete. Bratschetalk 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobiaphobia

Note the extra -phobia. This article was created explicitly (it seems to me) to make a point about Islamophobia. Justification on the Talk page reads, "It's true that this page was created in part to be a knock on the Islamophobia article, that's a fair point. However, at the same time, this article is basically as legitimate as the Islamophobia article itself is... why exactly should it be deleted while the original specious article remains?" I refer us all to WP:POINT. Please, please, delete. bikeable (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete TheRingess 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism, at the least. --Kinu 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep See the other keep vote regarding WP:POINT, and whilst it may be fairly unusual as a neologism, the concept is common. Note how often (check Google News, et cetera) people have evinced apparent fear of being called Islamophobes. 66.171.247.236 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the love of Eris, Wikipedia is not for words you made up on the spot. This protologism has no currency whatsoever, and I'm unconvinced that we even need an article on the concept it describes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People fearing overreaction regarding recent events is a real problem - PseudonympH
  • Delete. Word made up on the spot; violates WP:NOR. Weregerbil 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per A Man In Black. What's next? Islamophobiaphobiaphobia? The fear of those who fear fearing Islam? Mikker ... 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. While references are given, they are about Islamophobia, and do not seem to verify the term Islamophobiaphobia. Thus it seems like this article is original research. Wikipedia is not the place to define and attempt to popularize new words. --W.marsh 06:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A quite useful conceptual model presented in a manner that is both lucid and witty. While the term itself may be uncommon it evokes the increasingly common position many educated people find themselves in of trying to balance sincere attempts to address orientalist critiques of the western perception of the other and a respect for the values of pluralism with a dedication to the tenets of some of the more attractive facets of liberal humanism, many of which seem to be under direct assualt by, at the very least, a loud and vocal minority in the Ummah. Frankly if this is erased it is extremely likely that at some point in the future a far more offensive entry that covers similar ground with less skill will appear.152.163.100.132 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If this is a neologism (which the author states it is), what makes it one any moreso than any word with "phobia" tacked onto the end (including islamophobia). If it is not, it is just as self indulgent. To legislate entries such as this is to legislate common sense, which I beleive the author has in abundance, as well as a sense of humor.65.96.64.93 07:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to give the page creator some credit regardless of the actual validity of the article. I'm still laughing at the word. --Kizor 07:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep yes, its a neologism, but thats the same as all emerging concepts. if being labeled an islamophobic will hinder someones ability to freely discuss an argument(and suffer an attack ad hominem), then this term correctly applies. please look at the multiple other places/articles where this term is mentioned on the internet before you ignorantly say that it does not belong here.Tesseracter 07:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Excluding Wikimirrors, I found two mentions via Google, one of which was on Usenet. If anyone can cite others, please don't hesitate to do so. --Kinu 07:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Try searching for "Islamophobia-phobia", which a simple google search for "Islamphobiaphobia" misses. That search gives 95 mentions, which while not a huge number, is further evidence of this not being original research, but rather a real concept. Bibigon 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: google for spoon-phobia, floor-phobia, joke-phobia, <any-common-noun>-phobia. Appears to have little value as evidence. Weregerbil 10:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please see the talk page of the article and the proposed stylistic changes which would remove the WP:POINT violation. Additionally, this does not violate WP:NOR, as the links given in the article do reference Islamophobiaphobia, as does this article at the Rationalist Association and this one at the New Criterion deals with the concept as well. Bibigon 07:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a legitimate concept and well-deserving of a Wikipedia article. I will agree though that the current article is a bit rough and seems to be aimed at parodying the Islamophobia article. Keep the page, improve the article. 69.162.14.111 07:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lunis Neko 10:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. At first glance it seems contrived and perhaps silly, but the concept exists. I would like the ones calling for deletion to explain how one 'phobia' is valid (Islamophobia) but this 'phobia' is not. Logophile 10:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • We already have, I thought. Islamophobia has been written about extensively by good sources [23], see WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Islamophobiaphobia has been used on a handful of forums, which are specifically defined as unacceptable sources. --W.marsh 15:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Precisely the same contrived and silly logic would allow for creation of Islamophobiaphobiaphobia, Islamophobiaphobiaphobiaphobia, and so on as far as you want to go. Why not Arachnophobiaphobia, or Homophobiaphobiaphobia? Neologisms are fun! bikeable (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No it wouldn't, because unlike those, Islamophobiaphobia is a real and somewhat common idea, while the others exist only in the realm of humor. Please argue on the merits of Islamophobiaphobia itself please, not on the basis of a slippery slope fallacy. Did Islamophobiaphobia exist as a term before this article? Yes it did. Was it a serious idea? Absolutely. What real basis is there to delete this article other than the fact that it appears to bother you? On the merits of the concept itself, you have failed to give anything substantive. Bibigon 16:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • In fact, "homophobiaphobiaphobia" gets many times more hits than "Islamophobiaphobia", but we certainly don't need an article on it: it's a neologism that has not come into widespread use, and not every state of mind a person can have requires a made-up name and an encyclopedia article. If you really think the concept of Islamophobiaphobia deserves a mention, and if this is not all just a WP:POINT stunt, add a paragraph to Islamophobia mentioning the new usage. No one learns anything from an article which is large find-and-replace edited from the original. bikeable (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It could be merged with Islamophobia, perhaps. But I don't see a slippery slope here. There is a phobophobia AKA phobiaphobia, although wikipedia doesn't have an entry for it (fear of phobias would seem to be an inconsequential hypocondria), but not phobophobophobia. Additionally, one finds some more hits on Google when searching not on "Islamophobophobia" or "Islamophobiaphobia" or "Islamophobia-phobia", but on "fear of Islamophobia," which amounts to the same thing. Actually, results from that search indicate there could be two kinds: people afraid of being called Islamophobes, but also people afraid of being victims of Islamophobia, although this is not addressed in the WP entry (similarly, one finds a homophobiaphobia). The latter (fear of being victims of Islamophobia) seems fairly notable in that a Guardian poll indicated 2/3 of Muslims in Britain were considering leaving because of their fear of islamophobia. There's also a Times article by Mick Hume that states "fear of Islamophobia today is considerably stronger than the phenomenon itself." Schizombie 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism and Point. 209.11.40.139 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the preceding was me, I got kicked off somehow. Makemi 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not a great fan of the 'Google test', but in this case [24], the failure is so spectacular. --Doc ask? 22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, try searching for other spellings, like "Islamophobia-phobia" and you get a different story. Bibigon 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Admitted neologism coined in 2004. While this article attempts to provide verification, it has not achieved widespread usage. Capitalistroadster 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems a reasonable use and a reasonable article in light of current events. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. not a dictionary, not for things made up in school one day.. Also, article was originated explicitly as a POV fork, which is absolutely prohibited. If there's any useful content in the current version, merge to Islamophobia. Ikkyu2 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The article did not originate as a POV fork. I'm not sure where you're getting that accusation from? Can you please elaborate? Bibigon 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
See the nomination and the article itself. The article, the word that titles it, and its referent cannot exist except in the context of Islamophobia; therefore they should be discussed in the main article, Islamophobia. Islamophobia is not large enough to require a size fork, and separating out a chunk of text to write about a particular point of view or reaction to Islamophobia is the precise definition of a POV fork. Ikkyu2 08:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per lots of reasons above --Aim Here 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Most of the content looks like someone's essay, consiting from trivias and speculations. Pavel Vozenilek 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a reason to perhaps rewrite it, which I've offered to do, rather than to delete it entirely. The reason the content looks like that is because it was admittedly, done partly as a parody of the Islamophobia page, in addition to conveying a real idea. I have offered to remedy the stylistic issues if the article will be kept. Bibigon 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Blnguyen 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Reactions to Islamophobia or Islamophobia. The concept certainly exists, but this neologistic name has never been verifiably used to describe it. Ziggurat 00:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologicpolemicspamvanitycruft. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Is Islamophobiaphobiaphobia coming next? Wicked bad precedent. I noticed most of the keep votes here are red link users/anons. Maybe I'm being sockpuppetophobic... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as non-notable neologism. Cedars 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The purpose of this VfD should be to judge the notability of the neologism and not its offensiveness, etc. I am unsure personally, but I think that the focus of this debate should be the mainstreamness of the references, not your personal opinion on the term. No vote. Keep, see below. Savidan 02:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the purpose to judge the notability of the neologism, or the whole article? The article could be renamed Fear of Islamophobia or something similar (Reactions to Islamophobia was mentioned above), the phenomenon is of some note for the reasons I noted above even if the word isn't. However, it's something that could be merged into the Islamophobia article. Schizombie 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to islamophobia. The article is too well-researched to delete. But the fact that all but one of the references of this article concern islamophobia but not "islamophobiaphobia" is telltale of the article's content. It's a POV-fork; send it back. Melchoir 06:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Many of those references portray not only accusations of islamophobia but the reactions, often apologetic and cautiously conciliatory, to said claims despite their hostile and sometimes inherently threatening delivery. This is arguably islamophobiaphobia, thus justifying their inclusion here. 66.171.247.236 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with most of that, but neither the term "Islamophobiaphobia" nor the abstract concept of Islamophobiaphobia is identified in enough secondary sources. This material belongs in a section under Islamophobia. Melchoir 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Vsion (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 16:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Ziggurat. If your only problem with the article is the name, move it to something which isn't original research. The concept does exist. Pepsidrinka 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge; while no one is arguing that the phenomenon exists, the name is ridiculous, and the concept can be covered in the main Islamophobia article. --DDG 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultra super keep Finally a concept that articulates the racism and bigotry which is levelled at people exercising freedom of speech.--CltFn 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with islamophobia, since the concept is at least as legitimate and far more relevent. You could also delete both articles, since islamophobia isn't a serious concept, just a part of popular imagination, and therefore not worth fearing in the first place.
  • Delete as neologism. No prejudice here, it's just not yet a word. I see a lot of red herrings about free speech. The old expression, "Freedom of the press exists only to those who own one," applies here. You want total control over your written word? Go get a website hosted, or write a blog. This is an encyclopedia and it has rules. Ifnord 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Being a neologism isn't grounds for deletion by itself. As evidence of this, I would cite the article on Islamophobia for instance, or the many other articles on neologisms. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but none of those rules are that neologisms are all to be deleted. Bibigon 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Islamophobiaphobia is a neologism..." - that says everything I need to know. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
As referenced above, this by itself is not grounds for deletion, which is something else you might need to know. Bibigon 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adding references to back up an argument doesn't make it not original research. CDC (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
References are exactly what differentiate original research from legitimate articles. Bibigon 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Original research is often some author's "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments" (quoting "What is original research at WP:OR). Consider this - academic researchers make their living doing original research, and good original academic research is heavily referenced. But that's not what we do. CDC (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedia material. Leaning towards WP:Point, if anything.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Islamophobia. It has relevant points and material, but is a neologism and violates WP:POINT. JoshuaZ 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Adding references to back up an argument doesn't make it not original research": that's what caused me to change my vote from abstain to Keep. I hate neologisms just as much as the next wikipedian. Ask anyone who's seen me around AfD. In fact, I probably hate them the most of any Wikipedian, but this is a notable neologism, which has gotten serious play in mainstream news and political venues (no pun intended). Merge just doesn't seem to do it justice. It is a derivitive neologsim, in a sense. But we would never consider merging Globalization and Anti-globalization. The POV problems, as extensively noted above, justify only a cleanup, not a delete. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see my further comment above. This is original research, even though it has references. The interpretation of those references to make a novel is what is original here. You'll notice that none of these lovely "references" actually use this ridiculous neologism. CDC (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should note, too, in answer to some of the ridiculous suggestions for aritcles above that we would create articles for those terms if and only if they were in common use. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Obvious

Delete nn pub band. No albums. No evidence of any tours. Nothing links to this article. Bruce1ee 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. Mikker ... 06:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Forbsey 06:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, WP:MUSIC fails. --Kinu 07:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. *drew 08:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band. --Terence Ong 08:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 00:31, 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 keep. Ifnord 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love-shyness

Possible promotion/vanity of private theory (but not WP:OR). This reads like something out of DSM IV, but there's nothing even close in DSM, and, oddly enough, most of the non-Wikipedia-mirror links seem to tie this term to the listed author in all of the "references", one Brian G. Gilmartin. Then I go to his(?) website, love-shy.com, which prominently links this Wikipedia article, and fails to offer any evidence that anyone but him has ever written anything about this condition.

Is there any evidence that this isn't some (non-notable) psychologist's pet theory? Is the fact that it is published (the books aren't vanity press as far as I can tell) enough to make this notable even if it is?

As for me, I say no to both questions, and think this article should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep AFAIK love-shy.com is not Gilmartin's website (whois.net has the registrant as a Mr. Rugman of the UK), and the WP article is not an issue of self-promotion/vanity. There's been a growing interest in it in recent years based on readers finding themselves well-described by the theory, probably by their having discovered it through Justin Urban's website, which dates back to 2001 at least http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/polepino/toc.html and then the subsequent Yahoo! Group and other webpages. Article does need improvement though, maybe a lot of improvement. Schizombie 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup as the language is demotic and does not adopt the tone that is expected of WP articles.  (aeropagitica)  06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I also agree that it needs to be cleaned up. seinman 14:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up per Aeropagitica.--み使い Mitsukai 16:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly revert it to the state it was at before someone totally redid the page and made it look like the weird list-esque crap it's at now (why? I have no idea.) Melodia Chaconne 21:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Arundhati bakshi 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the list was added gradually, likely with what come to anyone's mind. Pavel Vozenilek 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aeropagitica. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but de-listify. Stifle 16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No modifications needed.
  • Keep and clean up Edward Nygma 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, convert the big list into a number of sections and build the ties to more established theories. The associated mailing lists are proof that there is strong interest in the theory matturn 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is defintely great interest in this subject. A number of men seem to find that the theory describes their own situation very closely. As such it is an very important issue, at least it is to those men who find it relevant to their own personal situations. User:landofowen 15 February 2006
  • KeepThere is nothing wrong with the article.
  • Keep, but add the reasons that caused the remove proposal, as criticism about the article.
The article already states "Love-shyness is not recognized as a mental disorder by the World Health Organisation or American Psychiatric Association," but I think you're right that it should be noted that Gilmartin appears to be the only one who has published anything about it (apart from a book review by Elizabeth Rice Allgeier in the Journal of Sex Research), and that that should be mentioned somewhere closer to the top. Other people have written about it online - websites, groups, but not by way of additional studies AFAIK.Schizombie 14:20, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackwater, Alabama

As far as I can tell this either a wilderness or under construction, and does not yet exist as a documented town or community. (see comments by contributor)

  • Delete as unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gazpacho 07:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable housing estate. --OscarTheCattalk 07:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Oscarthecat. --Terence Ong 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Oscarethecat. Thatcher131 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowbike

Blatant advertising. However, googling for "rowbike" gets 10,000 hits. Is this a big thing in the USA or somewhere? Maybe cleanup instead of delete? Weregerbil 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I have removed the wording related to rowing in general and also removed the advertising. --OscarTheCattalk 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain Without the advertising, its just one sentence and a picture. It's certainly not encyclopedic, and is it notable? Thatcher131 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rowbikes are a specific and well-identified form of cycle, rare but made by numerous people (commercially and as a hobby). Article as written was a bit spammy, but I can fix that and it can be added to WikiProcect Cycling along with recumbent bicycle. Normally I would be happy to delete crap content on the grounds that a better article would be along soon, but in this case I will help fix it so vote keep. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:24, 13 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 redirect. W.marsh 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charl Fourie

Inventor of a carjacking deterrent Blaster (flamethrower). Invention itself has an article, but does wikipedia need a article on the inventor himself? Suggest merging with invention page OscarTheCattalk 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless the article can be expanded, delete it. Anyone know if he's working on any other inventions, or was this just a one-shot deal?--み使い Mitsukai 17:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable device, non-notable person. Having his name in the Blaster article seems good enough for now. delete Thatcher131 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. --TheMidnighters 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Better yet, Redirect per Pavel. --TheMidnighters 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (nothing to be merged). Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 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 keep/merge. W.marsh 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StopIE

non-notable website, Alexa rating ~113,000, contributes nothing of lasting value to Wikipedia. Delete Warrens 07:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep interesting part of the browser war phenomenon. Johntex\talk 07:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Criticisms of Internet Explorer. While I agree that it's an interesting (and thus noteworthy) part of the browser wars, I don't think the article's strong enough to survive on its own.--み使い Mitsukai 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect per Mitsukai. Thatcher131 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mitsukai. Ikkyu2 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mitsukai, merge with IE Criticisms article. JACooks 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect per Mitsukai. Stifle 16:56, 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 wasspeedy delete by User:Chairboy as non-notable. -SCEhardT 22:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benyamin Adinugroho

Delete. A non-notable creator of a local online social network service. Google search yields 203 results and his website's traffic rank is only within the range of five millionth [25]. --*drew 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No claim to notability. -- Krash (Talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 16:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:48, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susie Derkins (character)

I put a prod tag on this page, but it was removed, so I'm listing it here. As I said then, it's a "main article" branched off of Calvin and Hobbes which serves no useful purpose. Rather than being an encyclopaedia article, this page throws together a bunch of storylines from different strips. Massive copy-editing would be necessary to make the prose navigable. If we have to say more about Susie Derkins than the Calvin and Hobbes FA already says, this article isn't convincing me about it. Comic cruft about a great comic is still cruft. Anville 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment We already have Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes to handle this. Anville 08:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it already exists, no reason to mess with it just now. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Oscarthecat. The secondary characters article seems to focus on very minor characters and Clavin's alter egos. Thatcher131 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excessively long parent articles should be branched. Ikkyu2 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable character. --Billpg 11:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable and overall its a nicely done article. Tawker 22:28, 18 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 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karolus Danar Kurniawan

Reached 12th position in a local Idol show. A search on Google yields 9 results. --*drew 08:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, if we're not keeping the first round losers from American Idol (William Hung being the notable exception), why would we keep someone who's as equally nn and has even less Google hits? Speedy delete.--み使い Mitsukai 17:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-bio}}. -- Krash (Talk) 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Indonesia is "local" while the USA is "national"?. Possible merge. Kappa 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Indonesian Idol anyone ranked lower than 10th place. Yamaguchi先生 01:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killuminati

This page and concept a complete fabrication.. no mention anywhere of Killuminati other than a play on words in a rap song. This conspiracy theory isn't even that... manufactured by one guy, I am sure. Dyslexic agnostic 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From talk page

Here are the entries which led to the deletion request, from the Killuminati talk page:

Tupac did serve time in jail for that rape accusations, so it is unlikeable the he faked his death to cover that. - unsiged by User:207.232.8.50 on 10 Feb 2006.
We're going to need sources for 'It has been speculated...' Who has speculated? Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the page to clear up a few of the mistakes I've seen.
As far as sources go, I would imagine it would be rather difficult to source some of this information, as quite alot of the information I've gathered on the subject (as with alot of these uncertain urban myth-esque subjects) has been unsure, passed through word of mouth etc. In my difficulty trying to pin down a specific source I think I may have unintentionally weasle worded the article. Lynchavelli, 10:40, 12 February 2006 (GMT)
This page is complete and utter hogwash. It needed a delete days ago. A made-up word from a rap song does not make this story true or believable. Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh so you decide what is and isnt acceptable? What about the Illuminati, they clearly dont "exist" so why dont we delete that page too? You think 2pac renaming himself to makaveli and releasing an album named "the don killuminati" dosnt tell us such a plan or group exists? your in denial. I URGE you to leave this page alone, there is plenty of opinions on this matter avaliable on the internet, if we can bring it all to one place then you'll see its not all hogwash. - unsigned by User:222.154.8.58
delete... the above just proves my point... - Dyslexic agnostic 08:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The above included here for easy reference. - Dyslexic agnostic 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete, and redirect to Makaveli: The Don Killuminati: 7 Day Theory. Everything that needs to said on the subject is there, and that is the most obvious destination for anyone typing in the search word "killuminati". Dyslexic agnostic 09:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as per Dyslexic agnostic. Little evidence that such a conspiracy theory exists. --Spondoolicks 09:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Isotope23. -- Krash (Talk) 22:39, 13 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 and merge to Walsall. Bratschetalk 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Hippo

This article started out as a stub about a statue in Walsall, but has been turned into rambling lunacy. It may be appropriate to revert it back to the stub, but since there's only a single reference even for the original information, which itself was just a passing reference, I felt we should review the subject itself to see if any of this is salvageable. Jeff Q (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete without prejudice. There's so much garbage here that it'd take a while to dig through, and to revert it all the way to the beginning, which was a passing reference indicates this article isn't strong enough to survive on its own. However, if it truly is notable, someone will recreate it and give valid facts and information afterwards.--み使い Mitsukai 17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see some evidence that all this didn't really happen. Please, think of the Hippo, they're onto him, they're gonna pull his repeat prescription and he's turned to sniffing glue, he's got 5 baby Hippo's to feed, this wiki article is all he has left. I'll concede that there is a slight element of fabrication involved in our little biography, but the bit about Joe DiMaggio is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpTheBracket (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup, has potential, and if true and verified, is encyclopedic. Ardenn 21:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Article is a documentation of a series of evenets that there is proff has happend, it is referenced and has truth, not simply about a concrete Hippo but also a article on urban myth that needs to be kept/moved to a different category. KEEP IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.145.3 (talk • contribs)
  • I Find no evidence that the that the events didnt happen, has been sourced, keep, move to other catogry no deletion I myself have heard some of these rumors in passing, at nowhere is it stated that everything is true and is always described/insinuated as rumors, i didnt know documenting of POSSIBLE events wasnt allowed in wikipedia even when described as so. keep article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavs luv land (talk • contribs)
    • Example of above "editor"'s useful contribution to the article: [26]
  • comment have done a quick tidy up on the article. Still not great but better than it was I think. No Vote Jcuk 22:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge some small description of the statue with Walsall if people are so keen on it, and delete this article. -- Mithent 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as Mithent. -- SGBailey 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as Mithent. Please also sign on to Wikiquote and vote to delete the dumb-ass "quotations" attributed to this lump of concrete. Camillus (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the verifiable information (basically the original stub, plus any sourced and verified additional tidbits) with Walsall as Mithent suggests. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly isnt true? If referenced should be left alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavs luv land (talk • contribs)
    • References provide Wikipedians a means to verify information. Inventing fictious references fools nobody. I've reverted these attempts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:45, 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. W.marsh 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Curse of the Shaq

Delete -- Appears to be just made up with no real following or significant number of proponents Mwelch 10:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete OR, very minor conspiracy theory. Originator of Delete discussion should sign themselves in. MLA 10:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, according to Google, there's about 280 hits for it, though I'm not sure they all handle the curse, per se. There are some mentions of it "affecting Wall Street" and it's mentioned in some periodicals. In any case, it is likely minor (we're going to have to wait about 85 years to see if it's got any staying power like Boston's), and so I recommend Merge into Los Angeles Lakers#Miscellaneous information.--み使い Mitsukai 18:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just for clarification, the Wikipedia article in question is about a supposed curse against the Lakers team for trading O'Neal. Most of the Google references mentioned above are about a supposed curse against stocks (that the market goes down) in years in which O'Neals team wins the NBA championship. The two 'curses' are entirely separate and unrelated. Mwelch 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but if necessary merge with Shaquille O'Neal. From my research, it comes from Shaq himself (see the notes section at the bottom). Personally, I don't think it is that notable as Shaq says a number of catch phrases like this which aren't a that big of a deal. To me, "curse" implies a long term issue. As the Lakers haven't even completed two seasons since Shaq's deperature, it is a little premature to say that there is some sort of curse IMO. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:17, 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 Speedy delete by Essjay as attack page/a6 Adrian Lamo ·· 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew carr

Non notable, no facts can be cited Tawker 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete Non notable, a Google search cannot turn out any information related to this article. Tawker 08:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. —bbatsell ¿? 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong 09:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete blatant attack page, and tagged as such. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:20, 13 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 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Francolini

Francolini is a gun engraver. The article has been proposed for deletion (i.e. {{prod}}ed) as "completely autobiographical, non encyclopedic". That it is autobiography is clear. However, there are a couple of claims of notability in the article, which may make it worthwhile for anyone interested in guns and gun collecting. A couple of Francolini's guns have been featured on the cover of magazines. Another one has been made for the Royal Armoury in London. He gets more than 3,000 Google hits, which seems quite a lot for someone in this probably rather specialized field. The question: is Francolini a notable person in his field? Is someone interested in cleaning up the article? u p p l a n d 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Added a few words for clarification. u p p l a n d 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, Cleanup - Article is terribly autobio right now, but Francolini is notable in the firearms engraving world, yes. I will try to clean up a bit in my spare time. Georgewilliamherbert 22:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Certainly not "per nom", if my nomination is intended. It asks for input and does not contain a motion to delete the article. This is primarily meant to be a discussion. u p p l a n d 06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If GWH above hadn't offered to clean up the article, I'd say delete it and let the next editor approach the topic with a blank slate. However, I think this person meets notability criteria as a world-famous artist/artisan/craftsman. Ikkyu2 01:08, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Labor Party (Saint Vincent)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under A3, but doesn't qualify, since the article is a (sub)stub but not empty. I'm nominating this for AfD instead. No vote, but I'm inclined to send this to cleanup for expansion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - requires expansion rather than deletion. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per OpenToppedBus. --Terence Ong 15:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be a real political party Jcuk 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep seems to be a legit party, but I can't find any information about it other than this page on Wiki mirrors and a brief mention in CIA World Factbook and its mirrors. Still no good reason to delete, though. Ergot 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not rapidly expanded with relevant information; Keep otherwise. The article has had this one-line entry providing no context assumedly since its inception, and it's unacceptable for a political party of any kind to have an entry this short. Kiko 04:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
My own opinion is that it's better to have an entry this short than to have no entry at all. However, I agree that it's not good - hence this bounty. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:35, 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 KEEP (Nomination Withdrawn). Mike Beckham 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 to 1: One Hit Wonders

Original research, opinion-based. Note: at the time of nomination, article consisted of a list of artists, without reference to a TV series etc. Given how the article now looks, I would suggest a keep --OscarTheCattalk 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep again you idiot deletionists have no idea: [27]. Next time do your research before you delete an important article. Rogerthat Talk 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment might I suggest that referring to people as "Idiot deletionists" is possibly not the best way to get them on board. It seems the article is an episode from an Australian quiz show....I have no idea about this one, abstain. Jcuk 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps they should do some research before they speedily delete things like this. BTW, this should be categorised under incomplete lists. Rogerthat Talk 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since other 20 to 1 episodes have (stubby) articles. Coming from a (self-proclaimed) stupid goddamn idiot deletionist. So there. -- Krash (Talk) 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. I can't see how something like posting the top twenty list from every episode of a top 20 TV show can possibly reach the notability standard. I presume the show has its own web site where it could do this. Listing the show, I sort of get, but just posting the lists from each episode? However I am new here and I am curious what others think. (Don't appreciate being called an idiot, though, nosiree. Thatcher131 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This show was on last night. However, it only lists 3 of the allegedly top 20 that were shown. Capitalistroadster 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"
  • Merge into a new article which compiles the episodes by series. Other episodes have articles, and they're usually incomplete and messy. Cnwb 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (from an Australian if it matters). Though certainly not original research, this is an incomplete article about a non-notable episode in a series that isn't that notable itself. Cedars 02:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen so many articles on crap American shows, why shouldn't there be articles on crap Australian shows? Considering there is also the 20 to 1 article. Rogerthat Talk 02:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep WTF Is wrong with people on wikipedia deleting things? Why dosent this warrant an article? Is it hurting anyone? no is there much info? yes so it should stay and persons outside of Australia shouldent comment as they have no clue. - Mike Beckham 03:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, as with Roger, using profanity (even abbreviated) is not going to make you any allies. My point of view (and I abstained above and continue to abstain) is that even if the show 20 to 1 is notable that does not make individual episodes notable, especially when they consist solely of top 20 lists. For example, the VH1 show Best Week Ever gets an entry, but not separate articles for each episode. I would also like to point out that posting the weekly top 20 list verbatim may be a copyright violation. Thatcher131 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Dont black mail please, there is no copyright infrindgement that is plain trying to scare people into agreeing with you. Rogerhat has nothing to do with my opinion and its just conincidence that he has a similar opinion. - Mike Beckham 05:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you had anything to do with Roger but both of you were rather rude. Regarding copyright, I'm not trying to blackmail anyone. Copyright protects original creative output; Fair Use has to be a small proportion of the whole. Well, a top 20 list is just that. The question for an expert would be is the list itself protected or is the list a small enough part of the whole show to post here. As a test I signed up to have Dave Letterman's top 10 list e-mailed to me, and it carried a copyright notice. I'm sure someone more expert than I will post a definitive answer. Thatcher131 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
is it hurting anyone? - no. But by that rationale I ought to pop on my grandfather's favourite mouth-organ recitals. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --OscarTheCattalk 07:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why did noone say anything when these pages were being created for last year's (2005) series of 20 to 1? TheRealAntonius 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Good question just some person browsing through knowing nothing about the subject and cause they dont it should be deleted :( - Mike Beckham 09:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the problem here is the fact that the article should be merged, why don't you people do something and lead by example and MERGE THE ARTICLE? All the effort put into deleting a noteworthy article could be spent simply by merging the article in whatever problem areas you see. First of all, read the 20 to 1 article and learn about the television series. If you don't know about something, don't propose for it to be deleted, let knowledgable people sort it out. Rogerthat Talk 12:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I Agree - Mike Beckham 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete/make category. Now, to Mike Beckham, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Stifle 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all please dont point me to articles thats rude in itself and obviously you would vote that way as you have a "This user is a Wikipedia deletionist." as I am an inclusionist I would vote my way not only that this is a article that deserves to stay, now you are not even near Australia and I am guessing wouldent have a clue about the show or anything else on the subject so you just vote delete as you are a deletist apparently. And this isnt a personal attack its just stating some facts and a opinion of mine. - Mike Beckham 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Actually, it is a personal attack - it is arguing with me on the grounds of who I am, rather than what I am saying. There's a fancy Latin phrase for it, I think it's "ad hominem". And yes, I am a deletionist. Deal. Stifle 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Deletionism should not equate to "Never heard of this before, delete it". Please consider that there may be notable topics which you are unfamiliar with, and notability is a property of geography. Something notable to a Finn might not seem notable to a Russian, and vice cersa. - Synapse 04:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. Stifle 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Stifle 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV, Verifiable. Snottygobble 23:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. OK, the article's been cleaned up and now this deletion notice should be gone. Next time, just but {{cleanup}} instead of delete...especially when you have NO IDEA of what the subject is. Rogerthat Talk 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I have now done a full clean up and expanded the article. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess its a keeper then. Deal ;) - Mike Beckham 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I just used this for information regarding the show. This shows the 20th biggest moments etc in Australian History, this is important. I too agree that people from outside Australia should not comment, they have no justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.67.193 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I hope you all understand my previous anger at all you deletionists' disgraceful nomination of this article for deletion. Hopefully you've all learned a lesson from this and next time do your research or get the opinion of someone in the know before you delete something so hastily. Very disappointed at how this was handled. Now let us know when you actually contribute to an article. Rogerthat Talk 09:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With the greatest respect, Roger, I stand by my original nomination. Articles containing merely a list of 4 artists (as this was originally) are likely to reviewed and nominated by the RC Patrol. If author wants to slowly evolve the article, perhaps creation within their user pages is more suitable, or at least add a tag to the article showing it as work in progress. Best wishes. --OscarTheCattalk 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone close this page then and archive it? Mike Beckham 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind I did Mike Beckham 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. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchal_Steinberg

Vanity Jkf 16:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable person.Obina 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jkf 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's vanity, all right. Delete. Bearcat 20:31, 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 OBVIOUS SPEEDY KEEP. Duh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Princeton Review

delete, self promoting site that is irrevelant especially when it comes to alexa's rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabebritney (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy keep. Obviously, the AfD was vandalism. (Definitely a notable corp.) --Karnesky
  • Speedy Keep, no issues presented. Monicasdude 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. Ardenn 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • /<eep. --Myles Long 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep this is a publicly-traded corporation (NASDAQ: REVU), with some $100 million in annual sales. 68.78.123.171 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Carlossuarez46 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. For reasons above. Nominator's first and so far only 5 edits consisted of a revert to ambition and this AfD; that's a little fishy. Ikkyu2 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And the "revert" to ambition was itself reverted as inappropriate. Fishy is as fishy does. Ikkyu2 00:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is about a company, not a website - the relevant standard is WP:CORP, not the Alexa test. Reviewing the article, it seems a little promotional in spots but that's resolved through editing, not deletion. The nomination does appear to be more than a bit suspicious. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. The AfD has to be either vandalism or a bad joke. --Kinu 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. It seems as if Wannabebritney didn't get into the college of her choice. -- Wikipedical 02:33, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitalize

nn ComputerJoe 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn. Advertising. --Sleepyhead 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, advertising. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ads. Blnguyen 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert for software, nothing more. However, I would encourage Computerjoe to give better nominations for deletion. "nn", being "non-notable", can be seen to mean "I want this deleted but can't think of a good reason". Stifle 23:09, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accountfirst

Not notable. 2000 google hits Advertising. Sleepyhead 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert for random software. Stifle 23:09, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy C. Schwendiman

Books appear to be a vanity press publication (Lulu press). Delete per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Moved from Prod since deletion was contested. Hansnesse 17:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I'm heading over to 1982 and May 29 (May 29 being my birthday, and how I found out about him) to remove his entries there. (And if he really holds several positions in the Utah Republican party, shouldn't Google find a trace of at least one?) Tskoge 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The page has been updated with some more specific claims: "He also served on both John Swallow and Utah Governor, John Huntsman's campaigns (Executive Election Committee for John Swallow's bid.)", but I'm unable to find anything about this with Google. Tskoge 19:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What I forgot to mention is that while he has been added several times to May 29 and 1982, this information was not added to the article page itself. The specific claims mention about his "political" career have been removed, but now there is a claim that he "won first place in the Utah Multimedia Arts festival for 3d gaphics [sic] in April 2000", which seems to almost correct, but it happened in 2001 and it was a three-way tie [28]. Perhaps he has become the target of some odd vandalism. There doesn't seem to be much beyond the fact that the books were published that can be verified. What's left would just be a (tiny) stub and hardly notable.
  • Even if books appear to be a vanity press publication, if the author has sold hundreds of copies worldwide, shouldn't it be important to have a bio on the web? I haven't read his books but maybe someone has who wants to learn about the author? thoughts?? joannaandjer
  • Delete. Without some kind of citation the republican party information is unverifiable, and the books are non-notable. Also, the IP address that signed the "joannaandjer" comment has been spamming links to the Jeremy Schwendiman article on 1982 May 29, Otok, and Science fiction. When this article is deleted, please ensure that the links from these articles are purged as well. --DDG 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DDG. Stifle 23:10, 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 Speedied as nonsense by me. android79 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shuo Scott Liu

Unverifiable (the link at bottom does endorse the content of the article). Hoax. Was tagged as prod, but that tag was removed. - Liberatore(T) 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as weird, unverifiable biography/hoax (no Google hits). (Also, note this AfD was blanked by an anonymous user.) -- Mithent 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've tagged as speedy per a7 examples because claiming to be king of bulgaria is in fact not a credible claim of notability. clear hoax or WP:NFT.Obina 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my bad, I ment Croatia. An anon user dropped the speedy tag with no comment so I have added it back. Obina 16:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Claiming to be king of Bulgaria would be a credible claim of notability for one guy, but the subject of this article is identified as a king of Croatia, which hasn't been a monarchy of its own since the subject's supposed birth in 1904. The link that was formerly at the bottom of the page identified the subject as a contemporary high school student who attended a scientific conference, which is probably accurate but not notable and not described in this article anyway. --Metropolitan90 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Þ
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}, borderling {{db-nonsense}}. Stifle 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The anon user has again dropped all the afd tags, and tagged the page as articles for promotion. Reverting again.Obina 13:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This was a good article... What was wrong with it?

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheppard Plaza

An article about a random mall somewhere. Initially tagged as prod, removed with motivation "could be merged somewhere". As far as I can see, the best article to merge it into is List of non-notable malls, which unfortunately we don't have. - Liberatore(T) 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • merge with North York, Ontario Jcuk 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. List of non-notable malls best thing I've read today. Thatcher131 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; don't merge into North York, Ontario since that's a very large and highly populated region of Toronto, and we couldn't even begin to justify writing up every individual building in North York within that article. Bearcat 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I actually live very close to this strip mall and there is nothing notable about it. YUL89YYZ 10:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Bearcat -- do not merge into North York, Ontario. This plaza is not notable enough to merit mention here or in the North York article. Skeezix1000 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as extremely non-notable. dbtfztalk 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WesternMustang 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 20:33, 18 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. --Ardenn 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psionics

Delete Biased content, non-scientific basis for information, needs deleting and completely rewritten. CitrusC 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but rewrite; there are enough fictional references to psionics out there to justify an article. 23skidoo 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. Ardenn 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/rewrite per 23skidoo - topic is obviously not scientific, but is notable and needs a NPOV page. -- 84.9.20.120 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. --Allen 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable, although a rewrite is in order. I did the current rewrite, but I acknowledge that it needs a lot more work. Firestorm 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There has been a significant amount of verifiable reasearch done by the US and Russia during the cold war which has been declassified.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.7.98 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep as per earlier voices - the concept is important in fiction, at least. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

rewrite, to object to this article saying its not true is invalid, the information is based on what psionics is not what is or is not scientificly proven.

  • Keep Although I don't believe in psionics, I found the article usefull to learn what believers understand under "psionics". The introduction clearly states that it never was scientifically proofen to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.200.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I don't see that the article meets any criteria for deletion. That said, I stumbled on this vote due to my work on Psionics (role-playing games), which I have now re-written the section for on this page (minor though it is). These are very different topics in the same way that Magic (paranormal) and Magic (gaming) are, and I think that, perhaps, the conflation of the belief in real-world paranormal abilities and the gaming mechnics has lead to the state the page is in now. -Harmil 22:16, 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 1, 2, 3... (40 keep/23 delete/2 other/1 disq.) no consensus, defaults to keep. This conclusion refers to the subject of the article, not the article itself.

I think the best compromise to put this messy past behind us is to give it a fresh start, (with unprotection) and let Wikipedians rewrite a neutral and verifiable version. If there are libellous/disparaging additions, delete only these edits, not the entire article. If it's vandalised, then revert on sight, and keep a watch on the article. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiphilosophy

Alright. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure neologisms, such as this one. Although "Wikiphilosophy" has some notability inside Wikipedia, it most certainly doesn't outside it. We shouldn't be biased about articles relating to our community, so I propose to delete this. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikiphilosophy and put one of those silly "this is not a guideline" template messages on it. But I'm just being nice; I'd also support deleting it. -- Krash (Talk) 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It would strike me as odd if someone hasn't already written a better essay on Wikipedian philosophy somewhere. But I have better things to do than search any harder for it right now. Besides I generally just steer clear of Metacruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a wikidictionary of words with wiki- stuck on the wikibeginning. Flowerparty■ 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikidelete Pavel Vozenilek 00:37, 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 keep (no consensus). Even though I suspect a lot of sockpuppeteering or meatpuppeteering here, Alkivar, Kappa, et. al. have provided good reasons to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Losers of America

Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • KEEP: PLA has been within the phreaking comminity for atleast 10 years , If phrack has and entry why not pla . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.184.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep If the GNAA has a page, the PLA should have a page, since nearly everything the GNAA has done the PLA did (although the PLA did it about a decade ago, was much funnier, and was far more original). If you think there's unverifiable information on the page, delete it, because everything I added was cited. It's true that there are vandals adding random garbage to the page, but that doesn't mean it's a candidate for deletion. If that were true, the Mohammed Cartoons article would've been deleted weeks ago. --Tokachu 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote for keeping the page. The PLA has a highly visited sight on the web and is one of the funniest groups out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.103.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Some people might search Wikipedia for phone phreaking. In this case, there should be some mention of the PLA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.79.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep. PLA are notable, though the article might need some work. And as for the notice to anonymous editors, well, I thought this was an open community. --Myles Long 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't forum space. Yes it is a community of editors. Ardenn 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is a community of editors, provided they edit in good faith. Unregistered editors are capable of good faith edits. As for the AfD at hand, can you shed some more insight into your nomination, please? --Myles Long 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all small phreaking groups. Get a myspace page, Wikipedia is not a free hosting provider Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please refer to my "GNAA vs. PLA" argument, as stated above. --Tokachu 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. PLA is not a "small phreaking group," nor is the article being used for free hosting. They have a site. --Myles Long 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why does the article describe them as a "small phreaking group"? And if you want to nominate GNAA for deletion as equally non-notable, you are free to do so. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ikkyu2 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pending some verification of the claims of media attention. Which articles? When? This sorely needs specifics. Additionally, is there a wikipedia policy against linking to pages describing howtos of illegal actions (i.e. credit card fraud)? Ziggurat 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Pending verification of the media attention claims? There is a whole page on the site that contains newspaper clippings, magazine clippings, video and links to articles about the PLA. The CNBC thing just happened 2 months ago. You don't think that clip of CNBC will eventually be up there? PLA has consistently been featured on TV, newspaper and radio for more than 10 years now. PLA is more than just a website. --RBCP 12:02, 14 February 2006
      • Then they should be added and referenced in the article, not alluded to vaguely. And the information in the article should be verified through such sources - just because it is "mentioned" isn't enough for Wikipedia verifiability requirements. We can't guarantee that this external page will be online forever, and we can't guarantee that someone reading this article will be online to check it either. Ziggurat 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. When the Digital DawgPound, Stankdawg and Strom Carlson get their own articles, why can't we have our own? Sure there was tons of unverifiable information, but most of it has been weeded out. --Murd0c516 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That is the "some cruft exists, therefore no cruft may be deleted" argument, and is not persuasive. If you think they are less notable than this group, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point. And there's no need for snarkiness. --Myles Long 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Am I missing the point? I thought I had grasped it rather well: the existence of other similar articles does not mean anything other than that they, too, may be candidates for removal or merging - depending of course on whether the judgment of theiur relative worth is objective. And I was being entirely serious: if you think they are less notable than this, please do go ahead an nominate them. Alternatively, if this group are notable, feel free to include citations to back it up. Right now the article describes them as a small phreaking group, and makes it clear that they were never widely known. Some of the hard data is uncertain (e.g. founding date), calling into question the verifiability of other parts, and much of the article is given to spamming the e-zine. In fact, pretty much the whole article is actually about an e-zine of which few people have heard. Seriously. If the subjects want it kept, fixing the article would be a much better way than recruiting meatpuppets (and I'm not saying you are, only that they are clearly in evidence here). Perhaps they could start by removing 95% of the links. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think you are missing the point. Also, I didn't say that they are more or less notable than the other articles mentioned. Those articles are actually irrelevant to this discussion, as I'm sure you know. My point is that this article clearly needs work, but the PLA are sufficiently notable to not delete the article altogether. Of course, that's just my opinion. I agree that removing the majority of the links would be a good place to start in improving the article. However, your statement that "pretty much the whole article is actually about an e-zine of which few people have heard" is subjective. How do you know how many people have heard of it? I have no interest in debating this further. But what's wrong with the Meat Puppets? I wish I was one of them. (Btw, I appreciate you not saying/insinuating that I am a sockpuppet). --Myles Long 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Just because you don't know of them, doesn't mean many people don't.Countykid465—Preceding unsigned comment added by Countykid465 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. As part of the PLA I know that the Phonelosers are part of technolgies history, they should be kept listed here on wikipedia!JuanGarcia—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.254.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. Why should we delete this? If Evan Doorbell gets one, than PLA should too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.111.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete, per Ziggurat. This information belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, PLA is a very strong page on the internet designed for humor mush like Ebulms and else. I suggest this be keep as it is follows all rules. And for those of you crying Wikipedia is not a web host, they have their own page they don't need wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.189.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep, I would say that if an informal survay of phone phreaks, that are under the age of 25 and have been active for at least 5 years, were taken, 90% of them would say that the PLA was the things that got them into phreaking in the first place. For an ezine/group/whatever to stick around for 10 years with no sign of stopping is unprecedented. For this reason alone it should have a wikipedia article.Adam Yauch 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.49.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Doesn't deserve a WP article Ruby 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep eminently notable pranksters.  ALKIVAR™ 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Non-notable? Perhaps to people with no interest whatsoever in hacking or phreaking. The PLA are a mainstay in phreaking/hacking culture and have been for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord DBK (talk • contribs)
  • Keep If you delete PLA, you might as well delete everything else about hackers and hacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.79.69 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep They are definitely notable in their specific field. Elements of the article seem inappropriate to me, but that's not grounds for deletion, as anyone rationally would realise that the PLA still warrant an article about their exploits, irrespective of the content. Deleting a page just because you object to elements of it's content is an unnecessarily simplistic manner of dealing with the perceived problems. Hauser 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if they are a phreaking group that has been around for 16 years and received televised press coverage then that is sufficient notability I suppose. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please these hackers are notable Yuckfoo 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, no opinion, but article should be mercilessly edited. List of zines is fairly pointless in the context of the article.--Isotope23 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. PLA is notable. Article does need to be cleaned up. —A 19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Acoording to the logic of Stifle, that anything on WP with a related website should be removed! So if we used Stifles method WP would be left with 12 articles.JuanGarcia—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.254.11 (talk • contribs) .
  • formatted above meatpuppet unsigned so it is readable. Double vote that should be ignored.--Isotope23 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep please keep 141.154.185.32 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be Alexa.com's #1 site in prank calls. [29] Kappa 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    and #2 in pranks in general [30] with a Traffic Rank of 87,868  ALKIVAR™ 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep PLA is noteable. Please keep! Jake 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

PLA is a significant site for phreak culture. This significance only increases over time as phreaks and phreaking fade from the popular memory, and are gradually replaced by other [more current] cultures. As an encyclopedic instrument, WP owes it's readership the preservation of this significant subcultural history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.71.179 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has Zerg rushes. Wikipedia has lengthy articles of Starcraft strategy and the origins of every computer game known to man that DOESN'T MEAN A DAMNED THING. PLA doesn't meet the exacting standards of a website that half-believes Star Trek is real? Having a small article about PLA is somehow worse than devoting pages to gaming strategy and science fiction? Enjoy your world humans, I am off to see Hubbard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolp (talk • contribs)

    • User's first edit - suspected sock??Blnguyen 07:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 07:24, 17 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 A6 (attack). Superm401 - Talk 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Clayton

non-notable, obvious joke about a friend. James Kendall [talk] 22:17, 13 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 redirect. Punkmorten 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NGC magazine

Delete. There is already an article on NGC Magazine which is much more detailed and was in place before this one was even created. DVD Smith 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and redirected it to NGC Magazine to save time since this is a pretty clear case. Didn't seem like there was anything to merge. --TheMidnighters 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close to AfD per above. Ikkyu2 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. Stifle 23:19, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet Fascism

Delete because Google only shows 60 hits on this word, making it not suitable for wikipedia. If it is notable, possibly merge with Fascism Magdela 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Work of a joker producing pearls like [31]. All his contributions should be reviewed - many are still top. Pavel Vozenilek 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 23:19, 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 as a useless article with no context (unsourced neologism). - Mike Rosoft 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muttpark

Neologism. 7 unique google results. Prod tag was removed twice by the article's creator so I'm bringing it here. TheMidnighters 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator Training Centre

The article was de-prodded, so I bring it here. NN forum, few users and few posts. Only a few months old. Vanity. per WP:WEB, etc. BrokenSegue 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be any question. Ikkyu2 00:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Total users at present is listed on the site as 198, which fails WP:WEB --Hansnesse 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete possible advert, WP:WEB. Stifle 23:20, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venrock Associates

Delete - Appears to be mostly an ad. May be notable. ChemGardener 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Yes, the article has POV issues and needs to be cleaned-up but the company has 91,600 Google hits as well as passes WP:CORP. To the nominator, please do your research before nominating an article for deletion. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or slight merge to the Rockefeller family. Stifle 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 44 google news hits [32] Kappa 01:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portable Freakshow

Delete. Non-notable band. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). About one relevant google hit. Liface 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bad ideas 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 23:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Day Jobs

Was listed for speedy deletion without any valid criteria given, so I thought I'd list it here instead. Leithp 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn blog. --TheMidnighters 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. KHM03 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 02:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, possible speedy as {{db-club}}. Stifle 23:20, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janko Prunk

Delete. Vanity. The author apparently wrote about himself. He even put an e-mail in the article [33]. As far as I know he is not notable enough to deserve to be included in Wikipedia. Eleassar my talk 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Bad ideas 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the professor test. Stifle 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Appears to have multiple publications according to Amazon --pgk(talk) 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Notable historian in Slovenia (evidence below). Avoid Systemic bias. Sure, the article could use some improvement (to indicate the notability) but that's not a reason to delete. My sources are from the subscription based Factiva.
    • From the Slovenska Tiskovna Agencija (a press agency):
      • 2 December 2005: "The co-chairs of a Slovenian-Croatian commission of historians writing a report on bilateral relations...Slovenian chairman Janko Prunk and Croatian chair Dusan Bilandzic said"
      • 24 June 1998: "The last Yugoslav soldier left the country on 25 October 1991. Slovenia became a United Nations member on 22 May 1992. (source: Janko Prunk: KRATKA ZGODOVINA SLOVENIJE (A Short History of Slovenia), published by Zalozba Grad, 1998)."
    • HINA-CROATIAN NEWS AGENCY
      • 2 December 2005: "The Slovene co-chairman, Janko Prunk, agreed with Bilandzic, adding that good relations..."
    • There a couple of dozen more of these.--Commander Keane 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated the article With more informations about his works (books) User:Prunk 22:00 15 February 2006
  • Keep, looks notable. Kappa 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs more work but there are is now plenty of cited material as to why this person is notable --pgk(talk) 22:22, 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 SPEEDY KEEP as a bad-faith or mistaken nomination. JIP | Talk 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stig Bergling

Afd orphaned by User:4.224.192.146 Obli (Talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable Swedish spy Obli (Talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. As many other articles, it could use some good references, but Bergling is a household name to anyone living in Sweden in the 1980s and early 1990s. I don't know if the anonymous nomination was bad-faith or just badly researched, but there is no reason to waste time on this. If there are no objections, I suggest closing this discussion. u p p l a n d 07:30, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken_Skinner

Delete. Obituary of non-notable person Xyzzyplugh 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please expand on your reasoning. Based solely on the article and the people named, this jazz musician may very well be a candidate for inclusion. -- JJay 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Google search on his full name yielded zero results. Search on "kenneth skinner" and jazz, no links which seemed to relate to this guy. No evidence he even exists, therefore, non-notable. --Xyzzyplugh 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Further searching reveals that there is a Ken Skinner, of "Ken Skinner and the Jazzmongers", who is an at least somewhat known musician, who is likely the son of the Ken Skinner who died. --Xyzzyplugh 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Allmusic yields nothing more than a name. He played with several notable musicians apparently but that alone is not enough. --TheMidnighters 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for the moment, this article lacks verifiable sources. Hall Monitor 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some verifiable evidence of a Ken Skinner of the Jazzmongers but no connection with this guy has been shown. This looks like an obituary notably the last paragraph but Google News came up with nothing. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ken Skinner of the Jazzmongers is quite obviously his son. -- JJay 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I found this reference, "Northern exposure -- Stirling Silver by Ken Skinner," by Hal Hill, Performing Arts & Entertainment in Canada. Fall 1995, Volume 29, Issue 4, page 38. (Review of recording on "Village Jazz" label, a live concert at Stirling Theatre in Stirling, Ontario in 1993), but given the date I think it must be the son. Consider converting to an article about Ken Skinner, Jr.? Crypticfirefly 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Ken Skinner Jr. has recorded a few albums and was profiled in the Toronto Star in 2000 [34]. The father's career is a bit harder to verify. -- JJay 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Has promise. Ardenn 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable plus original research re Montreal's jazz scene. Ifnord 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete at this time. Needs further work. -- JJay 17:03, 18 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vally Guard, Valley Guard

Delete - non-encyclopedic and NPOV. Identical to Valley Guard. ChemGardener 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - easy choice. --Liface 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and mergin both in one AfD
  • Speedy delete. -- Wikipedical 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable group. --Hansnesse 08:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Stifle 23:20, 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 keep. Ifnord 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downblouse

Obvious term, could maybe be merged with upskirt (wich is far more widely used) but in the end looks like a gratuitous excuse to insert an image of breasts. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • A hold-my-nose keep. [35]. Yes, certainly an easy excuse, as with many others. PJM 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was the original author and I certainly didn't put in the article for gratuitous reasons but because it paired very well with upskirt and is a relevant examplle of voyeurism - unfortunately the article DOES attract a lot of vandalism. --PeterMarkSmith 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PJM, but delete picture if that can be justified. --Allen 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like the picture, both as a good illo of the topic and because she's cute. Are we allowed to have pictures like that on WP, though? Ikkyu2 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I removed the picture, and nominated it for speedy deletion for not having clearly invalid licensing information. --Allen 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean clearly valid, right? -Colin Kimbrell 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's not what I didn't mean. Thanks. :-) --Allen 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not actually a speedy, but the licensing tag on it ({{PD-ineligible}}) is clearly not valid. I've added {{nld}}, which is the correct license tag, and advised the uploader. However, I don't see any reason why the image should be used there. Stifle 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PJM. Stifle 23:47, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klay World and Klay World: Off the Table

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie). Article about the author (Knox (animator)) has been deleted as unverified/not notable. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete junk --Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was the one who {{prod}}ed this; what a surprise, an anonymous IP removed the tag without comment. Thanks for AfDing this, Mike, and preemptively putting the sock warning up. I'm sure it'll prove to be handy. --Kinu 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle 23:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep its funny how Knox/Robert's important enough to have a imdb profile, but not a wikipedia article...: http://imdb.com/name/nm2020142/ imdb is harder to get on - Earboyman
    • User has the total of seven edits apart from this vote, all to Klay World and Klay World: Off the Table. - Mike Rosoft 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • IMDb is harder to get on? I have actor friends from college on IMDb. And as much as I admire them for being in an indie film or two, that doesn't mean they deserve Wikipedia pages. --Kinu t/c 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wow, IMDB is getting to be a serious pile of ass. - Hahnchen 14:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Her Shame

This and several others are created as advertising. User:Gregatwan2 created this page, L.A. Direct Models, and several links elsewhere. He did this in one day. Google searches for Name Her Shame do not come up with any hits that match LA Models. Defenestrate

  • Delete Advertising of non-notable product. --Xyzzyplugh 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, or non notable game or both.Obina 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if advertisement is cut from end of article: non-notable game. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Even if it's a frat house full of disrespectful boys who think it makes them men. Barno 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barno. Stifle 23:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anakin and his angel

Non-notable website; Vanity page KHM03 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Alexa infinity, WP:WEB, etc. Melchoir 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Website is poster child for non-notability. Ikkyu2 00:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L.A. Direct Models

Advertising non-notable commercial enterprise. See also Name Her Shame Defenestrate 23:50, 13 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.