Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 31 February 2 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] February 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (42/23/1). Mailer Diablo 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck"

For the first VFD discussion of this article, see Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck.
For the second AfD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_ordered_by_uses_of_the_word_fuck.
  • Merge- Wikipedia should have a list of films with the most expletives in. Although this would be less accurate it is a more interesting statistic.
  • Delete - This is the third time this has been nominated over the years, and the article still has the same problems. It isn't unverifiable per se, but it is unmaintainable. Any verification of (or addition to) the article requires sitting through a each movie and counting how many times the word "fuck" is used. The accuracy of the article is currently disputed, and there is no way to refute this without spending 5.6 days in front of a TV screen. -Vastango 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is another way: get the script of the movie, then do a grep -c. Turnstep 16:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and watch for accuracy. The fact that the EB would never have such an article is a major selling point of Wikipedia. David | Talk 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • How can one "watch for accuracy"? -Vastango 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - many things in Wikipedia are verified by the fact that someone has bothered to do the research. BD2412 T 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unconvincing deletion argument SP-KP 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not POV, unmaintanable, listcraft or any other good reason for a page like this to be deleted. Batmanand 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unconvincing. This is my favorite page on WP and sometimes we need some fun. People have already put time into maintaining, I'm sure they will continue to do so. -Jcbarr 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per BD2412.
  • Keep. Not at all convinced by the argument to delete. List seems to be impeccably maintained. Verification concerns could be addressed by spending the days or weeks required to count the fucks as numerous editors already have. Would be nice if we had comparable lists for other words. -- JJay 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and juvenile.--T. Anthony 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Almanacopedic. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Name an Almanac with an article like this. I'll look through the ones I have.--T. Anthony 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Only Wikipedia's almanac has this because we have the best almanac. Ashibaka tock 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well okay, but I don't see why getting into this level of movie trivia is doing something better than other Almanacs. Added to that why limit to this word? I imagine there are plenty of words more shocking to hear in films today. Maybe we could have List of films ordered by uses of the word "cunt" or List of films ordered by uses of the word "kyke". If rarity matters maybe List of films ordered by uses of the word "quincunx". All of these could be verified in similar ways, checking scripts etc, but that doesn't mean any of them would be definitively correct as there are many scripts that get filmed out there. Especially when you include non-US English language films.--T. Anthony 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Any page that gets people clicking and finding out about things they didn't know before is brilliant, this definitely qualifies Deiz 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "fucks per minute", whoa!. Shall we disambiguate FPM and redirect fpm there? mikka (t) 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, OK, I declare I am a listcruft advocate! Still, this is one of the most commonly asked questions on the IMDB message boards. Might be verifiable, some family film websites may actually review all profanity to the level of counting the rude words. --Canley 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I really don't think this is original research after a thorough reading of WP:OR, and I doubt the editors of the article have actually counted the words themselves - several sources other than the films themselves are cited at the bottom. All this talk about it being unmaintainable: one tends to notice 5 FPM(!) in a film, and there is usually a media uproar. I also think information like this is what makes WIkipedia wonderful and I don't think these lists need to be utterly complete to be interesting and informative. --Canley 09:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It provides information and as long as it is updated and kept accurate why not. Remember that more than one person is checking accuracy of the article. Martin 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Paste an appropriate tag on it warning users that the information may not be entirely accurate, due to the difficulties of verifability. Copysan 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It would only be unmaintainable if it tried to list every movie that used the word. As it stands, it is a list of the top 80 or so -- Astrokey44|talk 04:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, good list. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like JJay and others above, I find the arguments for deletion aren't convincing, and it has scholarly merit in a Gershon Legman sort of way. --Lockley 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not extremely difficult to verify, though I suppose it borders on original research. I verified the count for Glenngarry Glen Ross (film) by a) downloading a copy of the script; b) opening the text in Microsoft Word; c) running search-and-replace for "fuck" d) reading the dialog box at the end, which told me how many times it replaced the word. A kludge, but then, I'm an English Lit major, not a hacker. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It goes without saying that people will use this as an adjunct to their movie-choosing process. Why not? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I hate pointless lists, but this is capriciously amusing. Eusebeus 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. Requires more original research on a regular basis to be kept up to date. Choalbaton 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list of information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is, pardon the expression, fucking useless. Furthermore, it's nigh-impossible to verify. --Agamemnon2 10:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete. per Eusebeus. Maybe we should include a statement introducing the list, stating the difficulties in maintaining the list and make sure that readers take the list with a bit of salt while reading it. --Johnnyw 11:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry? You're saying that we can ignore the fact that it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR (and quite possibly WP:NOT) as long as we tell people? That would be OK if it was in the Project space, maybe as part of the relevant Wikiproject, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a collection of unverified toilet humour trivia! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is, that it was a borderline issue imho. But I have to admit that you are right that's it's still violating WP:NOR no matter how we change the list and therefore, I (sadly) change my vote to delete.
  • Delete. Its an interesting list, but not one for wikipedia. It's unreferenced original research. -- jeffthejiff(talk) 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft, and for failing WP:NOR and WP:V. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I also have concerns regarding verifiability and OR (but without further digging can't motivate to delete on those grounds yet). Zunaid 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Please see the talk page where I've listed reasons. Zunaid 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Unverifiable. Necessarily incomplete, hence essentially worthless. GWO 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can be verified. Frankchn 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator: "This is the third time this has been nominated over the years, and the article still has the same problems." Well, if it has the same problems, and the last time it was voted on there was consensus to keep, then it's a bit pointless renominating it until it somehow develops some new problems. No offence intended to the nominator - I'm all for renominating articles kept by 'no consensus', but not those kept by consensus. --Malthusian (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, sometimes I'm just wrong to the extent of talking WP:BALLS. Obvious original research, delete, but please, someone move this to their personal webpage or something. --Malthusian (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced OR. A shame, really. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but send to the people compiling the nominations for the prestigious most gratuitous use of the word "fuck" in a serious screenplay award. Formally, it is unverifiable, unsourced and therfore original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failure to meet WP:V and WP:NOR. Monicasdude 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:00Z
  • Strong Keep The list is not original research. It is not original research to check how many times a movie says 'fuck'. It is interaction with a primary source document. Something that is encouraged in original research. Just because the primary source document is a movie doesn't make it any less valid. The list is verifiable; it is better sourced than a lot of articles (largely because people keep trying to delete it). The list doesn't have to be definitive; that is impossible...then we would have no lists at all. Hdstubbs 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment From WP:NOR "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." - All this list does is collect and organize the information in a primary source document,Hdstubbs 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think that it's that easy. Counting the stars in the night sky is also collecting and organizing the information in a primary source: Still, we do not state that the sky at night at a certain time in a certain spot of the world has XXXX thousands of stars. --Johnnyw 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I already addressed this on the talk page but movies are finite, stars (arguably) are not. This like counting all the stars that are listed in a book on stars and not the stars themselves. Hdstubbs 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The number of visible stars in the night sky is finite. I think the unaided human eye can see around 10,000.--T. Anthony 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Entirely insufficient deletion criteria for a page that has already been retained twice. Sorry, but you'll need to do better. :) — RJH 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with original research, unverifiable, and it even has a disclaimer that it is not complete - just what the wikipedia DOESN'T need - another list. The Deviant 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Really. --Sachabrunel 17:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This list has gotten radio exposure, and is very interesting. I think it can be verified easily! Until YOU site down and find an inaccuracy, then opt for deletion. Your objection is NOT SUBSTANTIATED!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Looks to me the movies are all bigger productions, not including anything else. Give me a break, I've seen plenty of smaller productions (yet still notable productions) that I *know* have more "fucks" than some of these movies. The point being - this list is not even accurate (as it even disclaims in the article itself) and therefore is pointless. The Deviant 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being unmaintainable is not a deletion criteria, last I looked. Even if it were, the article looks very well maintained to me. Turnstep 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I found it quite interesting, and it is well researched - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list --Jaranda wat's sup 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I really did want to keep this, but sadly it is unsourced - the references are not of a verifiable standard, and without these it is original research. So, unless a properly verifiable source for the information in this page is produced, delete. Sliggy 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nice page. But counting the word Fuck in a film is doing primary research. This article is thus original research (it becomes the secondary source). Saying we can go count ourselves, is like saying you can buy your own telescope and track star movement. As editors, we can't verify this except by repeating the count. Obina 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, forever intrinsically incomplete, and unencyclopedic subject matter. StarryEyes 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why not List of films ordered by uses of the word "the"? What exactly is the difference? Profanity? Then to borrow T. Anthony's argument, where does it end? List of films ordered by uses of the word "shit"? List of films ordered by uses of the word "damn"? List of films ordered by uses of the word "golly"? Where does it end? What is the point? Why am I speaking only in questions? And another thing: what about foreign language films? Is there always going to be an exact 1:1 equivalent, or is it possible that some language has multiple approximate equivalents of the word "fuck", like the Inuit have for "snow"? Raggaga 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Skirts the edge of notability, but there really should be some guidelines on lists like this. Maybe top 100 at most. This is actually a list that someone might look for. Haikupoet 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN list. Arbustoo 06:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, everyone needs to calm down.Avengerx 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Virtually no good reasons to keep. Wikipedia:Listcruft. Stifle 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting and verifiable. Ignore all the slippery slope arguments. –Shoaler (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is verifiable, and editors not wanting to take the time to do so doesn't mean it's not. Baiter 17:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah? And the stopwatches have been calibrated to the relevant National Standards? And doesn't WP:NOT say that Wikipedia is not a "publisher of first instance"? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep verifieable and interesting. these articles are the fun of wikipedia, a whole load of "useful" information ;)
  • KEEP! - dj315 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.247.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Should add a comparative graph, stating which films are prohibited according to which authorities (films 1 to 50 prohibited according to X, 1 to 28 according to Y, and 1 to 500 for laxists sunday-believers). If a number of fpm can't be measured, than which base unit could? Lapaz 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is pointless nonsense!RayGates 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - listcruft, fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Also unencyclopaedic. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly verifiable. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has historical value, should be kept as reference to landmark films.{{Marminnetje 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)}}
  • Keep Good list. Staxringold 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure which way to vote yet. I would like to suggest that this article be changed to something along the lines of a top 10 list, otherwise (considering the popularity and frequent use of "fuck") it'd be hard to maintain and keep complete. What I'm saying is, shouldnt we only list the films there which are actually notable for the excessive use of the word? And FFS, some reworking is needed anyway, "fucks per minute"?! Banez 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be one way to look at motion pictures and is at least as encyclopedic (but less highbrow, perhaps) as List of Hitchcock cameo appearances. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Articles like this are what's great about Wikiedia. The statistics can even be verified more easily than by watching these entire movies and counting; check out the Family Media Guide. They are VERY reliable. BigaZon 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Very interesting! That would solve the NOR issue. Although there seem to be differences between the counts. Scarface is listed at WP with 218 fucks, Family Media Guide counted "F-word(207)". --Johnnyw 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and find more "family value" sites that give sources for the "fuck" count. Kusma (討論) 16:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, topic with verifiable third-party coverage. Kappa 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable and interesting. Essexmutant 12:05, 5 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 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon Edit War

This is of interest only to Wikipedians, and it shows no reason why it would be notable enough for a regular article (i.e., why it would be interesting to a non-Wikipedian reader). Note that even "edit war" doesn't get an article on the main namespace. I say delete or move to an appropriate page in another namespace. –Sommers (Talk) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fightindaman 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Batmanand 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. also has almost no contet at the moment. DES (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably also a violation of WP:Point, in which those involved might need a little warning. Peyna 00:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, rather bizarre. Should be dealt with at Talk:Lolicon. Ashibaka tock 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic Prodego talk 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator and Batmanand. jareha 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To Early To Decide Yet Given that this page was actually meant to document a current event, I do not believe that this would qualify as a violation of any of wikipedia's policies. I had thought of creating this page months ago, but I didn't think to actually create it until I wrote a request on User:Katefan0's discussion page. On a side note, my request has since been fulfilled, thus illustrating a perfect example of rational behavior in a matter of controversy. At any rate, I probably did start too early and should have waited another six months or so before reporting on it as a "historical event". Sweetfreek 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is irrelevant. Maybe it should be a sentence in the History of Wikipedia article. But it does not need a whole article to itself. Batmanand 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. ~MDD4696 04:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this should be in some project page, not in mainspace. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terence Ong's comment above Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least from article namespace. --Whouk (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO this raises three questions, to answer none of which am I qualified.
    1) Does Wiki want to record edit wars per se ?
    2) Does Wiki want to record its own edit wars, and is it able to sufficiently objective in doing so ?
    3) Is there actually an edit war going on regarding this topic ?
    Unless the answer to all of these is "yes", I suggest that the article, as is, has little merit. -- Simon Cursitor 11:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Easy enough. 1: no. "avoid self-reference". Therefore 2 and 3 are moot. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete we should avoid self-reference whenever possible. I am also extremely uncomfortable with the concept of letting edit wars have artcles, with the obvious exception of their requisite inclusion in arbitration evidence pages and such, because those interested in trolling could create edit wars purely to get an article, seeing it as a sort of trophy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious reasons already stated. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:57Z
  • Move to userspace and delete. It sure went from creation to AfD fast, though! :) Turnstep 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no content, self-referential. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-referential and unencyclopaedic. Move to user space. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please. StarryEyes 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just as a matter of distinction, I don't this article is doomed to be inherently self-referential—if an edit war were hypothetically notable enough to merit an article, Wikipedia would be capable of covering it as objectively as it covers itself on the page Wikipedia, for example. But this one certainly doesn't qualify (which is why I nominated it above), and in any case the article indeed looks pretty self-referential as it is. –Sommers (Talk) 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Into A New Article A page listing famous edit wars just might be the solution to this problem. Sweetfreek 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't even a self-referential article, it's a stub of an one. There's nothing left to be merged to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, and would hardly be lame enough to be included even there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't finished yet... I had to stop and save what I had in order to take out the garbage (so that my dog wouldn't get into it)... nosey little brown bastard! Sweetfreek 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if it was finished, without studying the history of this particular conflict, it'd guess it's still be either too non-lame or far too lame to be included in WP:LAME. And in my opinion, if it's outside of the range in question, it's definitely a Needless Self-Reference. Was this incident something that makes technology writers of major Internet tech news sources wax lyrical, or just another idiotic edit war? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Check the [history], dummy, I've been part of this mess for almost a year now, and I've read all the changes going back to the beginning. So just who hasn't been studying this? Sweetfreek 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying there's no material to write about. I'm just saying, do we need the posterity to remember some insignificant editorial squabble again? "The great big Wikicorporation coffee room penny jar squabble of February 2006", this time about a twenty-coin bill, oo? I've been reverting vandalism and stuff like that for a while now, and I sure won't write articles like "Vandalism of Wikipedia article on Endless Online". Nobody wants to hear how I get up at the morning, look at watch list, and revert trolling, or get bored at 3 am and revert the vandalism as it comes. People are grumbling about John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy article being retained, not to even mention crying for merge for Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) - and this was a case that got international media attention! The issue is not that you've not been studying the thing hard enough; the issue is that edit/revert wars happen here and they are pretty insignificant in the face of great cosmic scale or some other funny expression like that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 4 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junkielover

Delete, speedy if possible. Seems like a non-notable composer. If this is incorrect, inform me otherwise. SYCTHOStalk 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep http://www.radio.intelligentmachinery.net/artists/j.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasik evolution (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 February 2006

  • Delete. Artist fails WP:MUSIC. All the Spanish text talks about his style, not what he's actually done. Grandmasterka 07:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 07:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The four unsigned keep votes above were all made by accounts created today whose only contribution has been to vote here. Except the anon IP address 201.254.24.185 whose contributions have been to Ambient music, List of ambient artists and Dark ambient to add - guess what - Junkielover to the lists. --Canley 10:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletions. -- Canley 10:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - appears to have recorded an album but no evidence that he meets WP:MUSIC --Whouk (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also suggestive of sockpuppetry. --Agamemnon2 11:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 40-odd unique Googles, not on allmusic, article fails to establish why that should be ignored. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, fails WP:MUSIC. If we can't verify it, it's no good. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone save sockpuppets. StarryEyes 00:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a rather messy article and per JzG. Stifle 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synods in the Church of England.

Largely redundant with article Synod when it was created; now totally redundant, as I've just merged the remaining sentence. There was apparently talk of expanding this article several months ago, but if anyone has anything encyclopedic to say about Anglican synods in particular that can't go at Synod or Church of England, I encourage them to create a new page without the "." at the end. --Quuxplusone 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to synod would be better than delete I think. Batmanand 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to synod since the "other part" of merge has already been done. -Jcbarr 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete no reason for redirect from new, nonsearchable title (with dot, too). mikka (t) 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not likely to be searched for Prodego talk 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Prodego. jareha 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do we need to look at House of Bishops as well? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Prodego. Royboycrashfan 03:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Prodego. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since we're here, but even with the '.' it would have been a harmless redirect, saving this debate. --Doc ask? 09:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Doc. (Opes 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Minimal and probably redundant content, and malformed article name. Haikupoet 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Baker

Likely hoax. Even if I discard the easily-debunkable claim on the Yen, nothing else in this bio adds up.-- Perfecto 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the new editor submits reliable references. --Perfecto 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You guys beat me to it. A 19th-century Japanese samurai called "Mr Baker", who joined in a military rebellion at the age of 6? WP:BALLS, delete. Lukas (T.|@) 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Batmanand 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy as hoax. Peyna 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Prodego talk 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Secretary of Treasury at age 17? —ERcheck @ 01:29, 1 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, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Answer to the “Lady or the Tiger” and “The Discourager of Hesitancy”

Tagged as nonsense, but iMO not patent nonsense. However this is Original research -- that is compeltely unsourced specualation on the answer to a notable literary puzzle. It is also poorly written. Delete DES (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Batmanand 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonencyclopedic. mikka (t) 00:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic and original research. Prodego talk 01:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kusma (討論) 02:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Whouk (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research and nonsense to boot. Suntiger 14:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -while not nonsense, certainly is original research and unencyclopediac. AndyZ 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing really mergable with Lady or the Tiger Mr. Know-It-All 03:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR Avi 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Group + (The Financial Intelligence Review PrimeZone )

Badly written article giving no reasons why this company is notable. The given webpage for the company doesn't exist and there's a copyright, all rights reserved message at the bottom! Aim Here 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(I added two their publications,which IMO must be treated in the same way) mikka (t) 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is a substantial re-write in next few days. Batmanand 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Jcbarr 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Prodego talk 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable yet. mikka (t) 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete All under A7: vanity, nn group. Classic walled garden / VSCA. ++Deiz 02:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable company. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'll just add a vote for deleting the two articles added after I created the AfD -- Aim Here 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. —This user has left wikipedia 19:08 2006-02-05
  • Speedy Delete on current version of The Financial and Intelligence Group: They have an "All rights reserved" that may or may not contradict agreeing to the license when editing. That poisons the entire edit, in my opinion, but there might not even be enough there to be copyrightable anyway. Maybe all these articles should be combined into one article under "Intelligence Group" or "Bziph Ltd" (which seems to be closely related) with no previously copyrighted article material. --Closeapple 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on PrimeZone: it doesn't have the toxic "All rights reserved", and might be salvagable. http://www.PrimeZone.ge/ exists but is just a splash page with an internal-only link. They also seem to be related to Georgian Business Week (whose http://www.b2b.ge/ works) and Global Idea (whose http://www.globalidea.ge/ I won't navigate because it has Shockwave Flash-only links). Maybe all of these could be combined into one article. --Closeapple 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up PrimeZone and Georgian Business Week a bit. I haven't gotten to Intelligence Review yet, and I'm not touching the existing The Financial or Intelligence Group with a ten foot pole as long as that "All rights reserved" dooms them. --Closeapple 22:43, 6 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 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Bus Route Display Alliance

  • Delete Non-notable "alliance". Only few hits by google. ManiacK 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 07:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete oh dear. I thought this was going to be about a joint venture to provide common route information between public transport providers, but it isn't, is it? It's a group of people making - God help us - replica bus headers. Now, I have a friend who has bought one of the buses he used to travel on when he was at school, and now sometimes drives it along the same route for nostalgia. But at least he has the whole bus, and not just a replica of the indicator board. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Avi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 19:08 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hey hey, an A7 that actually applies! Who'd a thunk? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beervana

"At this point in time, outside of the Indie Underground scene, neither of these groups are very well known." Indeed, there are lots of google hits for a beer festival, but i can't find any for this band. The quote suggests why. Derex 15:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete by the author's own admission that they are not well known.--Adam (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Unlike their rival, they haven't released an album of any kind. Nothing on google about their hit song ("Lonesome Pines" + Beervana). ×Meegs 05:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn Batmanand 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone please examine these, too: Jack McKenzie, Davie Fletcher, The Sticky Wickets and of course, since the two are finally together, The Reunion Tour. --Perfecto 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. A search for Beervana Boston band came up with nothing to verify this see [2]. AfD tag is missing but I have added tag for speedy as non-notable bio. The article does not assert notability - indeed, as noted, it does the opposite. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this and everything else related to it (everything started by User:GusVanDean, who's currently blocked for vandalism). - Bobet 02:19, 1 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 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Umbrella

  • del nn band. Selfreleased albums and one released by equally nonnotable Tell-All Records. mikka (t) 00:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Marked for speedy; no claim of notability. Ashibaka tock 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd consider a discography sufficient for a claim of notability. Band articles don't have to pass WP:MUSIC to avoid the speedy. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn Batmanand 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteas nn Prodego talk 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't find a dang thing about them on Google. Royboycrashfan 03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as having more umbrellas than claims to notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 19:08 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. It's obvious to me that this article needs improvement (someone has suggested making it List of names of English origin, which I think would work well), but that's not a reason for deletion, and there's nothing approaching consensus to get rid of it here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English given names

  • This is a duplicate of a former article, List of first names, that was on Vfd (now Afd) twice; the first time there was no consensus, and the second time it was deleted. How is this article different that allows it to be kept?? Georgia guy 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names is a link to the original vfd, albeit for a slightly different page. Perhaps English names specifically is more encyclopedic? Additionally, although the end result of that page was "delete", it doesn't look like a very strong consensus. Snurks T C 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Potentially infinite lists are not encyclopaedic. Batmanand 00:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we are going to have List of Slavic given names and all the other languages/nationalities, I don't think we should discriminate against English. -- JJay 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "if": probably not....mikka (t) 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • one can always hope... -- JJay 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV-ridden. Why on Earth Chauntele is English name? I say Frenchie. Duncan:Scots will kill you if you tell them it is English name. Samuel: Jew. Etc... And where is Leroy? mikka (t) 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the idea of a list of specifically English names is OK, but this isn't a very good stab at it.Staffelde 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Thinking through the large number of practical and linguistic issues raised by this, I think it is better to avoid them and get rid of it. Any list involving "English" names needs much tighter control than seems practical on a list called what this is called. I have made a couple of alternative suggestions below Staffelde 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If we have a List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck", which is about to have a keep AfD for the third time, why should we delete this article? The list of films is certainly also unsustainable and also will never be complete. Prodego talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Staffelde. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Later we can add usage statistics! Ashibaka tock 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. Most of them are "taken" names, like Isaac. --Ezeu 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Since Isaac has been removed, this vote wont make sense, and Cuiviénen makes a good point below, so I abstain.
  • Keep - Can be improved. Many voters on AfD need to remember that they, too, can edit the page. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have made substantial revisions to the male names section of the article. It should be clear now that, once the female names section of the article is also improved, the article will serve a serious purpose. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - The female names section has also been fixed. There is now a large warning about adding names atop both lists. Please understand that this article now serves a real purpose. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, we can improve the article. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

*Keep, there's no reason not to have this. How many verifiable English names can there be? Grandmasterka 07:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Any name ever given to anyone on the face of the planet that has any link, direct or indirect, to anything "English" - my name qualifies, how 'bout yours? Adhall 10:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know your name, but I will bet you ten dollars (ten pounds?) that it isn't English. English names are not names of people form England but names that originated in the English language. Thus, Ethelred is English, but Elizabeth, which is Biblical, is not. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I think it should be kept and renamed "List of Anglo-Saxon given names". How's that? Grandmasterka 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article is clearly just a stub for the moment, but the subject is encyclopedic and ca be expanded. Eusebeus 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this has no content other than unverfied, uncited lists of what any editor claims to be an "English-given name", whatever that might be. A list entitled "Names of English origin" or "Names of French origin" would be accpetable because the etymology of the names can be verified. This type of list invites anyone to add their own name (no matter what the origin) without any grounds to dispute that the name doesn't belongs on the list. It would be more appropriate to name the article "List of people who have added their name to this list". This is nonsense - we can do much better than this. Adhall 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or define 'English'. Does it include English-Asian names, names of foreign origin used by Englsih peolpe - if the answer is 'yes' then any name at all could be listed -Doc ask? 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So long as the criteria are already defined by some widely accepted authority Adhall 09:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes,but to my knowledge, no such authority exists. --Doc ask? 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly -- the criteria for an entry (as the list is now) is subjective and open to interpretation - it either needs to be rethought, renamed or deleted altogether. Adhall 10:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, potentially useful. Not sure how, just potentially. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per List of Slavic given names Jcuk 11:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per this: [3] any list with 75,000 or more potential entries has no place here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have edited this page precisely so it DOES NOT have the potential to contain 75,000 entries. All names on the page are now verifiably English in origin, not Biblical, not Celtic, not French and not anything else. "List of English given names" is not the same as "List of given names in England" and should not be treated as such. As to the earlier user who mentioned ASian-English names, obviously they should not be included because they are Asian, not English. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Beg to difer. If Norse-origin names, Angles and Saxon-orign names (originally Germanic) and many more of the races that have emigrated to Southern Britian over the centuries are considered 'English'. Then why not Asian immigrants? Or are we using some 'pure-English-race' mythology? --Doc ask? 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Mythology? No, there is definitely an "English race." I hesitate to say "race" because we sound like we're talking about racism here, which this is not a discussion of, but there are uniquely English aspects to England that do not involve borrowing from other countries, including ethnicity and names. Your own narrow view that England has no culture and no heritage is itself POV; this article is (now) not. There is a "native" population of England just as much as their is a native population of Scandinavia - would you include Mohammed on a List of Scandinavian given names because there are a few Muslims in Norway named Mohammed? No! —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment** Out of interest, of the "approved" names left on the list, of the 13 male names, 4 are English forenames, by which I mean derived from Anglo=-Saxon; 8 are "imported" from non-English languages (French, German, Old Norse etc) and one - Lincoln - is a surname reused as a given name - and if that sort of name is to be counted, the list is potentially infinite. Of the 18 female names, again, 4 are of Anglo-Saxon origin, 8 are non-English, and a depressing 6 are surnames recycled. On this showing, I think I am forced to conclude that pro tem this is a bit beyond the powers of Wikipedia to make anything useful of, and I have changed my vote above to Delete. I might consider supporting a properly constructed and monitored article such as List of Anglo-Saxon forenames, List of Medieval Christian names used in England, or List of Forenames commonly used in England in the 19th Century, for example - but such lists would be of near-dictionary length and would need ferocious sourcing.Staffelde 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The name Lincoln, as described in its article, was originally a given name that evolved into a surname, not the other way around. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You must be reading a different article from Lincoln, or you are understanding "given name" in some different sense. Are you trying to extend "given name" to cover place-names as well? Lincoln started as the name of a town, then became a surname. This article, if words mean anything, is about names given as forenames, so L is a town-name, or a surname taken from the town-name, used as a forename. This is a perfect illustration of the sorts of problems that this article generates, and of the obstacles of understanding which will make it extremely difficult to get anywhere useful with it. Staffelde 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Potentially infinite lists (or lists of 75,000 entries) are all over Wikipedia, so the precedent is already set. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other such "List of x given names" have failed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_East_African_given_names, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Vietnamese_given_names. The List of Slavic given names is probably only still around because no one has nominated it for AfD yet. Peyna 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There are numerous other name lists: List of Persian given names, List of Polish given names, List of Scandinavian given names, etc. Looking at those two, "East African" is far too broad for an article, and it looks like Vietnamese was deleted because no one wanted to bother to take the time to make it a real article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep ensuring all entries are sourced (sources in the Wikipedia articles for names that have one are OK) SP-KP 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly small list, with a specific criteria. Needs some work and references, but not deletion worthy. Turnstep 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Figuring out what name is considered English or has English origins maybe POV and I think that's where my problem for this list arises, but then again there are other lists for other nationalities and we can't discriminate against English names. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's an interesting article, if sourced, especially when you consider how English tends to borrow from other languages to form vocabulary. I'd like to see what names are English in origin. James Kendall 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete The other namelist were not substantial enough, so why should this one be.CharonX 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs one hell of an expansion, but keep. Encyclopedic and useful. StarryEyes 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the neutrality argument. Calwatch 06:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It needs a lot of work, but it is appropriate encyclopedic material. We need a consistent policy to all such lists of names. RayGates 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve it. We have lists of names from other languages. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: unmaintainable, very low encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 22:07, 4 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 okay, this one's a very difficult case. First of all, I will be discounting the views of everyone who opined solely because it's a suspected autobiography. The nominator himself argued for deletion "regardless of questions of encyclopaedic merit", and that's just not the way we do things here. It's not appropriate to delete an article merely because of who you think the author is (caveats about banned-by-ArbCom sockpuppets notwithstanding), and there's equally no point in counting the opinions of those who said "keep because I don't like the nomination". Now, the remaining opinions hinge on WP:BIO; there have been claims that she does and does not pass the notability guidelines. Does she count against "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers"? Frankly, it's hard to tell, as evidenced by the split here. There is no clear case either way, so the final closing will have to go down as no consensus. Those who wish to hurl rotten tomatoes and uncouth epithets are reminded that I have a talkpage somewhere. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelly Coneway

I think this is an autobiographical entry, judging from the text on the image uploaded by User:Nelly06, whose sole article this is, so delete for that reason, regardless of questions of encyclopaedic merit Staffelde 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for reason given.Staffelde 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No no no. Just because someone creates an article about themselves does not automoatically mean it should be deleted. This woman is a published author, and as such should be kept. She even appears on Amazon! Batmanand 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that WP:AB means precisely that self-written articles SHOULD be deleted, with a microscopically small number of exceptions. I am aware of her status as an author, which is why the article is nominated here for discussion instead of having a "speedy delete" tag for vanity on it, but regardless of who she is, my understanding is that she shouldn't have written the piece herself. Staffelde 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(See below for my reply) Batmanand 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A TV journalist and published author with books at Amazon is an obvious keeper. Vanity is neither a CSD nor a criteria for deletion in my book. This is wikipedia-anyone can edit an article and POV issues are dealt with through editing. -- JJay 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only repeat, WP:AB - or are you in WP:IAR mode?Staffelde 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:AB states that the practise is "strongly discouraged", not prohibited. The notability criteria are policy, which have been argued over for a very long time, and are now roughly equivalent to a consensus. If you want to change that, there is a lively discussion going on here, which you are more than welcome to join (and thus change AfD policy). But until then, I would urge people to keep and improve. Batmanand 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, WP:AUTO can be fixed. The fact that her principal claim to fame is being a published author, but that her books are published by a vanity press, is harder to fix. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Autobiography is difficult to prove and its discovery is not really the optimum role for editors. We are not detectives. Furthermore, the autobiography guidelines are not policy and do not mandate deletion or AfD (for evidence see our non-deleted article on the founder of this project). While I do not think autobiography is a good idea, it has no relevance for me in AfD debates. -- JJay 02:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Detectives or not, evidence below establishes autobiography. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See above where I said the issue has no relevance for me. If this is still unclear, please review all my comments on this page. On a side note, given your concerns with vanity and autobiography, is there any good reason for the six Union Jacks on this page? -- JJay 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed all your comments on this page. It remains the fact that (1) the Sofia Echo article "about" her relegates mention to a trailing paragraph and does not actually support the claim to notability as a "popular" TV host,(2) the books are self-published with no evidence of significance or sales and (3) the subject scores around a dozen unique Google hits, half of which are adverts for her books. You have decided you want this article kept, which is your prerogative, but there is absolutely no indication that she passes WP:BLP, which makes this a vanity autobiography, exactly as stated; the facts in this article originate with someone who says of herself that "Nelly Coneway is one of the most talanted and respected Bulgarian journalists in America". About half of what she posted has been removed as unverifiable puff. Of course none of those things individually necessarily make a subject non-notable - Robert Gunther self-published his book and still has an article, not least because the book is cited as a primary source by many biographies of famous 17th and 18th Century scientists - but together they make a pretty strong case for genuine scepticism about the importance of this subject. And the union flags are there so I can find my comments in long interleaved discussions - but even if that were vanity it would be irrelevant as an argumentum ad hominem and because I have not created a Wikipedia article about myself. Your faith in the improtance of this person is touching, but in the absence of any verifiable evidence of importance, I think somewhat misplaced. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't see anything new in your comment so I can't change my opinion. Not even sure why you want to endlessly debate the same points. It's not that I have decided that "I want the article kept", it's because I believe that Ms. Coneway qualifies for inclusion and makes a nice addition to the encyclopedia. Also I think you should seriously reconsider this flag thing. Imagine what a mess it would be if everyone did that. -- JJay 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. An author of four books and television presenter meets WP:BIO in my book. I have rewritten the article but it still needs more work. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the linkspam, added the fact that the books are self-published, and removed the Sofia Echo article as it's actually about her son (although the fact that it fails to corroborate the claim that she was a popular TV host may be significant). This article has started from the point of view of obvious vanity and ended up as marginal per WP:BLP since the major claims to fame appear hard to verify. If it was tagged for speedy as orignally written I'd have userfied it; if it was tagged for speedy as written now I'd probably have done the same. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough for an article, as long as it's all verified Prodego talk 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:AUTO is an editing guideline, not a deletion policy. Jkelly 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.... note that her books on Amazon have no rank. Her publisher is Infinity - a self publishing house. The buy books on the web (BBOTW) site is associated with Infinity Pub, apparently a marketing arm for self-published authors. Note that the bios are from the BBOTW - and are probably self-authored. No independent verification of claims. No Ghits for Bulgarian National TV "hits" other than BBOTW bio. No verifiable notability. Does not appear to meet standards for authors (WP:BIO) —ERcheck @ 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Appearing on Amazon is not enough rationale to justify an entry; ERcheck's point about self-publishing adds to the sense the subjkect is nn. Eusebeus 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sufficiently notable as journalist and media personality. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per arguments above. Jcuk 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Person could still be notable as a journalist, but I have to agree that non-ranked books on Amazon are not impressive. Any good vanity press or self-publisher will offer Amazon listings. So it's no indication of how good the book is nor how many people read it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (Further to above comments, particularly JJay's, while I grasp the point being made and while I agree that autobiography is not something to go deliberately hunting, my reading of WP:AUTO is nevertheless that the practice of creating one's own article, whoever one is, is STRONGLY discouraged. You are quite right to point out that "strongly discouraged" does not equal "totally forbidden" or "automatically deleted", but I think the guideline, if it means anything at all, must mean that there have to be unusually good reasons for allowing a self-created article to stand. I don't believe that in this instance there are unusually good reasons. This woman is not of sufficient stature as a journalist, author or "meeja" person to justify bending what is a very strong guideline. She comes in with no more than 57 Google hits, most of which are to self-promoting websites and duplicates. Ditto her publications, and her TV and journalistic ventures are significantly undistinguished. I just don't think her achievements are such as to merit bending what is quite a strong practice guideline.Staffelde 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
  • You are fully entitled to your interpretation, but try to maintain perspective. Guideline does not mean policy. This guideline mandates no action. It is a guideline for editing articles. Any article can be entirely rewritten. This is the case for many if not most of the offerings here. The "original sin" of an article's creation- in this case unproven I would point out- has no bearing. Lastly, I would assume that all guidelines are important to the people who care about them. When you repeatedly talk about a "very strong guideline" or "quite a strong practice guideline", I immediately wonder where I can find our "very weak" guidelines. -- JJay 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you check the books? The only English language book listed on Amazon is published by Infinity Publishing, a self-publishing company (i.e.vanity press). The two Bulgarian-language books are also published by the same publisher. So the claim to be a "published author" is weak in the extreme. The cited source from the Sofia Echo also is not actually about the subject, but about her son. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As long as you're going to declare that self-publishers are inherently non-notable, are you ready to nominate this musician for deletion because she has released all her albums through her own label? Monicasdude 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read the nom's argument above. Are we discussing autobiography now or Ms. Coneway's achievements? She is discussed in The Sofia Echo story, which confirms her TV role in Bulgaria. I also tend to doubt you or anyone else has made an exhaustive search of Bulgarian language sources. -- JJay 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Self-publishers are not vanity by definition and being self-published does not automatically equal non-notability. A variety of famous authors self-published work for which they could not find a regular publishing house. It's the fact the book has no Amazon sales rank that should set off the alarm bells. - Mgm|(talk) 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(readjust indents) Well, I am not saying she shd not be on the Bulgarian Wikipedia... But it seems from the Eng lang sites that she was not a major presenter, and does every TV presenter on every channel in the world automatically merit an article?
I would hate to see a duff article scrape through simply because I have blurred the reasons for deletion (now I am turning to Ignore All Rules...). This article was definitely begun by the subject, as is clear from the caption ("Me taken by my son" or something similar) on the image of the subject that User:Nelly06 uploaded at the same time as placing the initial article (see user contributions, of which there are VERY few). That would normally count as Vanity and be off straight away. In which connection, the following is from WP:VAIN: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." That seems fairly clear to me.
This lady has, it is quite true, a far more verifiable public profile than most, but the other information regarding her achievements from elsewhere is difficut to evaluate and borderline; and I am still think that autobiographical article + borderline significance should = delete. IF someone else thinks she is important enough, let them start it off again. (This is pretty much what JzG is saying below).
I am concerned that, if this is allowed to stay, it makes a sort of back-door precedent for borderline "semi-notables" to create their own entries and then rely on the force of inertia to keep them, whereas surely the trend of thought so far has been in the other direction. Staffelde 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete the redirect. The cited article is about her son and only mentions the subject oin the last para. This is clearly autobiography, I say userfy it and then let someone neutral create it if there is a demand. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since the nominator's rationale is expressly rejected by WP:VAIN as grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And what of the fact that the actual claims to notability are unverified (TV) and false (books are self-published)? If this was tagged as nn-bio it would probably be deleted (or userfied if it was a kind admin like me) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a speedy. Not even close. If it was tagged as nn-bio and then deleted two mistakes would have been made. An assertion of "notability" is made, hence no speedy. -- JJay 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The purpose of WP:AUTO is to discourage non-notable people from writing about themselves. From the page: If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. So some people want to have it "sooner" rather than "later". What's the harm in that? If the article is verifiable and the person notable, we allow it to stay, regardless of who created it. So, is she notable? I'd say no, if not for the Bulgaria factor - she is likely notable in Bulgaria, so the cultural bias factor wins the article over for me. Turnstep 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per JZG. I understand this is borderline, but I really doubt her notability and her relevance in the English wikipedia. If an article gets independently created in the future I might change my mind but for now, with autobio, self publishing and no clear indicator of notability I say delete. --kingboyk 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong delete, after the vanity publishing discussion and further analysis of the Sofia Echo article. Also, this is not the Bulgarian wikipedia where she might have a case for notability. Too bad I split up from my Bulgarian ex though :( --kingboyk 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Staffelde. (Opes 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep Per WP:BIO ComputerJoe 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. notability/verifiability OK. mikka (t) 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Fails WP:BIO. What more needs to be said? FCYTravis 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and a half. Fails WP:BIO, and despite the screaming that WP:VAIN somehow doesn't apply here because she's a notable Bulgarian personality, it's still vanity. True, it's not a speedy, but are there many Bulgarians coming to en-wiki to read up on their TV personalities? RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-published books? Writes for the "Bulgarian Echo" in LA? The whole "vanity article" kerfuffle is a red herring: it goes to motive, not to appropriateness -- as in, why else in God's name would anyone think this was worth an article? --Calton | Talk 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should generally keep an author with hits on Amazon. —Brim 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless the books have no or stratospheric sales rank (these have none at all) and are puiblished by a vanity press (these are). It is trivially easy to get a book published by a vanity press, assigned an ISBN and added to Amazon. Not one single copy need be sold in order to achieve that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I might vote keep, but I notice with great amusement that the original author didn't like other users cleaning up the (poor) text and thus blanked the page. Mercy killing. Ocicat 08:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nelly06 blanked the page in this edit with the reason "Deleting page for false content". Stifle 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:OWN. Stifle 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-published doesn't count. Let's face it, if her books were any good a publisher would have printed and distributed them for free. Pilatus 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, "popular in Bulgaria in the 1990s with her weekly TV Shows". Kappa 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what she says about herself, sure. What to the reliable external sources say? The only cited on merely mentions that she was on TV at one time, does not say how popular those shows were, how prominent her role was within those shows, or indeed how popular she is. Which, in a newspaper article supposedly establishing her notability, seems to me like a glaring omission. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Sofia Echo story says "David was born to an American father and a Bulgarian mother from Vidin". Doesn't sound like a famous TV star to me. You think they'd write about Jay Leno's kid having a "father from New Rochelle, New York"?! Read further down and it seems she presented the 'the Budo and Samurai sports show'. I'll leave you to ponder how popular that might be. --kingboyk 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Popular enough to be on national television, I assume. Kappa 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Sofia Echo article reads like the autobiographical entries. Perhaps submitted by the author herself. The Sofia Echo article refers to an award by GWB to the son. This is not notable. "Presidential" awards are routinely given to all levels of education - for example, the President's Physical Fitness Award. Students within all schools who achieve a certain level can receive these preprinted congratulations from the president; it is something that the schools can order. This may be the President's Education Award Program, which again can be ordered by schools. I suspect that this was submitted by the author. —ERcheck @ 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 19:09 2006-02-05
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete; Author requests deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horn (audio)

  • Speedy delete User wrote this article by mistake. ManiacK 00:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per nom. Batmanand 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - meets criteria G7 - sole author requests deletion of mistakenly created page. —ERcheck @ 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD G7. Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 01:14, 1 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 00:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Stones

Delete. Non-notable, poor quality. jareha 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn Batmanand 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Internet community" on a single discussion server with no info about how it's notable and no encyclopedic content. - Bobet 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bobet. --Whouk (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep it says it is "top quality!" Just kidding. Delete as no evidence of notability per WP:WEB. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable webforum. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:53Z
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Avi 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if rewritten still non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 19:09 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Poor Man's James Bond

Delete as non-notable book. It dosen't seem to be very notable, but I'm not very sure either. Inform me if I'm wrong. SYCTHOStalk 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. See here at Amazon. Seven books cite the book and there are ten customer reviews. Seems notable enought o me. Batmanand 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable alternative to the similar Anarchist Cookbook Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Batmanand. Royboycrashfan 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; this is definitely an article-worthy book. Jkelly 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep If it's notable enough for the feds to bring it up at your trial, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep requires the nominator to withdraw or the nomination to be in bad faith, which has not happened. Stifle 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Batmanand. --Whouk (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Batmanand Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Batmanand. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Almost all of those 10 reviews are probably by the author or the publisher's minions - they're too obviously enthusiastic. Even if they were real, 10 reviews is not much for a book that's existed for 15 years. Sales rank of #466,647 similarly unimpressive. Does this book meet the 5,000 readers mark? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:52Z
  • Keep - I know see that there have been 12 editions of the book. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:55Z
  • Keep - not only notable, but notorious. -- Jamiem
  • Keep Books are notable. —Brim 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Second Jamiem's comment. Georgewilliamherbert 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. —This user has left wikipedia 19:09 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 rewritten. mikka (t) 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Yuba River State Park

One sentence article that doesn't give notability. Kerowyn 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Next time please keep in mind that the size of an article is not a valid reason for deletion, especially about readily verifiable and notable things. mikka (t) 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete has been on Cleanup since March 2005. Clearly no-one cares enough to make it a propeor article, suggesting it is nn. Batmanand 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub, with a bit of work. I see no reason why this should not be the germ of a perfectly acceptable article: it's a genuine State Park.Staffelde 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've overhauled it to make a reasonable stub out of it - so keep. Staffelde 01:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it looks much better now, thanks to Staffelde.High Plains Drifter 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)*keep. mikka (t) 01:54, 1 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 to Utopianism. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utopanism

Delete or rewrite viciously This article looks like it was generated with one of those "gibberish generating" scripts. Bugturd Talk 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Couldn't find any political theory called "utopanism" in a quick google search. Fightindaman 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect to Utopia (also I think it is a spelling mistake - surely it shoudl be "utopianism"?) Batmanand 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's misspelled throughout, so I don't think it's an accidental typo. Redirect works for me though. Fightindaman 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Utopianism. This is pure original research. -- RHaworth 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Utopianism. Original research that's really far off the article's subject. - Bobet 01:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and redirect to Utopianism."speedy" is a no: WP:CSD. mikka (t) 02:02, 1 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 del mikka (t) 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Rogers (writer)

Obvious self-promotion by a freelance journalist of little note. Recommend deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.44.219.212 (talk • contribs) .

Orphaned AfD. —ERcheck @ 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable biography (CSD A7). Tagged. SYCTHOStalk 01:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Userfy if necessary. SYCTHOStalk 01:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of us here wikipedians are just on the same level of journalism and notability. We have user pages for this kind of brag. BTW, there is no User:Tim Rogers , nowhere to userfy. Let him/her userfy xeself. mikka (t) 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete preferably speedy. A writer on the Internet and the article questions the information published by Rogers which raises concerns about verifiability. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7: nn vanity bio and how Deiz 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Society for the Protection of Wikipedian Journalists: Please do not speedy until he's been researched further, or the AfD concludes, whichever is first. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Sycthos. Ardenn 07:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sepedy Delete per above. Eusebeus 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He isn't just a "internet journalist" he writes for several magazines and is a fairly big name in the video game journalism industry. He's quite notable for being one of the fore-runners of the new games journalism movement. Kobyn 09:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, notable journalist. Niche notability, exactly -- the sort of thing a process like AfD performs poorly on. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That's one vote; SPOWJ was a comment :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but not speedy as notability is asserted. Just not, I'm afraid, terribly convincingly. I removed the speedy tag. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficiently notable. --Whouk (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough Prodego talk 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable enough. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:17, 1 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 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ru'la'Lax

Original fiction - written by Trendon. Interestingly, the only Google hits we get are at trendon.blogspot.com. -- RHaworth 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and it shall return when/if it is published. Ziggurat 02:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. Doesn't even claim to be from / based on a book or... well, anything. Deiz 02:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unpublished, not notable. Sounds like it could be interesting fiction, though. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. Clearly fiction with no source citation or context. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

--68.198.156.138 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable book/ --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Terence! How can you say such things? It gets two Google hits. Admittedly both on the author's blog... Userfy and delete the redirect. I'll do it now and close early if people want? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per everyone.-- Ec5618 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 19:12 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Belle

  • Delete. Christine Belle herself, in fact, requested that this be deleted. It was placed on here without her consent. That alone should be enough reason to remove it. Rythiliam | talk 08:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

She's a high school band director. She's apparently reasonably competent; her band won a statewide competition in 2004. But that's not enough to be notable. dbenbenn | talk 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "They"? The band isn't up for deletion Deiz 03:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Our guidelines do not specify whether "major music competition" means a Texas competition for junior high school bands. Even if it did, it doesn't mean that everyone associated with the band deserves an article. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, possible vanity, unsourced photo, no evidence the competition (or more accurately section of the competition) her band entered is notable and OMG HAVE YOU SEEN THE REDLINKS?? Should be speedied on that count alone. Deiz 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like she's a good band director (especially if one of her students took the time to make a page like this for her), but not notable enough for her own article in an encyclopedia. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redlinks are not a problem, becuase almost all of them would be notable topics if someone chose to write about them. But she's not notable enough. Grandmasterka 08:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I find high school band competitions to be pretty unnotable, even if they are statewide. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing the "professor test" - not remarkably different from any other person doing the same job. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough Prodego talk 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. A High school band director on an encyclopedia??? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The band itself probably wouldn't even be worth inclusion, except on the school's page. The director would get less than 2 words there. I don't think she warrants her own article. Re: the arguments about guidelines above; they're called guidelines for a reason. They're not hard and fast rules, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Peyna 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. WP:NOT Who's Who in High School Music. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. StarryEyes 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "This one time, in band camp ..." —Brim 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and vanity. *drew 10:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 19:12 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. I shall userfy the Jimbo Kersten one, however, for politeness' sake. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor of South Campus and James "Jimbo" Kersten

Unverified student position at Lake Forest College. No Google hits. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also adding the related article James "Jimbo" Kersten to this AfD. For this page, I say copy to User:Kerstj and delete as a non-notable vanity page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Also delete that one as vanity. Kusma (討論) 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable position, and a vanity page (current position holder is James "Jimbo" Kersten, creator of article was User:Kerstj). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, cute, but WP:NFT. Bad ideas 06:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, and unverified Prodego talk 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy since user:Kerstj doesn't have a user page yet. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Merge into Lake Forest College. —Brim 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death List

Fast Delete - seems to be an entry about a website forum (basically a free advert at that) that is constantly vandalised by members of that forum Gretnagod 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Having considered everything I have changed my mind and realised that this site DOES deserve an entry. If for no other reason than its inclusion in The Sun, the highest circulating English-speaking newspaper on the planet. However, IP addresses of edits should be closely monitored for vandalism - ie if its true that users of that site are altering other Wiki entries to fake deaths - ie Clive Dunn - then it should be pulled. There is no way it can be merged because, as much as anyone did, the creators of Death List actually invented the idea. Gretnagod 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

this site linked from dead pool claims to have a history of the concept since 1591. So I hardly think it's fair to assert that the creators of this website invented it in 1987. TMS63112 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that site links from Deathpool. TMS63112 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but we could argue over what an actual concept actually is, because I think the concept of this is different enough to other similar concepts to warrant inclusion. It is surely more than a forum as it tracks the day to day well-being of many people, some famous and some less so but all who are in, or were in, the public eye. Gretnagod 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the differences between this Death List and other dead pools or Deathpools I belive the concepts are all similar enough that they could all be covered by one merged article with appropriate redirects. TMS63112 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep .. Notable website, interesting subject matter, verifiable media references. 18,800 googles for ["deathlist.net" ++Deiz 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Get it merged as below ++Deiz 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep As per arguments on talk page. Canadian Paul 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Alexa rating is over 177,000.--ThreeAnswers 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 13% non-duplicate returns on [Google] (thus 14400 * .13 = ~1870) reveals limited popularity. Further many of the links seem to be garbage. The brief notoriety spawned by ["Keef's" lament] is insufficient to keep this here. Therefore, unnotable, low-traffic, flash-in-the-pan unencyclopedic subject. Eusebeus 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This page should be KEPT!! (Lady Die, DL member)

  • Keep, notable, per Deiz. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Web forums can create a lot of Google hits if they want to and still be beyond the scope of notability. --Agamemnon2 11:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • weak(ish) delete. Has a couple of thosand inbound links ([4]) and Alexa rank of 177,000 ([5]), so seems to em to fail WP:WEB. If it can be substantiated that they originated this idea then that would make them notable in my view. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable enough, I'd like an Alexa rank of 100,000 or better, unless it is notable for other reasons (discussed in news media, popular book mentions, ect.). Prodego talk 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep.. Significance of site indicated by factors other than the number of site 'hits'; in particular, acknowledgements from reputable news sources (i.e. The Sun, The Guardian, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Esquire, Yahoo!, etc). --In eternum+ 16:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is hardly a flash in the pan as it has been going for 20 years

Merge and redirect to Deathpool or Dead pool (which should probably be merged into each other). TMS63112 20:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That works for me too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Significant, informative and entertaining website. Death List is not a gambling game nor do members submit individual lists as in a Dead pool or Deathpool. It is almost certainly an unique format (as suggested above by Gretnagod) and justifies a separate article.Obi 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with the above post. And surely this matter should be decided soon as it is dragging on a bit. 88.109.174.168 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin By my count, four of the 6 users who have suggested this article be kept are either anonymous IPs or their only contributions are related to this AfD. TMS63112 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment relating to above statement That is not relevant - it's not the number who voice an opinion either way but what they state. Death List relates to a unique discussion area and members do not choose their own picks, as in Dead Pools etc. Instead, a central committee makes the decisions and it is up to members to provide updates on the health and well being of those listed. The above post should be discounted. Gretnagod 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another comment User:TMS63112 seems to have a problem with anonymous users BUT on their very own page they admit they made many contributions to Wiki before registering. Pot, Kettle, Black? Gretnagod 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Response I don't have a problem with anonymous editors or with new editors. We were all new once, and I contributed anonymously to many articles. But, for better or worse, it is standard proceedure in closing AfD debates to look at the history of users contributions. The opinions expressed by users who have a history of contributing to Wikipedia are generally given more weight than the opinions of those who show up to "vote" on a single AfD. Therefore, I was simply pointing out information that the closing admin may want to consider. TMS63112 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to TMS63112: If you are suggesting that my opinion on this matter should be taken less seriously because I have not commented on other Wiki articles, I most seriously object. Just because I couldn't care less about most of the topics covered in Wiki does not mean my opinion with regard to this topic is less valid. --In eternum+ 00:30, 7 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. I got 9,610 Google hits, but only 271 of them are non-duplicates, effectively nullifying most of the arguments to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knugen Faller

  • Delete: Non-notable band. Article even admits that they've released no CDs at all - only LPs. WP:MUSIC suggests two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on either Amazon or AllMusic. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • only LPs. -- I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. 7" singles are not long players --- GWO
      • Going by the article: "So far Knugen Faller have yet to release their music on CDs, relying on LPs..." Am I saying something wrong? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It needs cleanup. But the band has been getting press since 2004, judging from the links, and the article claims a number of releases. Further, I don't understand the nom's position that LPs are somehow less, um, notable than CDs. Swedish punk rock is not necessarily the best place to apply WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The only releases I see the article referring to are two short 7" vinyl EP's. As far as the notability of CDs, my simple answer is "it's 2006". I can burn CDs on my computer. On the other hand, I don't own a record player and I can't remember the last time I've even seen one. How can a band be notable if 90% (I'm guessing) of houses don't have the equipment to physically play their music? Is this some Swedish trend that I'm not aware of? Are they releasing 8-tracks next? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Maybe we should delete Al Jolson or Bing Crosby then as their releases were all vinyl. And yes I know the two examples I gave have subsequently been released on CD. Jcuk 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well that completely misses my point. Jolson's and Crosby's releases were from 50 years ago (or whenever). Just show me one other notable band whose entire discography is on vinyl only and is less than five years old and I'll be quiet (or I'll nominate them for Afd too). —Wknight94 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 9k hits from google [6], seems fairly notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrokey44 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: FWIW, I don't see 9k hits from your link - I see 607. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well I see it saying "Results 1 - 10 of about 9,350 for "Knugen Faller"" -- Astrokey44|talk 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll take your word for it. Must be some Google preference we have set up differently. I get "Results 1 - 100 of about 607 for "Knugen Faller". (0.15 seconds)". —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I was getting 608, but now am getting 9,350. So, its not a difference in preferences. You're just hitting different servers, as we're apparently in the midst of a "Google dance" (I suspect its over now, and if you redo the search, you'll get the higher number). In any event, the uniques seems to remain constant. But, its hard to compare. --Rob 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
            • No, it went up to only 617. I don't get it. And if I take out the double quotes, I still only get 745. That's quite a discrepancy - Google gives seven hundred or nine thousand depending on what time of day it is or whatever?! Maybe I need to sell that stock before someone else finds out... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Actually, everybody "found out" before the Google IPO, back when Google dances were a bigger deal. This is a very *minor* variation. The unique results remain similiar, as do the top results. The raw hit figure (617/9350), is a nearlly trivial figure. As said many time, one site can account for hundred of thousands of hits. In fact *non-existant* urls can be included in that "hit" figure (I'm not talking of down urls, I'm talking of urls that never existed). Perhaps, I should add yet another qualifier to Wikipedia:Google test, as this test continues to be a problem. --Rob 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Rob 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get 607 hits as well from Astrokey's search, and only 270 unique ones. Fails WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe. Stifle 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Despond

  • Delete: Non-notable band. Has only one full-length album which falls short of WP:MUSIC guideline of two on major labels. The article lists the same label for every entry on the discography which appears to be inaccurate. Official website says at least one was never actually released. No mention on either Amazon or Allmusic. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... this appears to be a side-project of musicians not notable to have articles for themselves or for their other projects. Jkelly 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable band. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:52, 1 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 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doom Engine

  • Strong Delete: Completely non-notable band. Has a myspace page — and nothing else. Nothing on Amazon or AllMusic. Nothing even on MetalArchive.com and they have every metal band. Can't determine if what's listed in their discography is even available for purchase. Would've loved to speedy this but, alas, a discography is present. (Needless to say, try not to get confused with the computer software, Doom engine). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the myspace user who mentioned that they were the only ones enjoying the set. Jkelly 03:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete vanity page? Metta Bubble 12:46, 1 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 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Xtremes

NN vanity. I am also including Underground Cavern in this AfD Ezeu 02:38, 1 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Nelson

  • There are many academic user bios of current researchers who are not particularly well known. There are grad student bios, C.V.s, and even undergrad bios. It does not make sense to target new articles of this nature when there is no automatic mechanism to remove the many many academic bios that already are wiki articles. Because of this inequity, I suggest the academic bios NOT be deleted or userfied until a reasonable method of vetting the huge number of existing bios it instituted.

Vanity and personal publicity play a very different role in academics than they do in most other walks of life, and the notoriety of a particular research often depends more on that person's ability to sell and self-promote them self than on the quality of his or her work. I have found many wiki pages related to an active scientific field being used as shameless self promotion by one or another research group that would like to increase their notoriety, and interlinked academic bios are a big part of this. Most hot research topics now have wiki articles of this nature. Are those who acted first in this regard, those who are better seller of themselves, are they to be grandfathered in? This would make wiki a tool in deed. --Androidchild 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. userfy andrew l nelson 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Move to Userpage Article is WP:AUTO. Notability might be arguable, but its still a WP:AUTO Bugturd Talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Move into User namespace. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move into user namespace. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete from article namespace. Userfy is fine. --Whouk (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy —Brim 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fenfolk

A cryptozoological race. Unfortunately too crypto to have been heard of anywhere but Wikipedia. Allegedly in southwest England but speaking with a North Norfolk accent - strange. -- RHaworth 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Phrasing of nomination made me grin :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the author can site some sources. I'm very familiar with cryptozoology and Forteana, but I've never heard of the Fenfolk. Zagalejo 03:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete while it sounds like a great article, Wikipedia isn't original research. If it can be verified, I'd consider changing my vote. Ardenn 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per no original research. Looks like a made up story. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BJAODN, nice one. Delete, of course. Lukas (T.|@) 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - good try but not quite good enough - there ARE no fens in south-west England: if he'd stuck to Norfolk, he might just have sneaked it through. Staffelde 12:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically that's not correct, in fact Wikipedia has an article on one, Bolshayne Fen. But I know what you mean. SP-KP 18:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I'm blowed - I must admit I've never heard of it. But then I'm from Dorset. Staffelde 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • - Being from Cambridgeshire, myself, I can verify the claim that there are rumours/legends of "fenfolk" within the local community. They're said to be the products of inbreeding within the fen-peoples. I suggest that the southwest-southeast issue was merely an typing error, and, therefore, have changed the article to reflect this. James H. 12:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The preceding unsigned vote was added by 85.12.65.33, a School-IP persistent vandalism source. Lukas (T.|@) 12:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had trouble finding any evidence for this myth that isn't just local stories, or news of sightings passed on through word-of-mouth. But I think I may have something here:

"Day by day the feasting continued, until its noise and the festal joy of its revellers aroused a mighty enemy, Grendel, the loathsome fen-monster. This monstrous being, half-man, half-fiend, dwelt in the fens near the hill on which Heorot stood. Terrible was he, dangerous to men, of extraordinary strength, human in shape but gigantic of stature, covered with a green horny skin, on which the sword would not bite. His race, all sea-monsters, giants, goblins, and evil demons, were offspring of Cain, outcasts from the mercy of the Most High, hostile to the human race."

- Hero-Myths and Legends of the British Race (Chapter I) - by Maud Isabel Ebbutt (Published 1910)

I know it isn't much, and I doubt you'll take it as any sort of proof, but at least I tried. Oh, and I meant "East", not "West"... That'll teach me for not proof-reading.--Grubbles 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As a punishment for your misbehaviour, you will write an essay on the topic: "What is the difference between my made-up 'fenfolk' and the description of Grendel in l.102-106 of 'Beowulf'"?
wæs se grimma gæst   Grendel hāten,
mǣre mearc-stapa,   sē þe mōras hēold,
fen and fæsten;   fīfel-cynnes eard
won-sǣlig wer   weardode hwīle,
siððan him scyppend   forscrifen hæfde.
Oh yes, and you can learn and recite the first three chapter of the poem by heart please, by tomorrow. ;-) Lukas (T.|@) 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

--- Well, I know nothing of any poem, but I found all that on this site Clicky ... hmmm. So, short of getting someone to write a book for me to quote from, I've got no way to prove this myth? ... Well, at least, to the extent a myth can be proven. At least chuck it in WP:BJAODN, it took a rather long time to write.--Grubbles 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a question...if it is a known myth, why delete it? I think it should be deleted if nobody has ever heard of nor can find any evidence of the myth. Kukini 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I can only find this in my searches...http://www.fenfolk.glowinternet.net/.


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. --Deathphoenix 12:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in Georgia

This was one of many articles in the list of this AfD, which I closed as Delete all. However, I am uncomfortable with deleting this article along with all the others because it's a different cookie from the other articles I deleted. The article as it stands needs some serious work, but with similarly-named articles such as Scouting in California, I think this needs to be relisted on its own rather than be one entry in an AfD of many. No vote from me. --Deathphoenix 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete, could use some help in salvaging it-when those of us at the Scouting WikiProject saw what was happening with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges, we decided that the time was overdue to convert the Council lists into state articles, as we had been discussing and which we are in the process of doing. Someone has put in all sorts of work here, but not encyclopedically, including use of ALL CAPS*yuck*. There are similar articles now for each state, I'd love to have some help in cleanup. Chris 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per advice of relevent WikiProject. Jkelly 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Kintetsubuffalo. The task of cleaning it up appears to have started. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, as article has counterparts for every single state. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and massive cleanup - the massive list of districts isn't encyclopedic. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A "Speedy keep" means that the AfD was nominated in bad faith. I assure you, it was not. Please just let the AfD run its course, though it seems likely this article will be kept. --Deathphoenix 06:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: according to Wikipedia:Speedy keep, this can also be done when the nominator withdraws the nomination and there have been no delete votes (could be applied here) or if the nominator states that they support a keep/rename/merge/move/redirect. I voted for Speedy keep in the hope that we could end the discussion early based on a very obvious criterion for inclusion. I hope you took no offense to this, as I know the nomination was certainly in good faith, and was not implying otherwise. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let the US members of the Wikiproject Scouting have time to sort this out. It can not be done overnight. Perhaps the nominator, who I agree put this up in good faith, could simply withdraw the nomination. --Bduke 06:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no objections to that. --Deathphoenix 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:26, 1 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 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacratic Inquisition

Non-notable junk or original research. Delete as quickly as possible. --Nlu (talk) 02:45, 1 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 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Roberts

This was a hoax the last time it was created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts. It is still not believable, as there is no such child of the Earl of Shaftesbury and his children would not likely be named "Stefan" anyway. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 06:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{hoax}} Unverifiable, appears to be highly suspicious. Can an entry in Debretts Peerage be cited for this individual?  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. If someone shows up with proof of his lineage, disregard my vote. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice unless objectively verified. And, if this is a recreation, cannot this be taken to an Admin to have the name-space locked (if that is the terminology) -- Simon Cursitor 12:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:46Z
  • Delete per nom. Rory096 20:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD:G4 reposted content. Stifle 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am an expert in British Aristocracy and can confirm that His Excellency is indeed who he says he is. He assumed the title only a few months ago and therefore shall not appear in Debretts. He was named Stefan due to his father studying German at school and College. I would also recommend updating the Earl of Shaftesbury article after the sudden death of Anthony Shaftesbury. johnpallen 21:07, 2 February 2006
    • I see you are new here, welcome! Please back up your claim about the Shaftesburys by citing a reliable source (and note that since you haven't been editing here before, it is hard for us to decide whether you really are an expert in British aristocracy). Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And what happened to Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury? Isn't he the one with the title? Kusma (討論) 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am dreadfully sorry, it was his father called Anthony wasn't it, I beg your pardon.
  • Indeed, it seems my claimed title of 'expert in British Aristocracy' is not very well deserved as I have, after searching through my newest records found that in fact His Excellency's father is not the Earl of Shaftesbury as I first said. I have, however, found a reference to him in one of the newest books I have on English peerage as Baron Ashley, I must therefore presume that he has assumed this title. Perhaps a better update to the article would be naming Lord Ashley as the Heir Presumptive to Lord Shaftesbury. As for Lord Roberts all information cited I believe is still correct. It was from his mother's side that he inherited the wealth, not actually having anything to do with his title. His Uncle was the person I was thinking of as the 'late' Lord Shaftesbury, when in fact it was the late Lord Jersey that died unfortunately in a car crash a few months ago. My most sincere apologies for causing any confusion.
  • Dreadfully sorry, I just remebered I forgot to cite my source. It was Burke's 2006. I get a pre-published version every year.


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Bengtson

Not notable. Ezeu 02:47, 1 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 non-notable group with seven members. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue flame woods

A game with "7 members", created mid-January 2006. Delete (or speedy as nn-club). Kusma (討論) 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. No notability claimed. No Guru 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, plausibly a speedy, although it was intriguing to read that "Even the sea was wasn't." Grutness...wha? 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, non-notable and no notability claimed. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:57, 1 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 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enriched limit

Non-existent technical term DV8 2XL 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Google search turns up mirrors only DV8 2XL 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Royboycrashfan 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The word have been used 3 times in published scholarly literature [[7]] but I could not find it in the articles to check the contexted. --Elfwood 10:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The first two links seem to have to do with "enriched limits" relating to Abelian categories that my own search turned up, if I'm interpreting them correctly. Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician. --Christopher Thomas 07:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as low on context and unverifiable. Stifle 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Term is O.R. and statement about uranium demonstrably erroneous. --Ste. Anne 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I asked the author to provide a reference if one exists. The definition of it makes no logical sense to me personally, but that might not mean anything (I am not a physicist); "maximum number of ions in an element" strikes me as jumble of terms in a way which makes no sense. But again, I am happy to be shown to be totally wrong in this. --Fastfission 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be nonsense. pstudier 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All I can find online are references to this Wikipedia article, and references to a completely unrelated meaning in mathematics. Searching on "enrichment limit" gives multiple links to more conventional discussions of uranium enrichment, and a link to limits to concentrations of substances in a water supply before Bad Things happen, which is unrelated to this article. As far as being used as a term in chemistry, I can see how the article contents might be a mangled version of some chemical concept, but it looks like gibberish as-is from what I can see. --Christopher Thomas 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have never heard of this term, after reading the page I suspect that it might be a case of patent nonsense.Cadmium
  • Delete Can find no evidence for the term. There is an enrichment limit, but that's usually a legal licensed limit, not a fundemental physical limit Salsb 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Both sentences are erroneous. When you enrich something, you increase the ratio of one isotope in relation to another, and I'm pretty sure most nuclear weopons are enriched in excess of 90% in U-235. Lcolson 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Concept not physically valid. For example, AVLIS could reach extremely high enrichments. Simesa 12:48, 4 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 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stonecypher, The Stonecypher

Article about an artifact and central plot device from the novel Stonecypher Road (Amazon), that itself does not have an article and gets only 27 hits on Google. The history contains a copyvio from Amazon too [8]. Delete. ×Meegs 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all of it. Wouldn't be mergeable even if the actual book had an article, which it doesn't anyway. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonverifiable. Smells hoax. A thingy with such amazing properties would have caused a stir of interest. mikka (t) 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as some sort of cruft, not entirely sure what. Stifle 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:06, 3 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 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Def

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, and should not include such things. Thatfunkymunki 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep because of the definition of DEF that points to Design Exchange Format -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as disambiguation; however, definition should not be there (per WP:NOT). --Alan Au 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. Royboycrashfan 06:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but bring in line with disambig style and get rid of the def'n. Peyna 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alan Au. Rory096 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep'/cleanup. mikka (t) 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. See Talk:Def#Wiktionary. If Taint (slang) can be in Wikipedia, this Def term with a much more rich history definitely can. Alexander 007 23:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean-up with sourced, verifiable content about the origin of the usage; as opposed to the Original Research "urban dictionary" definition now there.--LeFlyman 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Duff timeline

There is no need for biographic figures to have timeline articles associated with them. Any relevant information ought to be included on the Hilary Duff page. I would be alright with a merge if there's any information worth moving over, but that isn't to say that the Hilary Duff article ought to include a timeline like this. NoIdeaNick 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge the relevant and significant information judiciously into Hilary Duff. Some of the material is not of great importance such as appearance of Total Request Live. Other is crystal ball material such as the supposed start of her tour in 2007. Capitalistroadster 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster has good reasons for merging, but they lead me to believe it should be deleted. Royboycrashfan 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge non-IMDb.com material on to Hilary Duff and delete the majority of the page.  (aeropagitica)  06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since there is nothing here of note to merge to the main Hilary Duff page. Eusebeus 08:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, everything that would deserve merging is already in the main article. Besides, dates are mostly US centric. Shows aired more than once in different locations which is never mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, since I added the mergeto tag in the first place. =) Powers 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Most data seems to be in the article already, so it wouldn't be that difficult either. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth I don't think there's any material worth merging left. If anything is merged. Please move this to a subpage of Talk:Hilary Duff and redirect to retain attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hilary Duff. RayGates 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hilary Duff. Essexmutant 12:08, 5 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 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barefoot Manner

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC —Wrathchild (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep The article says that they have released three albums and WP:Music requires a two album minimum; one of their releases is mentioned on allmusic.com. I think that the article should certainly be cleaned up as it the tone is far too demotic and falls below that required for WP encyclopædic standards.  (aeropagitica)  07:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Allmusic.com lists them although with only 1 album listed. 27,600 Google hits for "Barefoot Manner" many of which appear to be about them see [9].

This South Carolina gig guide shows them at playing at a theatre two days after Robert Fripp so they must have some following see [10]. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:29, 1 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 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Lavaishe

The Library of Congress is unaware of this gentleman. Pilatus 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-verifiable. The name "LaVaishe" gets a handful of Google hits, none significant, zero Google book search hits and zero Google scholar hits. --Lockley 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, likely hoax and not worth a page anyway. Charles Matthews 09:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verifiable. Turnstep 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Bobby1011 19:02, 5 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 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Schmidt

Possible vanity page, or just a stub bio on a non-notable person. Kevin 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Claim to notability rests on "founder of Eterna Records". 200 Ghits for that, so my guess is non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:45Z
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Brim 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-bio}}. Spurious claim to notability. Stifle 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life

This is a POV screed against The Purpose Driven Life. After I suggested that putting 17 links to anti-Rick-Warren articles in the article about his book might be excessive, and that instead User:Fides Viva ought to find a few choice quotations from those articles to quote from, "Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life" was created. This type of link-dumping is simply not encyclopedic. JDoorjam 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar. I have not been link dumping. I have been placing links to critical articles, essays and audio resources that expose the horrendeous false teachings of Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven® Movement, that each and every person can research into for themselves. The book by Warren is a book of falsehoods and Scripture Twistings and should NOT even be promoted on Wikipedia in any size, shape or form, whatsoever. The amount of people that have already been deceived by it is an INJUSTICE!!! Everything was fine until you came along and deleted the whole lot and started demanding I do this and that. I have never interfered with your work on Wikipedia, why disturb mine? Either leave ALL the links to the critiques in the main article or leave them in the new section I started. Thankyou Fides Viva 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your behavior is unacceptable and anti-Christian. Wikipedia has articles on Mein Kampf, The 120 Days of Sodom, the Necronomicon and even Jack Chick. We promote nobody. We document, catalog, ennumerate and list. We are an encyclopedia, and we don't take sides. --Agamemnon2 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this weren't just a list of links, "critiques of the purpose driven life" seems like it should be a section in the primary article ON the purpose driven life, not its own separate article. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have not been link dumping. I counted over 50 links: to say that it's NOT link-dumping defies reality. --Calton | Talk 11:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Better to amend existing article than have this one remain. MLA 12:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not so much an article, more a discusive web-based bibliography. I like the phrase 'link-dumping' used above as a general description. The content does not appear to be encyclopædic, so delete on that basis.  (aeropagitica)  22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain I looked at the The Purpose Driven Life article and noticed that none of the external links were critical of the book. Perhaps one or two (not 50, please) of the links from the critiques page could be saved. Bad ideas 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and sanction article author for above outburst. From the title on down, this cannot possibly be NPOV. Haikupoet 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of links. —Brim 05:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and add a much much shorter list to The Purpose Driven Life. Maybe two or three of the better quality links from this list will cover all factual points. BreathingMeat 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even as I think the book to be wholly unpersuasive, I readily recognize the impropriety of including a page such as this on WP, notably in view of the salient critiques of JDoorjam and Bad ideas. Joe 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure POV, and part of an anti-megachurch campaign. Invite the creator to study NPOV and then to add encyclopedic information to the base article (and to several others they have similarly annotated with their opinions, and staunchly defend). Andrewa 13:09, 6 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 BJAODN. Mailer Diablo 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cthulhu's Wager

BJAODN. Obviously created as a joke. No references (wait...let me check my copy of the Necronomicon just in case..) However, good candidate for Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • BJAODN per nominator. Crypticfirefly 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN slightly amusing, especially the self-flagellation part.  (aeropagitica)  07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, some work went into this one. It should stick around, just not in the main namespace. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN this. I think this is a really good summary of a lot of religious thought, unfortunately... Grandmasterka 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Maybe merge into the criticisms of Pascal's Wager if someone is feeling more bold than I am about it. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're meant to be ritually sacrificing things, can we start with Certain English MPs, before we get round to Wikipaedians ? -- Simon Cursitor 12:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (not an MP)
  • BJAODN. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:44Z
  • Delete —Brim 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, self evident reasons - and whoever puts it there should definitely include (subst:) the OR note without category, too. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • the picture of my deity is offensive to me I think I'll burn some online flags and boycott online stores. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Just don't draw any pictures of Cthulhu or I'll sic my shoggoth on you! RlyehRising 23:33, 3 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 The World's 10 Worst Dictators. Mailer Diablo 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

  • Delete not formated correct, no external links, list not notable enough to have a page, etc...-Jersey Devil 04:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dictator.. Delete. Everything is present at List of dictators. utcursch | talk 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. By definition of "worst dictators", page could never meet WP:NPOV. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per utcursch, EWS23 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a magazine article and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Sommers (Talk) 05:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The World's 10 Worst Dictators where the 2005 and 2004 lists are mentioned. (it looks like the same title but with a different type of apostrophe?? %E2%80%99 instead of %27 in the adress. I dont know how that works) -- Astrokey44|talk 05:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to the other spelling. Gazpacho 07:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to correctly formatted page. Grandmasterka 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to the The World's 10 Worst Dictators page, I've added the 2006 list to that article. -Canley 09:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect (don't delete) to retain attribution to original contributor. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article appears arbitary, with no justification for the nomination of each dictator. The list appears to be subjective and as such fails the WP:NPOV criteria.  (aeropagitica)  17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect w/o delete per Mgm. Youngamerican 18:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. See also The World's Most Benevolent Dictator. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ubless we also have The world's 10 best dictarors -Doc ask? 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to make it clear that this is reporting on the People magazine list and not endorsing its decisions (which would violate WP:NPOV). This is a notable list compiled annually by a major national newsmagazine. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to The World's 10 Worst Dictators. And on what planet is Parade (not People) "a major national newsmagazine"? --Calton | Talk 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless balanced out by an article on World's 10 Best Dictators. --Gene_poole 04:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. —Brim 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if this thing gets kept, it's going to need some serious work, since it's full of mistakes and typos; e.g., "Niyezov of Turkmanistan" should actually be "Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan." Ergot 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete about as useful as the 100 best songs by any number of radio stations that get deleted from time to time. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Gazpacho. Joe 05:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Essexmutant 12:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as per Gazpacho. Donama 06:17, 6 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 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lico Laats

Delete per WP:NMG Tycoonjack 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Lico Laats has been a great influence upon a number of lives in their college environment and is quickly growing in popularity and renown. Their style of beats is a unique blend of broad influence and is the next step in underground freestyle. Wikipedia can and should leave this article upon Wikipedia as it will show a great deal of wisdom and foresight on the part of Wikipedia administrators, and when Lico Laats is a well known name among those who listen to independent music and underground freestyle, it will be great advertising for Wikipedia.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.24.245.72 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC. Also, Wikipedia is doing just fine without any promo from these unexceptional artists. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and also as a vanity page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete, blatant vanity page. Royboycrashfan 06:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nom. Batman2005 06:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete they're obviously trying to be the bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.74.225 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Delete per everybody. "These subtile beat-loving Italian-German-Spanish-Peruvians make sure to dwell significantly in the land of smooth spontaneity intermingling with appropriately-placed harshness." --Lockley 07:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, "great advertising for Wikipedia", give us a break! --Canley 10:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete holy crap! What a mess. Get yourselves a design agency, guys! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. —Brim 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold-Lined Success

Does not mention a record deal of anything of note. Another vanity band page. Banana04131 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for Speedy on second thought. Hope it pases. Banana04131 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While it is vanity, WP:MUSIC states:

The fact an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7.

Ergo, this article cannot be speedied. It still should be deleted, though. Royboycrashfan 06:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "a somewhat popular band" is a claim of notability?! Sheesh. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Gold lined delete as failing to establish any claim to notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of success. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable band. —Brim 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frostano

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Supposedly 600 years dead and only 3 Google hits. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Author: Frostano. Frostano's only other entry: starting Tough guy and listing 'Gilberto Frostano' along with Kojak, etc., as examples. This is non-notable, bollocks and vanity. --Lockley 07:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as either complete bollocks or vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:59, 1 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 to Return to the 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return To The 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version

All the information contained on the Return To The 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version page can be found at Return to the 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version. This page is just an inferior version of that one. Delete. Lairor 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Would be a common search. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Royboycrashfan 07:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect any time is good. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect —Brim 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, with the observation that miscapitalization doesn't worry the search box for initial letters, it will try all variations. Stifle 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "west coast style"

Advertisement for non-notable mountain bike instruction video. ThreeAnswers 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. May be copyvio of [11]. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and will speedy of the source of a copyvio can be found, but I didn't see it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Brim 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, copyvio. incog 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete; nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edwards AFB Airshow

Found on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. News-like article with a bad title, about the retirement of one specific F-117 Nighthawk plane. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Fix if someone fixed this up with information about the Airshow, I'd say keep, otherwise, delete. Swatjester 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, dead-end page. Royboycrashfan 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Edwards Air Force Base, where any relevant information on the air show can go until the air show has enough info. to merit its own article. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:53, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DPS Paladin

Non-notable gaming/forum term, and most likely a neologistic one. (Not to mention some POV problems.) Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Merge into World of Warcraft terminology; does not have general meaning outside of WoW context. --Alan Au 06:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Alan Au. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Alan Au. (I'm changing my original vote from delete to merge.) Swatjester 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Alan Au. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to WoW terminology (then delete that as gamecruft) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:04, 1 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 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Mann

Delete. With all sympathy for those involved, this page regards the victim of an auto accident and is non-notable. Lockley 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Legalities involved in the investigation as well as the fact it was featured on CNN twice make it notable enough for at least a short entry. Swatjester 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. 4.224.156.211 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain for now. Lockley and Swatjester both made good arguments. Delete/Move to Wikinews. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, exceptional tragedies should be considered notable. This is not a run-of-the-mill auto accident -- if I scrape my fender, then write an article about it, it's non-notable. The described in this article are both sad and notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete FITP. Sadly, the bias for keeping subject matter related to minor news items on WP (which thereby absurdly conflates media coverage with encyclopedic value) is strongly ingrained. If this fails as no consensus, bring it back in two months when she'll be forgotten and we can Delete her then. Eusebeus 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This did receive a lot of media attention due to the unbelievably tragic circumstances, but I don't think it should be something that really needs to be in WP. Eusebeus is right, by April, no one will remember this, and certainly no one will need to read a WP article on by what will at that time have become just another accident. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the mother is nn. Take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a memorial. Wikinews it that way ----> Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a lot of sad things in this world that just aren't encyclopedic. This woman is the mother of the victims, not even the victim herself. NickelShoe 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable people and Wikipedia is not the obits page. —Brim 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per precedent. Wikinews can take it, although transwikification from here to there doesn't work for licensing reasons. Stifle 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tragic, but non-notable. Avi 16:22, 6 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Commando Combat System, Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao & Dr. Seema Rao

Delete This is a pure vanity page. The anonymous user who created it recently spread the links to this article, and the systems website, in any military or hand to hand combat related page possible, without regard to rules about linkfarming and spamming. Also I do not feel this meets either notability, or quality standards for an encyclopedia (I say the notability standard being someone who is somewhat familiar with combat systems, I've never heard of this, and neither have either of the two professional fighters that I know.) Swatjester 05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Pure vanity. Rorybowman 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per vanity. I'm with Swatjester, Army Ranger here and i've never heard of this stuff.4.224.156.211 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that a google search turns up only 7 relevant topics: All of which are either advertisements from the instructer's brochure, or wiki-style self-entries at answers.com and other sites. Swatjester 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This reads to me like advertising copy. -- Simon Cursitor 12:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it is fair to say that the number of truly notable training programs with Tripod pages is close enough to zero as makes no odds. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Page is pure vanity, persons above are likely the authors/subjects of the article. Google brings only 3 significant sources, "blackbelocombat" and the wikipedia article. Does not meet notability guidelines. Batman2005 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If this could be substantiated with evidence from other sources, it would be sufficiently notable to leave for NPOV editing improvement. However, neither the page, the founders pages, nor the website provide anything I have been able to confirm externally. It might be legit, but I can't find any evidence of it other than its own claims. - Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • More evidence to delete' It should be noted that the three "do not delete" users above are all the same user, and have not signed. The links to the tripod.com website are non-verifiable, and the link to the realfighting.com is merely a brochure for the advertisement. Swatjester 08:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (note- comments have since been deleted, check history if interested.)
  • Why Delete? - If a few groupists dislike the article, it doesnot constitute grounds for deletion. What more confirmation is required about legit'cy after armed forces reviews & endorsements have been provided. How can the realfighting article be called a brochure? These are misleading statements & shouldnot be resorted to in a logical opinion poll. In any case, it really doesnt matter either ways. Delete or dont read. But dont be biased or get personal.06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.30.30 (talk • contribs)

See the talk page: Advanced Commando Combat System is copied from http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com with permissons from the website owner, It is in fact my website, Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao. I have no objections to Wikipedia using material from my website & I would be happy if you republish the deleted page. 07:00, August 19, 2005 (India)

That should be proof enough that this page qualifies for deletion. Swatjester 02:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Once again u r using leading language. What if Prof. Rao has no objection to publish a page on his art ? It has been published in many places. It doesnot prove anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.30.30 (talk • contribs)

Because, multiple reasons. 1) It's not notable, a violation of Wikipedia policy. 2), Prof. Rao wrote it himself, a violation of wikipedia policy. 3) it's original research, a violation of wikipedia policy. 4) it's a vanity article, a violation of wikipedia policy. Need I continue? Swatjester 05:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that the article should be deleted, writing an article about yourself is not, as you claim, 'a violation of Wikipedia policy'. Wikipedia:Autobiography says it is 'strongly discouraged' (not forbidden) and is a guideline, not a policy. --Nick Boalch ?!? 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I stand corrected. Still, it should be taken in the aggregate as a bad faith effort. Swatjester 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not against policy, but it is strongly against guidelines because of the impossibility of writing in WP:NPOV terms about yourself, plus the fact that autobiography will often include facts which are not verifiable from reliable sources. So, like notability, it's a guideline not a policy, but the guideline is a rough-and-ready measure of ability to meet formal policy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I still feel it applies in this case, becaujse when taken as an aggregate with his other actions, it shows bad faith. While it may be a guideline, in this case it's clear there was no attempt at an NPOV article. Swatjester 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely, I don't think there's any question that in this case we don't have an article that complies with our fundamental principles. --Nick Boalch ?!? 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ==vanity evidence== portion it's messing up the main AFD page.

  • Delete per Simon Cursitor and Guy. Comment: Don't remove other people's contributions. If you think the closing admin should disregard them, simply attach a note to that effect. Please sign your contributions with ~~~~ --kingboyk 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rolling in the originators, Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao & Dr. Seema Rao tagged as nn-bio but linked to this. Extend my Delete to cover both. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


  • extend my delete to both as well. Swatjester 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close Advanced Commando Combat System (consensus->delete)

  1. Swatjester 11:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What's the rush? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never listed an AfD before, I just figured it'd be quicker because a) there's clear consensus to delete and b) after a certain number of days it goes off the list right? If I'm off on this, I'll voluntarily retract that motion. Swatjester 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This motion sounds like WP:-) material to me. XD - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 7 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 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC Interpreter

Delete Topic of no apparent significance. I can't independently verify its content; it may be a hoax. JonHarder 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete: While brainfuck is a real programming language, this article is of no significance. Swatjester 05:55, 1 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 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academicpainting.com

Essentially an ad for a site that turns up just 168 Google hits and doesn't even register on Alexa. ThreeAnswers 05:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete: shows up as vanity to me. Swatjester 05:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 06:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Not a notable site. Article reads like an ad. —ERcheck @ 06:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as nn-web/nn-corp. Including the phrase "The business promotes" in an article doesn't help either. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website and advertisment. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Lucky 6.9 for having nothing but a link. - Bobet 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sex Pirates

No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 06:05, 1 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 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Fischer

Delete non-notable political hopeful, lost only political race, google only brings two references, both from websites showing election results, no other notable qualities. Page was created by person who supposedly managed the campaign, same user had vanity page deleted. Batman2005 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. would be notable if she had won, no sources either. 4.224.156.211 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Or merge with loser - Sorry, couldn't resist. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
OUCH! Delete, perhaps more gently. Eusebeus 08:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete failed candidate for office, no other obvious claim to notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand or merge into an article on the election in question. No reason to delete a major-party congressional candidate. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Brim 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent_domain_in_Lake_Zurich

Delete. If this was significant it could be mentioned in the Lake Zurich article, with NPOV issues fixed. There's nothing here to warrant its own article. WP:NOT a soapbox. Bad ideas 06:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Royboycrashfan 06:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete soapboxing. Gazpacho 07:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, soapboxing. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 07:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete : non notable as Eminent Domain cases go on in nearly every city in the United States. Author of the entry is obviously unfamiliar with the topic of eminent domain. Swatjester 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Swatjester -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't even know we were in an eminent domain crisis. The only eminent domain case that has any notability is the attempt to condemn Justice Souter's house out of spite. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. Thousands of eminent domain cases go by in every state every year. Some are more notable than others, for example Kelo v. New London, which led to the SCOTUS ruling that opened the way for the attempt to build a museum over Justice Souter's house (while the intent may be spiteful, it meets the letter of the law as to a public taking.) Swatjester 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the Kelo case would be notable, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Arbustoo 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I actually live next to Lake Zurich and this doesn't warrant itself an article (although watching the occasional protests is amusing). This is important however, in relation to the revitalization project and is worth a mention in the Lake Zurich article. - Ridge Racer 05:15, 7 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Z

  • 'Delete per nom Swatjester 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's waaaaay too early for this article to have any basis in reality other than in the hypothetical. As the article itself mentioned, even the name "Generation Z" is controversial because members of this generation are still far too young to have developed any peculiar generation-specific characteristics. In fact, most of them haven't entered school or even been born yet.
I'd try again in 20 years or so when we know more about this generation's culture, and hopefully by that time we'll have found a much, much better name than "Generation Z", too.  ;) ekedolphin 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It was used in (and the title of) this article which I found with Scholar Google, which according to its self “Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research.” [[12]] --Elfwood 10:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with others that it is far too early to begin writing an article about this geenration, however I do feel it is important simply to have it defined as the succeeding generation to Gen Y. This way it won't be a red link on other pages. Just my two cents. 87.80.126.226 10:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with the above that we need it defined as the succeeding generation. "Generation Z" will suffice as a 'holding' name for some years until a proper name can be assigned. The points made in the article about this being the post 9-11 generation were valid. 209.30.169.106 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it does. Generation Y is controversial and/or unsuitable in many circles as the name for the Gereration of the 80's and 90's. Why would Z, which is even more made up, POV, and fanciful name be appropriate?Gateman1997 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If the objection is the name, I don't care if it's called something else. Call it 'The generation after generation y' if you wish, or 'the generation from 1997' onwards. Other generations sometimes have disputed names - 'Silent' generation or 'Air raid' generation? But as a generation, these children born into a post 9/11 world exist. So I think the basic entry should be kept (while not caring if it's Generation Z or something else.) 209.30.169.106 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But what about the generation born after 11:15am on 28 Jan 2006? We surely must have a name for them? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No generation is listed as having ended at 11.15am on 28 Jan. Whereas the Generation Y page does list Generation Y as having ended around 1997/2000 (as generations do after about 20 years). Therefore, since babies are still being born, a new generation must exist.209.30.169.106 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Compromise suggestion - add the Generation Z information to the bottom of the 'Generation Y' entry page as 'additional information - post Generation Y'. 209.30.169.106 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the only argument for keeping this seems to be that it is next in alphabetic succession to the one which is next in alphabetic succession to Generation X, which is the only real one. Remove the foolish template and that problem goes away. Gen. X is notable, Gen. Y is made up by poeple with magazine space to fill and Gen. Z is pure nonsense from the ground up. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I'll recreate this article in 20 years, when it's notable (if I remember). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - 66,000 google hits on "generation z", and I've heard it in media and elsewhere. A concept that's being formed now in the real world, sure, but it is really out there. - Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per JzG. Arbustoo 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Having 66000 google hits really doesn't mean anything for this phrase. Stifle 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, especially when compared to Generation X with 86 million hits or the controversial Generation Y monkier with 146 million hits.Gateman1997 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Stifle. Of those 66000 hits, none of the top results have anything to do with the Generation Z in question. ♠ SG →Talk 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or rename "New Adaptive Generation" as it's called in Generations (book) article. (Of course these names are placeholders, until a more specific name emerges.) It doesn't hurt. 209.30.169.106's suggestion to add it at the end of the Gen. Y article would be even a better idea, if the latter the latter weren't already 59 KB long. --Army1987 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Frankly I don't see why we need this now. "Generation Y" as it's sometimes called hasn't even had time to define themselves as a generation yet. How could "Generation Z" with no individual member any more then 5 years old have any definite characteristics? Generations define themselves, not the media, such as the "Baby Boomers" or the "Greatest Generation".Gateman1997 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per SG. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why delete it? Let it evolve - as will the generation it is trying to define.--68.193.14.168 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be under a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is: it's not here to document the emergent, it's about documenting what is already significant. Re-create this in twenty years if it becomes signifciant by this name. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mr Tan 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gateman1997. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SG. --Interiot 01:53, 6 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; already userfied. Johnleemk | Talk 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Effel

Undisputably true[13] and even a tiny bit controversial[14], but at 141 Google hits, not unambiguously relevant. Started out in userspace[15] and migrated to article. Earnest enough guy, but encyclopedic? Abstain.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 06:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per TerenceOng Swatjester 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, take it back where it started. Message left for user. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terenceong1992. Arbustoo 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per JzG. Stifle 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect; merge not necessary for so little content. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nouveau acropolis films

  • Merge If anything, should be merged to Acropolis Films, LLC; but since even that article is probably non-notable (though I haven't listed it for deletion), this can safely be deleted. No relevant non-Wikipedia google hits. Delete Catamorphism 07:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Bad ideas 09:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • merge to Acropolis Films, then delete that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Arbustoo 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This appears to be a replica of the listing Nouveau Acropolis Films, without the proper embedded links or attention to being updated. It's been suggested that this be merged with Acropolis Films, LLC, however I believe that to be a mistake as Nouveau Acropolis Films is a definable term that will be searched upon once this company gets more recognition of its work. If you look at the properly updated Nouveau Acropolis Films, you will see that it actually has a lot to offer as its own listing (if people will do some research into it, and give it more description). Such analagous listings can be exampled in Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics, Krispy Kreme and Doughnut (food), Mattel and Hot Wheels. Just because the company that makes a product is listed, doesn't mean the product itself shouldn't also be listed. Photoactivist 22:17, 3 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. Shanel 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Robert Amundsen

Non-notable vanity. Fails WP:VANITY Oscarthecat 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Bad ideas 09:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedily. Kevin 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ixfd64 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since there is nowhere obvious to userfy to Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Which one is Mark? Ah, who cares. Raggaga 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Korg (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbustoo 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vendetta 1923

Non-notable, only 5 google hits [16] Oscarthecat 08:14, 1 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. I concur, there is not even an assertion of notability here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Stumpff

This article fails to demonstrate the importance of its topic Adhall 08:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Soldiers do not meet WP:BIO. This is very close to a WP:CSD A7 speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. While I am sure we all wish him a safe return from active duty in Iraq, being a soldier in the US army is not in itself an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 1 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 Withdrawn by nominator. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3char

Not very notable (140 Ghits for 3char aim); unverified; original research. Delete current version, though a generic rewrite might be OK. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 08:37Z

  • Speedy keep, Strong keep this is another one of those niche topics. Based on my knowledge and personal experience involving America Online, its security, and its users, there's a great deal to be said on this topic. Just not at 2AM. Notable, oft-ignored Internet subculture. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep requires the nominator to withdraw, or the nomination to have been disruptive or in bad faith. Please try another vote. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Nominator specified options other than deletion, and at the time of my vote, there were no votes for deletion. Whether speedy keep was applicable is ambiguous at worst, though as always, I'm open to interpretations alternative to my own :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to keep this article alive. It has recently come to my attention this subject was scheduled for deletion. -Kenton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.20 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 February 2006

Please note that anonymous users are generally not allowed to vote. You can register an account if you'd like to contribute to this AfD :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, yes, although AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Anyone is welcome to have their say on an issue, but registering for an account does not automatically get you a 'vote' in the matter. Admins are entitled to discount votes from very new or unregistered users at their discretion. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Unverifiable" is not accurate in this context, as use of this term can be verified through Google, which I invite you to do[17]. Thank you for taking the time to point out that speedy keep was no longer applicable here, though :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, weird how there are so many more Google hits for 3char "screen name" than for 3char. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 12:54Z
  • I have cleaned up the article, so am now withdrawing my nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 13:05Z
I've added more detail to the article, including citations involving media coverage of incidents in which screen names, including, explicitly and by design, "3chars" were compromised using bugs in AOL's account security. Thanks, a lot, Quarl, for taking the time to improve this article.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:14, 3 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dingbatter

Article is about a locally used colloquialism in Carteret County, North Carolina. I don't think that the term is in widespread or even common usage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

a website noting it as "widely known" in the area - I don't have a stake in this, but I think this article should stay. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.
  • Delete. At best, Transwiki to Wiktionary, though I don't know if they want it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Brim 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 10:33, 3 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 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zip2

Non-notable company, and the whole article is a copyvio of the listed source. Kevin 09:05, 1 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, mis-spelled title, and WP:SNOW. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quake Retexutring Project

This is non-noteable even if it does eventually happen. And the whole article is a copyvio of the listed source. Kevin 09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete if it's copyvio, otherwise plain old Delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as speculation and non-notable and gamecruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:50, 1 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 per WP:CSD A7. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthewr2 1

  • Delete Vanity page of no particular notability Kcordina 09:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - nn-bio, tagged as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 13-year-old? Come back in a decade or so. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Royboycrashfan 10:21, 1 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 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1982 NBA Draft

This article was created over half a year ago and is more or less utterly devoid of any content. I think that having an article like this is worse than having a redlink because it confuses the readers into thinking we have an article on the 1982 draft when we don't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, although this article should be tagged for expansion. Youngamerican 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Except for the date of the draft this only consists of a template, a see also section and the title, and thus falls under CSD A3. Punkmorten 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I added just enough information to make it not qualify for speedy. Youngamerican 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Some articles evolve slowly. CalJW 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, as we have other NBA Drafts (like this one). Carioca 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm willing to expand it --Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand ASAP. Raggaga 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Arbustoo 09:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just added first-round results. Ergot 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — encyclopedic. — RJH 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Youngamerican, this should be expanded. -RomeW 08:08, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Scogin

A singer in a Christian band, Allmusic knoweth him not and the 350 or so unique Googles are liberally peppered with search engine spammers and web forums, I didn't see any evidence of substantive notability. Everything here could be merged to the band's article (which is small) - with the possible exception of his marital status, which is trivia. This looks to be part of the Southern Baptist walled garden, but I am open to persuasion as always. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Josh Scogin was ground-breaking for Christian hardcore/metalcore, and easily has the most recognizable voice in the Christian faction of the genre. I guess it would be good if that information were put within his Wikipedia entry, though, right? Anyways, I don't see the necessity to delete his entry simply because many people don't know much about him. However, alot of the information could be merged onto the band page ... but Scogin was not only involved with The Chariot, but the early Norma Jean and Luti-Kriss as well. I personally think that he has earned his place as a vocalist and is worthy of an entry ... however small. That's my opinion. Iffer 05:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Just because this guy might have played with a guy who then later was in "somewhat known" group that alone does not make him notable. Not enough google hits no proof of record sales about 5,000. Arbustoo 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I guess I forgot to make my opinion known. Maybe I wasn't clear ... he didn't play with a guy who became known, he is the guy I'm speaking of. I can't quite understand your last sentence, but that's of no consequence. Iffer 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's a member of a band that barely scrapes WP:MUSIC, and I don't see anything about him that can't be mentioned on The Chariot. Furthermore, content on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable. There are currently no reliable sources cited on the article. I'm open to change on this, though. Stifle 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. What if rather than deleting the entry, verifiable biographic information was added? Also, how do we decide whether is influential enough to warrant his own wiki? As his influence is relative depending on who you are talking to, gauging it can be hard. For instance, to metalcore/hardcore listeners he is extremely well known, and his work has had a huge influence on the sound of both those genres. However, the average person would probably not even know that metalcore existed, much less who was or wasn't influential in its history. To note, Norma Jean has sold well over 5,000 records.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sin (musician)

Non-notable person/band/company/whatever; WP:VANITY likely. Per WP:Music. Duja 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 10:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite. Although this guy is an utter joke, and probably wrote the article himself, some people have heard of him. I myself am just one of them (unfortunately). Obscure, it may be, but: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover..." (from What Wikipedia is not). Obviously, the current version should not stand. --estavisti 14:26, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girls On The Dancefloor

This page is only about a rumour that never happened, what they released in the end was an album called "Chemistry" which had quite a different tracklist. [18] Chsf 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Speculation and incorrect speculation as it happened. --Canley 09:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Terminate with extreme prejudice -- GWO 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:37Z
  • Delete yet another example of why nothing should be added to the 'pedia until at least a year after it has happened (by which time Girls Aloud albums are long forgotten anyway) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, especially not a broken one. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbustoo 09:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of NBA Drafts

redundant per Category:NBA Draft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fetofs 10:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be useful to have the list and the cat, as many noobs might not be familiar with the whole wikipedia category concept. The list would help them bounce around the various articles, and would also be useful in templates. Youngamerican 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have categories for a reason. Do you propose we duplicate every category with a list? Peyna 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Not every category, of course. Well-formatted lists, especially for annual events, allow red link access to suggested article namespaces for editors that might seek to create a new article. Furthermore, events that do not have articles do not show up in cats. If the template was improved to provide links to all possible drafts, I would consider switching my vote to delete, however. Youngamerican 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Template and category is enough. No useful information can be added to the list without the list expanding to the size of individual articles. Sam Vimes 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the category is sufficient and this list is redundant. Sliggy 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I merged the info into the main NBA draft article, so I am satisfied either way. Youngamerican 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Addition to NBA draft by User:Youngamerican is sufficient, or if you wanted to I suppose you could create a navigational template with all of these to put at the bottom of each year's page. But the list does not need an article of its own. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Arbustoo 09:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to the category. Stifle 10:37, 3 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 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanullah De Sondy

Tagged as nn-bio but there is an assertion of notability (in the last-but-one paragraph). That said, it's a pretty tenuous claim, I'm afraid, and even systemic bias does not really persuade me of the encyclopaedic merit of this subject. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the guy who tagged it as a speedy. Stifle 10:37, 3 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 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHAMP CHAT

Buried deep within this article is the germ of something which might be notable, so the speedy tag was not really appropriate. On the other hand, even if it is notable, this article is possibly woirse than no article at all because it looks so very much like a WP:NFT failure. I'm prepared to withdraw the nom if it's likely to be genuinely important, in the mean time I am bringing it here because it was tagged for speedy deletion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:07, 1 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 electronic components redirect; transwiki disti. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Components and Disti

Blatant advert, unfortunately not a CSD. Nominator votes delete Zunaid 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Added Disti to nom. I notice that many other articles I was about to add here have been speedied. Can these also be? Zunaid 10:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the Electronic components article, Redirect the Disti article to Electronic Component Distributor, and transwiki to wiktionary. Fetofs 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Electronic component distributor" was one in a series of these articles created by user:Oasiselec as advertising for his company. It, along with others were all speedied before I could add them to this nom. As for "disti", the def seems to be a hoax, I could not find that use of the term on Google. Zunaid 11:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I could, but I'm not sure if that term is in wide use: [19], [20]. Fetofs 12:29, 1 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 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben and tom's iradio show

Podcast with one google hit. Non-notable podcruft. Delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • (Speedy) Delete nn. --Whouk (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, patent non-notable podcast. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:29Z
  • Delete, not notable. Bad ideas 17:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is my podcast and I believe that the page has definitely more potential. Hohohob 20:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, podcastcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- one Google hit, not even the podcast homepage. Not listed on Yahoo. Looks nonnotable. Haikupoet 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haikupoet. Arbustoo 09:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was written by a newcomer. For the second time, I own the podcast and will get listed soon. If it gets deleted, will I get to recreate the page when I'm ready? Hohohob 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If it's deleted once and recreated, it will most likely be deleted again. The issue is that there are billions of podcasts/blogs/websites of great interest to their creators, but not to enough other people to go into an encyclopedia. The guidelines are here, WP:WEB. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish you the best with your podcast. However, Wikipedia does not include articles on every random thing that anybody ever thought to write about. Think about it - would the Encyclopedia Britannica contain an article on "Ben and tom's iradio show"? Delete - come back when you have a listenership of 5000+. Stifle 10:45, 3 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 to Forgotten Realms; this is an editorial decision, so feel free to undo it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dagnabbit

delete non notable character. Melaen 10:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: is it less notable than all the other articles in its category? I would prefer merging this somewhere. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:28Z
  • Merge or redirect to a Forgotten Realms article of some sort. Do we have List of minor Forgotten Realms characters yet? No? Pity. Stifle 10:45, 3 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 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue Robot

Non-notable website. Only has 22 forum members (however, the forum is not the site's major attraction). Akamad 10:54, 1 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 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups of six

Useless criterion, giving a random collection of things. delete. I'm nominating this because similar 'list of 7s' has just been unanimously deleted Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Whouk (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Would be unmaintainable - see Special:Allpages/six -- Astrokey44|talk 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable, useless criterion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:12Z
  • Delete per reasons given in the AfD mentioned by nom. Youngamerican 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia:Listcruft. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete six times. According to the sparsely-populated list, there are eight members of "The Sinister Six", and no members of "The Trenton Six". I agree with the nominator. Can someone say something significant enough about sextets that it matters whether any of these groups weren't size five or seven? Barno 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seventh delete vote, as a matter of fact. linas 06:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Barno. Arbustoo 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yay, someone else is linking to Wikipedia:Listcruft! (Reason for vote: the list appears to have been set up just for the sake of having such a list.) Stifle 10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete anything meaningfully 6-related can be put on the number page. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 4 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 11:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Robideau

Contains unsourced attacks on groups and persons. I'm thinking speedy, but bringing it here to make sure there's concensus. Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can't see much on the article that is encyclopedic. Fetofs 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I can't see what the title of the page has to do with the article...? Somewhere in there, maybe there is a an event worthy of an article, but it would need drastic cleanup. As it stands, it breaches WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and fails to state the context of the article. --Whouk (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Maybe this can get you an idea of why the name of the article is Robert Robideau. Fetofs 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That clears up a few things indeed. Someone complained to the info-en mailing on his behalf on how someone kept changing it. Normally, I would explain how material on Wikipedia is free to edit, but the crux of it is, that press releases aren't encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think there may be a article buried in there somewhere but I don't know that mining equipment can operate at that depth. Avalon 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- giant pile of press release of questionable relevance to subject of article. Haikupoet 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete -- has almost nothing to do with title of article, totally POV. It's a political screed from the world of radical Indian politics.Verklempt 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you please specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion this meets, or amend your vote?
      • It's an "attack page", accusing unnamed "AIM leaders" of murder, people who haven't even been indicted, much less convicted.Verklempt 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stifle 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:NOR, POV rant and bordering on A6 speedy. Stifle 12:06, 3 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 11:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory and Practise of Wiki MainPage

Appears to be a school project / debate forum about WP on WP, but is unencyclopedic in itself. WP not webhosting. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:13, 1 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory and Practise of Wiki - Lesson 1

Appears to be a school project / debate forum about WP on WP, but is unencyclopedic in itself. WP not webhosting. Delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete un-encylcopedic MLA 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

This article is really unencyclopedic in a sense. But it is aimed to teach a certain number of people the main concepts of wikipedia and its use. It has a certain user-group of people who want to learn this in order to make their own, encyclopedic entries. You might call it something like help. And here we have various examples of help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy_trifecta says:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by a community using a wiki. Those three basic characteristics suggest three basic guiding principles for editors, of which all others are corollaries:

   * as an encyclopedia: Neutral point of view - our basic editorial policy
         o Corollaries: Conventions on verifiability, citation, original research, style, deletion, etc.

   * as a community: Don't be a dick - our basic social policy
         o Corollaries: Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks.
         o Strongly implied are the one revert rule and consensus as opposed to voting

   * as a wiki: Ignore all rules - the suggested personal policy
         o Corollaries: Be bold, avoid instruction creep

As I surfed looking for answer to your deletion request, I haven't found anything that would be against my course! It has neutral point of view, it serves the community ... it is natural to have a course on what is wikipedia and how to use it inside wikipedia!

btw, there are several undeleted courses: a very similar content! Just take a look, please... http://www.jerryslezak.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=AdvancedMacro

Sincerely,

Petar

Comment: But it is unencyclopedic. Fetofs 12:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain me a little more in detailed what is the problem with my "unencyclopedic" entry? I don't want to bother the community; if you think that my content really doesn't belong here I'll move it somewhere else. But isn't it crazy to move a content on wikipedia outside wikipedia?

Petar


Thank you for the first positive answer! What others think, would it be ok to transwiki to meta?

Petar

Petar. It would be very helpful if you created an account for yourself as it is hard to communicate with you otherwise. However if you go to Talk:Theory and Practise of Wiki - Lesson 1 I will attempt to explain what people mean. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Belongs on meta or WP space, not article space. Also, please sign you comments by type ~~~~. preface your response to others' comments with : to indent. Peyna 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peyna. Youngamerican 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the creator has a user account, move to their user space. Else Delete. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The simple and obvious answer is to userfy it. --kingboyk 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete really has no value. Arbustoo 09:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to homelessness; this is an editorial decision, feel free to call me a WP:DICK and undo it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street Life

delete not encyclopedic. Melaen 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete, despite being the only life I know. GWO 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect to Homelessness -- Astrokey44|talk 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Homelessness. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:09Z
  • Delete not encylopedic, completely different article under the same name might be useful as the phrase Street Life is not the same as Homelessness. MLA 14:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stranded (album) as well-known roxy music song MNewnham 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No Redirect. Arbustoo 09:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryer

No claims of notability in the article, googling for 'bryer graffiti' doesn't throw up anyone obviously matching this description --Aim Here 11:24, 1 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 10:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newham Sixth Form College

Entirely un-encyclopedic, non-notable school. May possibly be a parody. MLA 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleanup. Real school [21] [22], but article seems to be an assignment in some HR-related topic. JPD (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a real school, which has some notability in the Greater London area. Whether or not the content could be cleaned up to Wiki standards ... -- Simon Cursitor 12:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Keep as now reverted to a basic stub. --Oscarthecat 12:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Real school, massive copyvio. http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1089 etc -- GWO
  • Keep - I did what Oscarthecat suggested and made it a stub -- Astrokey44|talk 12:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as rewritten stub. Any dissenters? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good - new stub lookin' much better. --Oscarthecat 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:08Z
  • Keep like all the others. CalJW 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep all schools Jcuk 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per jzg. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, so this is a school! This has gathered minor notoriety through Myspace. Thousands of Myspace users (myself included) have been added to this school randomly, and we have big suspicions as to whether it actually exists or not. I guess Wikipedia has the answers. --Dangherous

22:47, 1 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; editorial decision made to redirect to Biblical criticism. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK and undo it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Bible

This article should be deleted ASAP for many reasons: 1) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Criticism of Christianity [23]. 2) It creates confusion with the topic of Biblical criticism which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 3) this topic is just trolling. 4) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Science and the Bible. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Bible errata; Biblical inerrancy; Anti-Judaism; History of the English Bible; Christian views of women; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Rachack 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete IZAK 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. KHM03 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- based on the above commetns, this would appear to be an exegitical page drawing togetehr all the varied evidnece under one head, and under a title by which the average searcher might well look. -- Simon Cursitor 12:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Simon: If you read the article you'll see that there's nothing "exegetical" about it at all. It's just an obviously very amateur non-scholarly hodge-podge of POV mud-slinging tangents and rants by someone with an "axe to grind" against the Bible. Almost "Luddite" in it's anti-Biblical focus. No-one would accept such an article if it were written about the medical field -- such as Criticism of the medical profession or Criticism of doctors -- based on medical malpractice cases and damages awarded (which would actually be more of a case against the medical profession than this article pathetically tries to do against belief in, and the veracity of, the Bible.) Go on read the article... IZAK 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. The article is an original research rant having no place in an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While I haven't got time right now to read through the whole article for POV or OR weaknesses (which doubtless exist), the topic of the page as such makes sense to me, and I can't follow the criticism expressed in the nomination about its duplicating or forking other articles. This doesn't seem to be a POV fork, but rather a legitimate attempt at factoring out an aspect from a larger topic, and then linking to a set of other main articles, which all seems perfectly reasonable. The problem about confusion with Biblical criticism can be solved by a simple dab remark. Lukas (T.|@) 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Dear Lukas, Why don't you read the article carefully and then vote? It meanders all over the place and often confuses itself with Biblical criticism while trying desperately to make an issue out of Bible attacking. Yoninah 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete for many of the same reasons of Lukas, except if you actually read the article, it is irredeemable as is. No WP:CITE leaves the obvious impression of OR. And the POV is horrendous. -Jcbarr 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, OR, and No citations Avi 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete really ridiculous Kempler video 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV and rambling argument which at times seems to vie with Biblical criticism for who gets to throw the most mud at the Bible. Yoninah 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Str1977 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: a hodgepodge that appears to have been brought together for polemical reasons. If there is material here that is not covered elsewhere, that probably should be saved, but the organizing principle (material unrelated except for what it is against) is not an appropriate organizing principle for an article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Likely search string so don't delete, but Speedy redirect to Criticism of Christianity and if there is anything salvageable which doesn't duplicate stuff already there, transfer it. SP-KP 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Avi Yid613 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either Criticism of Christianity or Biblical criticism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -Doc ask? 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Biblical criticism Kuratowski's Ghost 21:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Biblical criticism. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AnnH (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Biblical criticism. Basically a personal essay. Nominator's argument is convincing. Jkelly 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Rachel1 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Biblical criticism, doesn't matter to me as long as the current article goes. DLand 07:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-salvageable. — Hillel 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. Latinus 08:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for further review - AFD is not the right medium to fight content disputes; it's not clear from initial inspection of the articles, claimed "correct" articles to be kept, comments, or the AFDs where neutrality is here. Leave it alone and solve with another mechanism, unless POV clarifies somehow. Georgewilliamherbert 08:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per George. Arbustoo 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Per nom. --Turkmen 09:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Biblical criticism. --Shuki 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete hopeless mess Klonimus 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per all the points above. --Leifern 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since previous attempts at re-directs haven't worked, Delete this POV original research article fork. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as per Jcbarr. Shmuel 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per above arguments; plus for over a century the word used for those questioning the Bible, was Bible critics which is similiar to Biblical criticism Issac 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Evolver of Borg 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to [Biblical criticisms list]. Since this article is basically a summary of existing articles, I think it would be helpful instead to redirect to a list of all the topics under this general category.
  • Keep it appears to be encyclopedic, just because it may be POV is no reason to delete it; if you think it is POV (I'm not sure it is), edit it don't censor it. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Criticism of Christianity. Sandro67 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per George. Its a more focused look at the Bible itself, than the more general criticism of Christianity which involves the historical actors. This deals with the text alone, in a critical manner. Giovanni33 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per Giovanni and George. BelindaGong 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Shlomke 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)shlomke


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swept-plane display

lacks context , not cleaned up since april 2005. Melaen 11:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Is this how hokey spokes work? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:08, 1 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 11:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Smith (Television)

Non-notable, vanity, reads like the guy's CV. WP is not a jobs board. See WP:VANITY. Oscarthecat 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. A reasonably senior executive at the BBC. Article needs cleanup. David | Talk 11:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is interesting, and obviously, this person has contributed to the story of BBC. antoga2000 13,55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. In serious need of cleanup for NPOV and WP:CITE. Given that it was just created this AM, I'd like to give it a little time to be cleaned up. -Jcbarr 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but would certainly require alot of cleanup. Youngamerican 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup. Essexmutant 12:12, 5 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; default to keep. I'll just let the merge tags stay on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies in the Bible

This article should be deleted for reasons similar to those stated above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible: 1) There already exists Internal consistency and the Bible, so why is this article needed or justified (besides just being another avenue to attack the Bible)? Does every article get to have an "opposite" mirror-image nemesis created? 2) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Internal consistency and the Bible and Criticism of Christianity. 3) It creates confusion with the topic of the Documentary hypothesis which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 4) this topic is just trolling. 5) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Authorship of the Pauline epistles. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Biblical canon; Biblical inerrancy; Names of God in Judaism; Synoptic problem; Textual criticism; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Biblical inconsistencies article does not exist, it REDIRECTS to: Internal consistency and the Bible, and as is stated very clearly above, i.e. the Internal consistency and the Bible article is not the article we are voting on here! It remains thus far. Rather, the vote is to delete the newer article Inconsistencies in the Bible with its information that is redundant and tendentious. I hope User:Geni was not trying to confuse anyone... IZAK 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the talk page of the article you have listed for deletion Biblical inconsistencies was moved to Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible as mentioned on the VFD page. If we then go to the talk page we find here that the article was then moved to Inconsistencies in the Bible. IT's the same article just a somewhat complex history.Geni 12:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Geni: Now you are mentioning another REDIRECT. What you say still makes no sense since there is no Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible article because it merely REDIRECTS to Inconsistencies in the Bible (and it's already been made very clear that Biblical inconsistencies REDIRECTS to Internal consistency and the Bible.) This does not change anything because the basic information about all this can be found in the Internal consistency and the Bible article (so why make a comment about something which does not exist...very puzzling don't you think?). To have two articles about the same subject makes no sense whichever way you slice (or redirect) it. IZAK 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Those redirect exist because the article has been moved around somewhat.Geni 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know nothing about this debate, but from the looks of it so far, i'm doubting this afd will result in a clear consensus at this rate. I'd suggest an rfd instead, but that won't really work unless the reforms go into place. Karmafist 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. The article is original research having no place in an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 13:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Internal consistency and the Bible and redirect. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize this page as a PoV fork of the other one - Looking at the page histories of both, this page here is the older of the two, so, if anything, it seems to be rather Internal consistency and the Bible that has forked off (but I'd prefer Internal consistency and the Bible as a more NPOV title). Lukas (T.|@) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Lukas. Kusma (討論) 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and re-write Highly redundant with "Internal consistency..." Any new information can be re-written to remove POV and then the two articles can be merged Avi 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe that it can be rewritten, the article is fatally flawed Kempler video 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title itself is POV, as many people dispute the existence of inconsistencies in the Bible. Logophile 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. Really, what is the point? (And the Jewish view is given rather short shrift in favor of more Bible-trashing.) Yoninah 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge what's worth merging and redirect to the more neutral title Internal consistency and the Bible. Outright deletion seems inappropriate: the title is not horribly offensive, it's a moderately likely thing for someone to try to look up, and if we delete it, someone will probably just recreate it, better to redirect it to the appropriate article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. KHM03 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nomination. Review of relevant articles shows little in the article to be deleted that does not exist elsewhere. Alansohn 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Likely search term so don't delete, but Speedy redirect to Internal consistency and the Bible checking for any potentially useful stuff which isn't already in the latter article and transferring it. SP-KP 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. Yid613 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per SK-KP -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork-Doc ask? 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK. The article Internal consistency and the Bible is also questionable, it looks like an invitation for trolling as most claims of inconsistency in the Bible are based on (often deliberate) misunderstanding of what is being said in the Bible. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Jmabel Jkelly 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per IZAK. Rachel1 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Lukas. Ocicat 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge but only salvage what is really necessary from this one. DLand 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IZAK — Hillel 08:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's POV by definition: the title admits there are inconsistencies. Latinus 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for further review - AFD is not the right medium to fight content disputes; it's not clear from initial inspection of the articles, claimed "correct" articles to be kept, comments, or the AFDs where neutrality is here. Leave it alone and solve with another mechanism, unless POV clarifies somehow. Georgewilliamherbert 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per George. Arbustoo 09:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Per nom. --Turkmen 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shuki 11:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete pointless. Klonimus 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and redirect the title to the existing article to discourage recreation. Thryduulf 13:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - title begs the question, and it is grossly redundant. --Leifern 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since previous attempts at re-directs and merges haven't worked, Delete this POV original research article fork. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article suffers from lack of source citations, but it is a legitimate topic and one that has been a matter for discussion for centuries. Bishop Colenso's examination of it rocked the Victorian world. There are NPOV problems in the article and in its title and they should be dealt with. Even fundamentalists acknowledge the existence of issues, for which I believe they prefer to use the word "difficulties." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge with Internal consistency and the Bible or keep. This strikes me as being the stronger of the two articles. Deletion is not the solution in NPOV disputes. Shmuel 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for all the above arguments Issac 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Lukas. RayGates 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Evolver of Borg 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This article and Internal consistency and the Bible have too much shared information to justify them both existing. --Andrew c 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per dpbsmith. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)\
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Tomertalk 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above reasons and arguments Cybercat 22:46, 5 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 userfy and then redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Chapman

Uncertain of notability - magazine sub-editor. Oscarthecat 12:02, 1 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 userfied, a block of original research articles all created by a single user. Comments left (WP:BITE and all). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 12:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nestle marketing strategies

Original research, un-encyclopedic. Same user has created many Nestle articles, none of which offer pertinent information missing from the Nestle main article. Each reads like a high-school essay. Smells of copyvio too. Oscarthecat 12:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations for nestle
Analytical techniques of nestle
Nestle product & Services Analysis
4P's of nestle
Nestle research methods
Nestle marketing strategies
Marketing principles of nestle
Nestle sponsorship
  • Speedy delete, sorry I noticed these too and was adding speedy delete tags. Please change to AfD if you think that's more appropriate. --Canley 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, this is an encyclopedia please. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:35, 1 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 per author request (after a fashion). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smart Travel Directory

New site with no Alexa presence at all. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. Article only consists of a link. StuffOfInterest 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, csd a3, tagged. - Bobet 13:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, obvious; author has also blanked article now. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 13:49Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left the four other articles alone, as they didn't have their VfD tags on. Feel free to nominate them for deletion as well in a group if the need to. And remember to maintain a civil environment for all! :) - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Laws

Non-notable. A manager at an airport. Does wikipedia need an article for every manager at every company? Oscarthecat 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Same user has added other managers at the airport. Suggest they are treated in the same way, whatever the outcome is.
John Parkin (British businessman)
Lars_Friis
Chris Sanders (British Businessman)
John Parkin (British businessman)
Some airport-running-type-fellows are notable. Terry Snow, for instance, who probably doesn't have an article, is regularly gushed over in The Canberra Times. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, or even better, redirect to Arsehole to teach him a lesson! SP-KP 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CIVIL, please -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, we mustn't upset editors who clearly have such great potential to contribute valuable content. Oops, there I go breaching WP:AGF too... SP-KP 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Any editor has the theoretical potential to contribute valuable content :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          •  :) SP-KP 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Middle manager at an airport with no sign that he has done anything particularly notable. Possible speedy candidate. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Brim 05:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pelicopter

Probable hoax. A Google search finds several uses of this word, but none matching this article's usage.[24] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify this article's claims. --Allen3 talk 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's called a helicopter, not a pelicopter. And that definition would belong to urbandictionary, not here (except it's there already [25]). - Bobet 13:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Wikipedia is not for things invented in one clubbing night. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 13:48Z
  • Delete —Brim 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep; this is non-binding, and if a merge is agreed on later, do not cite this AfD alone as a reason to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise F.C.

This is a perjorative nick-name. The article is without merit and a redirect fails NPOV. A brief note on Wimbledon F.C. is sufficient. Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete POV title, cannot be turned into a redirect. American readers please note that in the UK, sports franchising is relatively rare and usually brings a hostile reaction from fans of the club concerned. Qwghlm 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This term has been used a great deal and it should be defined and explained in wikipedia. The title is not pov any more than the title nigger is point of view; it's just what the article has to be called. CalJW 20:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Nigger" has a long and detailed history; "Franchise F.C." is a neologism that could never get more than one or two lines devoted to it (even in its current state it is stretching the term, as the Manchester United claim is somewhat dubious and should be removed). To vote keep on those grounds is to vote keep for any other newly-coined POV term. Qwghlm 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CalJW. Rory096 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per CalJW. --Angelo 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Milton Keynes Dons FC as this is the team it is a derogatory term for. However, exclude the Manchester United reference as the term has not been used extensively in association with them.

  • Merge/redirect to Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. Stifle 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A google search shows that the large majority of references were to Wimbledon F.C. at the time of their (second) migration. The recent references to MIlton Keynes are almost all from WISA or related sites, making it PoV. --Concrete Cowboy 13:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • First usage was while Wimbldon F.C. were still at Selhurst Park, so if it has to be used at all, then it should refer to Wimbledon F.C.#Move to Milton Keynes --Concrete Cowboy 20:42, 4 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 closed. Redirects are automatically deleted along with the other AfD, but feel list to list at RFD if that doesn't occur. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise FC

This is a redirect to Franchise F.C. which is AfD nominated and its fate should be the same Concrete Cowboy 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • In the future, you don't need to list redirect pages separately -- the closing admin should be smart enough to delete the redirects as necessary. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 13:46Z
  • Keep as a redirect per the above item. CalJW 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You may be looking for WP:RFD, two doors down on the left. Stifle 10:43, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biscayne Landing

NN housing development. Gets googles but nothing here that seems encyclopedia-worthy. Marskell 13:19, 1 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 11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easy Website Builder

Blatant advert, found when trawling through Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. I'm surprised this lasted as long as a week without anyone noticing. It is not speediable (pity!) so delete the old-fashioned way. Zunaid 13:23, 1 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 Result : Speedy delete as nn-bio JoJan 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slobodan Petrovski

SF author, no assertion of notability. No Amazon results. No obvious relevant Google results. Neglected article by 80.236.8.68 (talk · contribs) (sole contribution). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 13:27Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scanning assistant

While I feel for the author of this article and his or her well-written cry of distress, I think it counts as original research: research, I'm sure, that the poster would have preferred not to have done. - squibix(talk) 13:40, 1 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, copyvio - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machine lifelong learning

Possibly original research, also a straight dump of http://birdcage.acadiau.ca:8080/ml3/data/usr/admin2/Life-long%20Learning.htm (apparently by the author himself) StoatBringer 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • 'Speedy delete, just inside the 48 hour limit thankfully. {{db-copyvio}}. Stifle 12:42, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News Alloy

Not notable Sleepyhead 14:18, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xulfaces

Not notable Sleepyhead 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, not not notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:31Z
  • 18,000 Google hits for Xulfaces; looks notable, Keep Ergot 00:29, 3 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 Age of the Earth. Mailer Diablo 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to calculate Earth's Age

Article that attempts to do just what the title indicates. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Allen3 talk 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Age of the Earth. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:29Z
  • Redirect to Age of the Earth. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the editor has already tried this with another pet page. See discussion at Talk:Age of the Earth. Vsmith 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, calculation was found to be original research, at which point it was forked here. -- Ec5618 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop deleting it. If you don't understand what the article means, than talk to me. ati3414
    • We know full well what you want the article to mean, and that's one of the many reasons why its here. Please read the Guide to deletion so you can better understand what's going on here and how you can best be helpful within this process -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I initially drew attention to this calculation on Talk:Age of the Earth. Calculation is original research and a how-to guide.Rickert 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested above. Likely search term. But yes, we're not a How To Guide. SP-KP 18:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rickert -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A page on historical calculations of the age of the Earth would be useful (and not necessarily a how-to, even if it gave enough info to duplicate the work). This one is problematic because it appears to be a new method, and even worse, it's just wrong, based on a false assumption (equal distribution of isotopes), as pointed out by Rickert on Talk:Age of the Earth. Redirect is unecessary, although might be useful to prevent recreation. bikeable (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or, failing that, redirect) as above. WP:NOT a how-to guide. Content appears copied from textbook (article's only source) and relies on assumptions not sourced. We understand it, we just don't think it's necessary to WP. Barno 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above, or at the very least, replace content with "Cut the Earth in half, count the rings..." Karmafist 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Quarl. Rory096 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This looks like an example in an Earth Science textbook. It does nothing to discuss other methods of determining the earth's age. —Brim 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV fork. Guettarda 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - if the science & math are verifiable, expanding how on the Age of the Earth page they come to the numbers is encyclopedic and should be included there. POV Seems very complex, however, and isn't just easier to add up the years in the Bible? /POV Carlossuarez46 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The calculations and the methodology is not supported by a serious source so please do not infect other articles with so suspicious info. Pavel Vozenilek 06:25, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21 (comics)

Delete no assertion of notability. Ruby 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Article (accurately) asserts that title is published by a major North American comics publisher, which satisfies notability requirement. Monicasdude 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not AfD'ing the publisher, I'm nominating this title. Ruby 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Response: Why do you think the article doesn't include an assertion of notability? Can you cite another title from another major NA publisher that's been deleted as non-notable? Monicasdude 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm being sufficiently clear. They could be the foremost comic publisher in all of human history, and they could have a perfect history of publishing only notable comics, but this article does not assert this comic's notability. Ruby 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing my point entirely. Being published by the major publisher is sufficient to demonstrate notability, and the article reports that fact. Meets the 5,000-copy standard for publication generally, too. Monicasdude 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Not deletable as nn. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nerdcruft. incog 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as random comic. I accept that it's published by a notable publisher, so I'm not opposed to a slight merge/redirect. Stifle 12:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:10, 3 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 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Packham

I don't believe this meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC, and in any case, the page requires some serious cleanup. --Deathphoenix 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Tom Ingham, listed below on AFD MNewnham 19:03, 1 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 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Ingham

musician un- notability Melaen 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If this fails to garnar any more votes, this should probably be closed as no consensus. --Deathphoenix 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle, WP:NMG. [26] PJM 18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle, MNewnham 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence in article that WP:MUSIC is satisfied. Sliggy 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. Rory096 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that he meets WP:MUSIC. While he has been a member with numerous bands, none of them seems to have achieved any degree of notability. No evidence that his solo works have been recorded. Capitalistroadster 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MaybeKnot

tagged for speedy but there is (inexplicably) no WP:CSD criterion for vanispamcruftisement, so you good people get to judge it instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. No Alexa data. Not even first hit for its own name in Google search. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 15:02Z
  • Delete per all above. PJM 15:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and how about we lobby for/seek concensus on a rule change? This article should be speediable in my humble opinion. --kingboyk 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per everyone. Even if it did help me learn a new word with "vanispamcruftisement" : ). Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:42, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exopolitics

This article was VFD'd back in the day with a resolution to redirect to Extraterrestrial life. In May 05 the redirect was replaced by a stub of content taken from the target.

Current CSD states that speedy only applies in this case if the new article contains deleted content. Since that is not the case here, I am submitting AFD to review the new article.

For the previous VFD, view the Talk page for the article. Relevant diffs: [27] [28] [29] Keith D. Tyler 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. Original research, etc. Stifle 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --SwordKirby537 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If this fails to garner any more votes, this should be closed as no consensus. --Deathphoenix 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. People may have a hard time separating a couple of the lunatics who have put forth the term from the term itself. It is in use and it has a place. Marskell 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong (�?喜�?�财) 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is close to original research since it is based of what-if scenarios, however there are many google hits and websites about the subject and it is a valid question with serious research about the subject, even though it is all theory. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dan, the CowMan 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy-close -- Simon Cursitor 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the above. Unless the sources are somehow unreliable, the article does not appear to be original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:37, 3 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 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exile Earth

In a nutshell, by its own admission, it's completely unverifiable (only 200 people are privileged to read it). Cites no sources. And is written completely from some anonymous fan's point of view. Most likely a hoax. Would've speedied it, but seems to claim notability. Delete TheRingess 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax and unverifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom Hdstubbs 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rory096 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and highly suspect. Tagged the "author"'s page for speedy. Turnstep 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable: Very few people can actually obtain this manga. Bobby1011 18:56, 5 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 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster Rancher 2 (video game)

Delete nn game Ruby 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Monster Rancher seems notable, so I'd assume its sequel is somewhat. PJM 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fetofs Hello! 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm having trouble believing any game made by a notable developer can be non-notable. Nifboy 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds that released games from major developers are notable, and there's a chance it can be expanded. If not expanded, a merge might make sense (consider, for example, Barbarian article which also contains the few sentences about the sequel). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lam Puiyi

  • Delete Non-notable person. Almost no hits by google. No info in article. ManiacK 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, just the birthdate???? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:53, 1 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 patent nonsense, no assertion of notability and recreation of deleted content. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric mayhew

Nonsense. Author removed the speedy delete tag. Oscarthecat 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - funny but nonsense. - Calgacus 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense and illogical. Send it to BJAODN. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible {{db-attack}}, possibly humorous? Non-notable, in any event.  (aeropagitica)  18:03, 1 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 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoraldus

Delete.The Thoraldus article is a hoax, intentionally or not. Essentially it's just a name in a charter upon which the author or his spurious source has invented a biography. Many of its claims are false, such as that on the "Earls" of Lennox. Archibald Lawries' Early Scottish Charters lists in its index only one Thoraldus (alternatively Toraldus or Thorandus in other charters), a man who was the archdeacon of Lothian (as Lothian did not have its own bishop, he is the next best thing). The charter he was talking about, (Lawrie CLIX, p. 122) does not contain the name Thoraldus, but Thor (a different name), so the entire article is nonsense. This Thor is known from other sources, Thor de Travernent, son of a man called Swain, and held the manor of Tranent in Haddingtonshire - i.e. he was a native Anglo-Saxon lord of the area, and nothing to do with Stirling. Articles like this are why people call wikipedia a "dumping ground". - Calgacus 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete- complete rubbish Astrotrain 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not qualified to say whether it is complete rubbish or not (although it does appear that way to my layman's eyes, and is undoubtedly very badly drafted), but I do believe that Calgacus is qualified, so I'll go with him. (It was me who reluctantly gave it a minor Wikification, but almost Afd'd it instead)--Mais oui! 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment This article was created by a brand-new User, here are the new User's contributions: [30]. I am also a bit worried by their new Redirect: Strivelyn. It redirects to Stirling, but should it? Or should we bung it over to Redirects for deletion?--Mais oui! 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply, I wouldn't worry about the redirect from Strivelyn; it's quite harmless, and is a genuine early version of the name. The form of it in the charter he was talking about is Streuelyn/Strevelyn; but he got a lot of things wrong. The author seems to have been promoting a clan page. I reverted his edit to the Stirling page. The page has an "interesting" genealogy - quite spurious - and to make it work, the researcher changed the witness Tor vicecomite to Toraldo, Vicecomite; otherwise, the witness list he quotes is accurate, although either he or his source has murdered the Latin. The charter he talks about is preserved in the Liber de Calchou (lit. Kelso Book), it was issued about 1143 by David I to Kelso abbey, and it grants the Abbey use of a salt pan at a place called "Carsach". The only connection with Stirling was that it was issued there ("apud Streuelyn"). The author is correct that this Thor Swainsson was a sheriff ("vicecomes"), but other charters strongly suggest he was sheriff of Haddington (e.g. otherwise he only witnesses grants concerning territory in Lothian, where he would be an appropriate name). He can't have been sheriff of Stirling, because we know that the sheriff of Stirling in 1147 (a year when Sheriff Thor witnesses a grant made in Edinburgh to Dunfermline Abbey of a toft in Haddington), that the Sheriff of Stirling was a man called "Dufoc" (?Dubhtach). - Calgacus 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. No Rfd then.--Mais oui! 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How long does it normally take for deletion? This is kinda taking ages. - Calgacus 01:56, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erox comix

Delete nn manga studio Ruby 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Eros Comix (a notable division of Fantagraphics Books), which is what the first few Google hits seem to be confusing it with. Nifboy 23:59, 1 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 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jones's period proxy algorithm

Delete: This is "original research"; specifically, it's an algorithm that was supposedly created by the unverified "R.C. Jones", and is completely superseded by standard algorithms in the field. Note, as well, comments on the discussion page by other individuals. Kuleebaba 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite right; Delete. Septentrionalis 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The evidence for it being original research is quite strong. No references in the article, I couldn't find anything on MathSciNet (though a common name like Jones makes searching hard) and this sci.crypt thread also did not turn up anything, except that the algorithm is not that good (some of the people commenting at the thread may also have commented on the Wikipedia talk page). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the no original research policy. I await proper references (if any). --C S (Talk) 10:52, 6 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 10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum darwinism

Reason why the page should be deleted David R. Ingham 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was It sounds like my uncle Herbert Ingham's pseudoscience to me. The princiles of evolution an quantum mechanics are much to different for their to be such a connection.. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wojciech Zurek is a top researcher in quantum decoherence and is a Phi Betta Kappa scholar. This is his theory and I have received emails from him that my interpretation is close to his. In considering this matter please refer to his paper Quantum Darwinism and Envariance. It provides many interpretational sections on his theory and is relatively transparent. Here is one quote:

Quantum Darwinism differs from the traditional approach suggested by the von Neumann model of quantum measurement and offers a new perspective on the emergence of the everyday classical reality that is complementary to the one suggested by decoherence: Selection of preferred states occurs as a result of the ‘selective advertising’, a proliferation of the information about the stable pointer states throughout the Universe. This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) fitness of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create offspring – copies of the information describing the state of the system in that environment. I show that this ability to ‘survive and procreate’ is central to effective classicality of quantum states. --Jockcampbell 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up.--Ezeu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, still. This may be valid original research, as you claim, but that doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. About the physics, it appears that he is trying to re-invent statistical mechanics. David R. Ingham 18:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Uncle Herb was a Cal Tech graduate.) David R. Ingham 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no idea how sensible this theory is, but it's been published in major mainstream peer-reviewed journals, or am I missing something? The article is actually excellently sourced. Lukas (T.|@) 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a loopy theory, with a silly name (and the article is wrongly capitalised), but its existence and content is verifiable (and we have articles on loopier but more popular theories). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mel Etitis. Rory096 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Alleged "pseudoscience" is encyclopedic; see Phrenology. That said, I realize that I can be sarcastic and caustic (can't we all), but we should be careful in our nominating rationale to not be uncivil especially to newbies. Carlossuarez46 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion

[This might really belong on the Talk page, but so long as it's reasoanbly short it can stay here for the moment.]

As I am the author of the entry under consideration but am relatively new to Wikipedia and am unsure of the quality of argument required to trigger the deletion of a page I will present a detailed and referenced refutation of this nomination for deletion. The nominator expresses two unsubstantiated points.

First: It sounds like my uncle Herbert Ingham's pseudoscience to me.

This point is easy. Quantum darwinism is the integration and perhaps the culmination of several topics of research carried out by Wojciech Zurek of Los Alamos National Laboratory and a group of collaborators over the past 25 years. These topics include decoherence,pointer basis and einselection and their numerous articles have been published in peer reviewed journals. A small subset of these papers are linked on the page and I will provide them here for easy reference:

If the theory of quantum darwinism cannot qualify as true science then very little can.

Second: The princiles of evolution an quantum mechanics are much to different for their to be such a connection.

This objection, is more plausible and may well be the unexamined opinion of the nominator but the connections between evolution and physics has been championed and documented by some of the most illustrious modern physicists including John Archibald Wheeler and many of those he taught and mentored. Zurek, a Phi Betta Kappa scholar and a former student of Wheeler's writes:

Both of these themes – quantum natural selection and envariance – have benefited from the inspiration and support of John Archibald Wheeler. To begin with, one of the two portraits displayed prominently in John’s office in Austin, Texas, was of Charles Darwin (the other one was of Abraham Lincoln). This was symptomatic of the role theme of evolution played in John’s thinking about physics (see, e.g., Wheeler’s ideas on the evolutionary origin of physical laws10). While I was always fond of looking at the ‘natural world’ in Darwinian terms, this tendency was very much encouraged by John’s influence .It seems quite natural to look at the emergence of the classical as a consequence of a quantum analogue of natural selection.

Another of Wheeler’s former students, David Deutsch, the founder of Quantum Computing and winner of this years $100,000 EDGE OF COMPUTATION SCIENCE PRIZE considers evolutionary theory along with quantum physics two of the four strands of knowledge that when understood in an integrated fashion will provide a deeper understanding of reality: David Deutsch's site

Lee Smolin, another distinguished physicist, has proposed the theory of cosmological natural selection to explain the existence of the finely tuned fundamental physical parameters making our complex universe possible. Smolin writes of the connection between physics and Darwinian processes:

There is only one mode of explanation I know of, developed by science, to explain why a system has parameters that lead to much more complexity than typical values of those parameters. This is natural selection.

Daniel Dennett, of Tufts University, perhaps America’s best known philosopher, in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, describes how Darwinian theory is proving a powerful tool in many areas of research. He describes it as a ‘universal acid’ that eats away at our anthropomorphic world view. New fields of study abound having an ‘evolutionary’ prefix. Here are a few of the many with Wikipedia links: evolutionary psychology,evolutionary linguistics,evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary economics.

In short, although some minds are ignorant of the well reasoned connections that have been made by reputable researchers between evolution and quantum physics, as well as numerous other fields, that does not mean that these connections have not been made and have been found by many to be compelling.

I cannot help but reflect that Wikipedia itself may well be seen as the accumulation of a body of knowledge due to a Darwinian process and appreciate that a mechanism is required to ensure the non-survival of entries reflecting vandalism, ignorance or cant. I trust that this mechanism is capable of properly evaluating these unfounded objections to the quantum darwinism page. --Jockcampbell 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard to one or two points made here: first, Dennett might be America's best-known philosopher (I doubt it, but I might be wrong), but he's not a very good one — and you don't even refer to him as commenting on this particular theory (your argument seems to be: Dennett says that Darwinism is a pwerful tool, this theory refers to Darwinism, therefore this theory must be sensible/true/useful...). Secondly, citing other loopy theories like evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary economics doesn't do much to convince.
The points that I and others have made above are the ones that are key to whether or not the article should stay; telling editors that they're too dim or ignorant to understand the subject of the article probably isn't the most sensible way to argue against deletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 3 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 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tedfuzz

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Can be classified under "Advertising or other spam". Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikispam. Duja 16:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. PJM 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velvetism

I added this page to Articles for Deletion because it appears to present original thought (or simply be a hoax), as a search for 'velvetism' on Google reveals nothing but a CD named that. -- Saaber 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Interesting that you say that. Velvetism is actually pretty popular among small socialist and anarchist circles in my high school. I guess word just spreads quicker in some areas than in others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.224.135 (talk • contribs)

You mean to say you've never heard of Velvetism? Well sir, velvetism is a much larger movement then your awareness of it gives it credit for. Held in high regards by many who value the socialist and libertarian movement, Velevetism has grown imensely in the recent past. Velevetism is one of the few ideologies that supports legalization of vicitimless crimes such as marijuana use, which is the most likely reason that it has such a large group of teen agers and young adult followers. Maybe you dont support liberal values which is why you have not heard of Velvetism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.215.159 (talk • contribs)

Good lord, that's a full two so far. Or one person on two computers, with IPs that similar, but I can't tell. -- Saaber 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - they're having us on. Camillus (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of Velvetism before. I tried to google it but only found stuff about music. —Bronks 1 February 2006.
  • redirect to Velvet Revolution. I'm a mad old lefty and I've never heard of it, but then apparantly it's only popular amongst 'small socialists' and I'm normal size MNewnham 16:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • deleteI have never heard of this movement and I am huge (socialistically speaking). In fact it does not seem to resemble any "gentle revolution" ideology that would be drawn from the name velvet revolution. GeorgeSears 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - That is an extremely strange and seemingly implausable revolutionary theory. Who developed this theory and why? I've not heard this term before.Solidusspriggan 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and/or extremely non-notable. Turnstep 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Google refers to a CD of the same name rather than this see [31]. Seems to be popular amongst the students of Kermit T. Frog High School for sockpuppets but not elsewhere.Capitalistroadster 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, unverified, completely non-notable (913 Google hits, and none of them seems to refer to politics). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced/unverifiable. Nothing in several academic indices covering politics. CDC (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, joke page. Same author as The Petros Religion. Expect to see your user page vandalised for voting delete (see Talk:Velvetism). I am gay apparently, which like you know really hurt me :) --kingboyk 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, most likely hoax. Do NOT redirect to Velvet Revolution: origin of this name is known and has nothing with the article (a Western female journalist was so impressed by lack of violence and high level of cooperation that she compared the political overthrow to her favorite clothing. It caught immediatelly in world media as handy narrative abbreviation and good for marketing and unfortunately the term sticks until today). Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with all of the above. Um, just to let you all know, the IPs who posted the unsigned comments appear (but I have not confirmed) to belong to a school district...I would not be surprised if this was a protologism concocted by a small group of stoners. - CorbinSimpson 05:19, 7 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were-lions

Should this even be here? I have never heard of any african religion worshiping a "were-lion" that lives in a castle. Also, what is an African Native American? Jay 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) AfD Jay 17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, most probaly hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lycanthrope, which mentions such a variation. I don't think it's a "celebrated" enough creature to have its own article. PJM 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doubt the redirect would have any search value. MLA 11:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asknow.com

blatant advert for 'The most advanced Psychic service available online' MNewnham 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete An advert, nothing more.  (aeropagitica)  17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nomination. Bad ideas 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, they can't even be bothered to pretend it isn't an advert. --Sachabrunel 17:48, 1 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 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Freedman

Incomplete nomination by Toughlove – Ezeu 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable.--Ezeu 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, as the article currently stands. --Oscarthecat 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cant help feeling that playing to royalty is notable, and that winning the magic circle close up magician of the year [32] ought to be too. Jcuk 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as notable within his field[33]. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:41, 1 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 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Astrojet

This band doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC and allmusic hasn't heard of them. DJ Clayworth 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom [34]. Sorry, the HUGE, fairly pretentious band-munching-at-the-diner pic doesn't help. PJM 17:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{db-band}} Non-notable band, as per WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)  17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak delete. Bouncing around the eastern seaboard might be construed as meeting the WP:MUSIC guidelines, but I'll fall back on the fact that it isn't verifiable, for now. Stifle 12:46, 3 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 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Republic (band)

An unsigned band, apparently nobody wants to re-write the article to make it not a vanity page. In that case deletion would seem to be the only option. Sachabrunel 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per WP:NMG. PJM 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{db-band}} non-notable band, as per WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)  17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. StarryEyes 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsigned, nn band --kingboyk 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection of Flat Earth Society Claims

WP:NOT place for personal essay on the ridiculousness of the outrageous claims of a few ultra-fundamentalist lunatics. User should try geocities or maybe Evowiki. — Dunc|☺ 18:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete essay per nom. Kusma (討論) 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Dbinder 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, please note that the creator of this page removed the afd notification. I restored it, but you may want to keep an eye on it. Dbinder 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, WP:NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)  18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOR, WP:NOT a soapbox, etc -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bottom of the page states that this is being worked on, and I hate to delete something that's actively in-progress... but the current content doesn't give me much hope. If it's significantly cleaned up, feel free to let me know and I'll consider altering my vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — personal essay/original research. The Flat Earth Society already covers the topic in some detail. — RJH 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep although ridiculus arguments. The earth IS flat, everybody can see that.Flat-Earther 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Likeable spacial math puzzle. -- Marvin147 01:51, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Laogai institutions and List of reeducation through labor institutions

unreferenced, unverifiable, and unmaintainable lists (possibly hoaxes ➥the Epopt 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I can't quite follow you. These are certainly not "unreferenced"; both articles explicitly refer to sources from a "Laogai Research Foundation", apparently an NGO monitoring human-rights abuses in China. Do you have any particular reason to believe they are not reliable? - The existance of Laogai in China as such doesn't seem in doubt, or does it? Of course, collecting information of this kind in a country like China is bound to be fraught with problems, and some warning remark about the degree of reliability feasible in the circumstances might be appropriate - but "hoax" seems really far-fetched. Lukas (T.|@) 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to the Laogai Handbook published by the Laogai Foundation, "Reeducation through labor" (ie. Laojiao) camps are the same as reform through labor (ie. Laogai) institutions. Read the Laojiao and Laogai articles, and you will find that they are not the same thing. I quote from Laogai: "It is often confused with, but completely different from, reeducation through labor, which is a system of administrative detentions." When sources such as these are used, one cannot help but wonder about the accuracy. The above lists used to contain such blatantly incorrect claims, which were unceremoniously removed when their accuracy was questioned. Such sources are definitely not reliable in my book. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Abstrakt 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepSarcelles 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this unsourced list. BlueShirts 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I could swear I've seen these before on AFD. I don't particularly care whether they exist or not, but I'm going to assert that they are lists of interest to very few people and appear to have been created just for the sake of having such lists. In other words, they are listcruft. Stifle 12:48, 3 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 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bali Paradise or Corrupt Indonesian Hell?

Hopelessly POV essay. -- RHaworth 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. Essay, unwikified, etc.  (aeropagitica)  18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT a publisher of original thought -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete per WP:NOT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and a breach of NPOV. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, rename, and revise. If Bali is somewhere that has a lot of corruption whatever that may mean it can be merged with Bali. I know the current content is POV, but if that is a deletion criterion then let's set the precendent. There appear to be sources but not tied to any specific text, but is that reason enough to delete it. Or is the consensus going to be that we just don't like it enough and no one cares to fix it so it's easier to just delete it? In any event the name has got to be changed. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolsvandia (micronation)

Another random micronation, no real reason to have this on Wikipedia. Stifle 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Varifiable due to Wikipedia's validation rules, and found factual in a previous debate. I see no reason why that it should not be on Wikipedia. There are over a dozen unique hits. It is in the CIS database. Gamextheory 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You call this verifible: "During recent years Bolsvandia has made many attempts to gain allies on both sides of the Pacific firstly Russia and then Mexico. The only countries that actually wanted to form an alliance were Canada and Brazil, but as the finalisation of the treaty was formed Brazil pulled out leaving only Canada to bridge the gap." ? This is incoherent nonsense. Delete. --Gene_poole 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed content to make it more varifiable and easier to understand. Shown procedures taken. Gamextheory 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still unverifiable nonsense. Please show us the reference on the Canadian government's website of it's intention to establish an alliance with Bolsvandia. --Gene_poole 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Varifiable because it has over 12 unique hits, seen in reliable sources and is in the United Nations list of World Countiries as of 9th January 2006 Sarah99 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    This user's first edit. bogdan 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bolsvandia is listed in the UN list of recognised countiries in the world Username100
    This user's first edit. bogdan 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bogdan 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete patent vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've never heard of it. --Billpg 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Having been persuaded, I still don't think this is notable for its own article, but notable enough for a page of minor micronations. Until there is a consensus behind this idea, keep it. --Billpg 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JZG FCYTravis 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Something made up in school one day. --kingboyk 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non verifiable, non notable and not quite good enough for BJAODN. I have removed the strikes of other users comments. Strikeouts are considered by many to be biting the newbies and are not helpful, the edit count information below them is sufficient information for the closing admin to do the right thing, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've seen a few AfDs that were closed as "keep" because the closing admin also counted half a dozen sockpuppets voting "keep" although they were marked as such... :-) bogdan 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    True, and a good reason to take such an AfD to DRV. But nevertheless, not a good reason to strike comments, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. No evidence that there are 2500 citizens (or any for that matter) as the article states. Angela. 03:47, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital sign

Copy of Digital signage, which was recently vandalised by adverts. Borrows information from both Digital signage and Narrowcasting, and contains spam to external websites. Delete as WP is not an ad service. Article also contains a 10-page list of useless definitions (such as "byte", "button", and "Del" [Yes, the delete key on your keyboard]). Kareeser|Talk! 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I am doing this free and altruistically and while I am doing it there is one that is dedicated to criticize before hoping to see the results. If I have chosen to make this page it is by the facts that occur with Digital Signage where it seems that the only thing that it matters are the external links and advertinsing and the order of such and not the information that is offered to the users.

Kormak.

Comment — What "results"? So far, you've stopped editing, and what you have done is promote links to external websites only to generate revenue and traffic, and place a lot of unnecessary information on the page. Your "definitions" are all copied from scala.com! Kareeser|Talk! 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Before criticizing and accusing is better to inquire a little.

TheMost of the content of that glossary is based on "The Digital Signage Glossary of Terms is an open source project with the cooperation of the Digital Display industry. D3 magazine would like pay special thanks to the digital signage software provider SCALA for their help in compiling the terms and definitions presented. If you would like to help us expand on these terms and definitions, feel free to email us with your ammendments, new terms, or suggestions lief@d3magazine.com "

I thought that Wikipedia was an suitable place to offer that knowledge to the users, but if it isn´t then that somebody erase it.

Kareeser, finally I say that I do this in my free time, and I do that from an altruistic form. There is no one external link in that page, only knowledge.

Everybody can see the log of the modifications done to the page and see that while somebody was working ther other was criticizing before hoping to see the results.

Let's Wikipedia decide.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago Goggles

Unverifiable [35], unencyclopedic, non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Could fall under WP:NFT, but generally unencyclopaedic Kareeser|Talk! 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks more like an attack against the Chicago University student body rather than a neologism.  (aeropagitica)  22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And that's Universiy of Chicago, never Chicago University! Alas, you'd think U of C students would be smarter than this. StarryEyes 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —Brim 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Benacerraf

Lack of notability or reliable sources Maxwell Kramer 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, since her notability is too small at the moment, but Natasha is still young and seems to involved, so maybe in a couple of year she will qualify as a member of the real UN. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- probably a nice girl, but almost certainly an unencyclopedic one. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography at the moment. Significant contributions to the organisations in which she is involved to make a case for notability?  (aeropagitica)  22:47, 1 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 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamiecron.tk

Delete; Appears to be vanity page, non-notable (only 2 results in Google for 'Kamiecron') Heycos 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Looks like a very fun school project, but it ain't a good Wikipedia article... Kareeser|Talk! 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, usual school trifles. StarryEyes 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 12:49, 3 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 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Walls Have Eyes

Internet forum that appeared to have had little impact in the outside world, so far [36] [37]. A related article has been deleted some time ago (Tangst) - Liberatore(T) 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Not notable as a blog, nor is it populated by notable posters Kareeser|Talk! 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as another random blog. Stifle 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Keep" as blog deserves to get some publicity Snowy 3:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not for advertising something that is not already notable. FCYTravis 08:09, 6 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 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A&M Entertainment

Corporate advertising MNewnham 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 3 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 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los (name)

Unverifiable, potentially offensive Original Research LeFlyman 19:09, 1 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 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nipponsaga

Hello? What? A webcomic which is planned to go online in 2009? Which is in its planning stages between two "internet friends"? NO. - Hahnchen 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. If not a speedy, then at least with all available haste. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
  • Delete. Wikipedia not a crystal ball, webcomics that haven't been published yet are not verifiable via reliable sources, do not meet WP:WEB, etc. Assuming the author of the webcomic and author of the article are the same, I suppose this could be userfied until 2010? -- Dragonfiend 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not exactly a webcomic if it isn't on the web yet. It's too bad, since the article itself is pretty good. IF they work as hard on the comic, then perhaps it will have a place here one day. Just not now. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ~ Hibana 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of small all-ages venues in the United States

This appears to be a list that nobody is ever going to need and appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree. The title is clumsy, but I could see someone looking for this. Keep Jcuk 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The title makes it clear that this will include every church hall, every function room, every meeting hall in the whole of the USA. If there are less than a hundred thousand potential entires I'd be amazed. If this is for notable small venues, then a category will do the job just nicely. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list has the potential to include every school auditorium, city park, and family living room in the United States as they all qualify as locations where people of all ages may come together for an event (OK, some city parks may not qualify as small;-). --Allen3 talk 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What is a "small venue" anyway? And why should we even care?! --kingboyk 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as per nom. I have my doubts about the articles listed here, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to List of notable all-ages venues or something similar --HasNoClue 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; almost meaningless list, and it's hardly extensive (5 items). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I created the page so I'll chime in here. I think it could be narrowed down to "notable" all-ages venues, and I understand that Wikipedia is not a random collection of lists; however, Wikipedia is full of lists that, while not of interest to everyone, are of interest to a very small subculture -- or even to a small fraction of that same subculture. For example, List_of_black_metal_fanzines. Believe me, a list of notable all-ages venues in the United States is a list that would be of interest to hundreds of people -- not just bands trying to set up shows at such venues, but also people interested in setting up similar venues in their towns, people writing about such venues (when local print media write about such venues, they invariably treat them as unique oddities), and so forth. I'm surprised that Wikipedians are acting like listings in Wikipedia are supposed to be popularity contests -- the "why should we even care" comments above, for instance. Just because you personally are not interested in a topic doesn't mean that the topic is not of use to anyone at all. And, the reason that the list is not extensive should be obvious -- the community has not had a chance to add to it yet. -- Jamiem
The number of black metal fanzines is small (and anyway I'd burn that as cruft) but the notable small venues can be collected in a category, whihc will allow subcategories by region and so on. As a list it has two major problems: spamming with non-notable venues, and the absolutely vast number of potential includees. Go with a category, they work wel for this kind of thing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. If this ends up being deleted, I may create a category, or better yet, write a new article about the all-ages punk rock phenomenon in the US. Without this informal network of show spaces, many bands and other performers would not be as well known as they are. IMHO it's worthy of an article. -- Jamiem
  • Delete and turn into a category. The only one I can really think off off the top of my head is 924 Gilman. FCYTravis 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per HasNoClue. Rory096 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jamiem who has made a very persuasive argument. -- JJay 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jamiem who does have a good argument. Wikipedia is full of minutiae lists, and this one is actually a bit more useful than most.Somrandomguy 18:12 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Earlier listcruft shouldn't be used to justify more listcruft. Eusebeus 08:41, 4 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 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piccolo Mouso

Non-notable demo. --Vossanova 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete as above. Thryduulf 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Here's my vote. Only 4 comments on pouet.net and 2 comments on CSDb. --Vossanova 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vossanova. Stifle 12:51, 3 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, copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)'

[edit] Jennifer Kraus

Vanity, not notable San Saba 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio from http://www.newschannel5.com/content/bios/1733.asp, I've removed it. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:45, 1 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 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PJ Chronicles

Fails any sort of WP:WEB guidline, even fails the defunct WP:COMIC (eric burns) guidelines. Has no alexa rank, no assertion of notability and just over 30 forum members. There are myspace profiles more notable than his. - Hahnchen 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Really? I'm totally writing an article all about my MySpace profile just as soon ... I mean, Delete, per nom. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. And this article seems to have been created by one of the people who does the webcomic in question... Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Laidlow

Article was tagged with {{db-bio}}, but this has been contested so the article no longer qualifies for speedy deletion under criteria A7. A search of IMDB finds no one by this name, the movie this individual is supposed to have starred in is not listed, and a movie with a very similar name produced three years earlier does not list this individual in the credits. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was the one who tagged it with {{db-bio}}. In addition to the reasons stated by the nominator, Google searches for "Mick Laidlow" and "Michael Laidlow" yield no relevant results.
  • Delete fake page most likly San Saba 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 23:10, 1 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.
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Nicholas E. Radice IV. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Morris

Non-notable former radio announcer. One sentence article. Google for "Guy Morris" "Trent FM" gives 38 non-Wikipedia hits. Google for "Guy Morris" "MLS Audio" gives 4 non-Wikipedia hits. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep This article just needs expansion. When making an attempt to verify notability, I highly recommend actually reading some of the websites rather than simply counting them. This DJ has some significant history in the UK starting in 1975 at Trent FM and then moving to the original lineup of Leicester Sound (also run by Trent FM) as their first morning show host. [38]. His picture is displayed on UK Radio: A Brief History - Part 3 and captioned as a popular presenter (DJ). Again, it only took a few minutes of searching and reading to come up with this information. Randomgenius 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please assume good faith. I did indeed visit the websites you mention before nominating this substub for deletion. The fact remains that Mr Morris simply isn't notable. He may have worked at Trent and Leicester Sound (along with hundreds of other people) but there dozens and dozen of people more notable than him in ILR that we don't have articles on. He may be mentioned on certain fansites for Trent and LS, but that still doesn't change his fundamental lack of notability. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand the assume good faith policy, but my experience with afd, good faith, and radio (internet or otherwise) topics here at wikipedia is that these articles are submitted for afd almost as automatically as a bot sorting their categories. Guy Morris didn't just work at Leicester Sound, he was the morning DJ on their first air staff. All the information I read points to him being a historic figure in radio for this region. I still say the article needs expansion rather than deletion. Maybe there are dozens of people more notable than him that don't have articles. I'd say that's irrelevant to this discussion. To me this just means somebody should write or request those articles not that other articles should be deleted. Surely wikipedia doesn't delete articles simply because more notable articles don't exist yet. Randomgenius 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to 96 Trent FM, without prejudice to someone creating an article with more than one line on him. Stifle 12:52, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Ratón

Delete this teensy stub has not been expanded since August and only says Super Ratón is a popular wrestler from Mexico. Does that mean he's popular with the ladies, wrestling fans, restaurants, or what? Ruby 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm sure there are lots of popular wrestlers from Mexico. Thryduulf 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make it clear that 'Super Raton' is the Spanish equivalent of the cartoon character 'Mighty Mouse'. The es wikipedia article on 'Super Raton' confirms this. --Lockley 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've changed the article accordingly. --Lockley 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mighty Mouse. Stifle 12:52, 3 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 Result : Speedy delete as a nn-band JoJan 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (216)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Google search got no results. Esprit15d 20:00, 1 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chainz

delete advertising. Melaen 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 12:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see nothing particularly bad about advertising. This article needs more encyclopedic content, however. -- Marvin147 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and redirect to Brian Lee as existed before this article was added. Essexmutant 12:15, 5 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 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcheshmeh

delete, looks like original research. Melaen 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, essay. If someone knows about it, maybe an article about the mine... Fetofs Hello! 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Misleading title. Stifle 12:53, 3 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 - nn-bio. -- RHaworth 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beau Gosse

{{{Delete}}} San Saba 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Clearly garbage (aka: patent nonsense). — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A. Fortiori

Per the article this is a "minor character." Doesn't really need a whole article. At best, merge with Catch-22 Esprit15d 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete. I don't know Catch-22, but I susepct that this is all that can be said about the character. Merge if they are important otherwise don't bother. redirect the article title to the List of Latin phrases mentioned. Thryduulf 13:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • On second thoughts the article title would be best as a redirect to Catch-22 with an "A. Fortiori redirects here, for the Latin phrase see..." top line disambig. Thryduulf 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Catch-22, or disambig to that and list of latin phrases. Stifle 12:53, 3 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 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby and the Dykes

Delete This band (if it existed) had no recordings, but is not speedily deletable because it asserts notoriety (and yes it is funny that I am nominating it, now that you mention it.) Ruby 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Ruby. Go figure. ;) PJM 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable band. No Guru 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 15:24, 3 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rezzed out, Rez life

DeleteWikipedia is not a slang guide. Bill 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe we could transwiki to the wiktionary as it appears to be in some use (1.300 GHits). Can you also add rez life to the nomination? Fetofs Hello! 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As suggested, I moved the Rez life afd nomination to here--Bill 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither of these belong here. If there's evidence of usage, transwiki to Wiktionary. Delete from here in any case. Stifle 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to a single wiktionary article ··gracefool |☺ 23:06, 3 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 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian New Media Forum

Conference Notes, smells of copyvio MNewnham 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete as per nominator. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Thryduulf 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a pile of headings with no content, and Wikipedia is not a free host. Please see WP:WWIN. Stifle 15:30, 3 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 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice E. Altoon

Is simply being a county judge enough to get in wikipedia? Doesn't seem notable enough. Esprit15d 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete not notable based on the information given. Thryduulf 13:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf, possible speedy as A1 (no context) or A3 (no appreciable content). Stifle 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Alice Altoon" comes back with 33 Google entries, including a 2002 flap over trying to kick reporters out of a public courtroom, but nothing that rises to the level of inclusion here. --Lockley 21:18, 6 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 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ClickDiario.com

delete, advertising. Melaen 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete as per nominator. It looks like somethign designed to attract investors to a company rather thana n encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf 13:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert, probable copyvio. I've never seen so much marketing-speak. Stifle 15:34, 3 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 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November, 2006

I believe pages like this shouldn't be created this far in advance, they'll eventually get created from the 'in the news' sections (see December 2005). Plus the title is malformed (I'd just redirect if the target page should be in existence). - Bobet 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as we don't even have an April 2006 page yet. Fetofs Hello! 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The monthly divisions of the relevant year will be enough; an article per month is not required.  (aeropagitica)  22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fetofs, with a weak reference to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 15:36, 3 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 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Managing Softly

Delete not notable enough to have its own page San Saba 20:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete as per nominator. It feels like a book review as well, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert/book review/etc. Stifle 15:36, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TzHaar Fight Cave

  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 it i need this page

delete RuneScape location , unencyclopedic. Melaen 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Tarikochi 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - I do not think it should be deleted or even be considered for deletion at all. This is a major part of RuneScape, and considered one of the highest honours to complete, giving a necessary reason to keep the article.

Keep The only other thing you can do with this article is to merge it with RuneScape Locations and that would be very very very messy. J.J.Sagnella 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It should not be deleted because there is no reason for it to be.You may think that it is unencyclopedic, but the people who actually like to play RuneScape and go and fight these things may need advice or tips on how to beat them,etc.

Tarikochi 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC) - I would also like to add that the "TzHaar Fight Cave" is not a location, despite its name. The "Fight Cave" is actually a RuneScape mini-game, furthering the reason why this article should not be deleted.

  • Delete I admit I have an addiction towards this RuneScape game, however I really don't think RuneScape warrants 16 articles. This is one of the articles that doesn't warrant to be an article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a lot of time and effort wasted if this was to be deleted. Some information on a small subject is better than no information on a small subject. If needed, merger with TzTok-Jad. SSR600 07:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • TzTok-Jad recently got merged with this. As did Fire cape.J.J.Sagnella 07:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to some part of RuneScape. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep There is a lot of useful information in the article, and it is an integral part of the RS series (into which it should be reinstated). Merging with the RuneScape locations section would not work, as this article has much more information than the other locations - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into RuneScape locations, gamecruft. This is not a keep vote. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. TzTok-Jad was an article about an important monster in RuneScape (the most powerful). There was also an article about the TzHaar Fight Caves and the fire cape. Recently, it was all merged together. The TzHaar Fight Cave is not a regular location, it's an important mini-game like Castle Wars. If you don't believe me, go here. Dtm142 18:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. TzHaar Fight cave is a mini-game and not part of the whole RS map, therefore, not technically a location.--Driken 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. RuneScape location, we have locations/characters/items from a number of other games as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

May be better to seek consensus on A larger list of AFD instead of just this one.

  • Keep or merge - RuneScape is big enough to warrant more than one article, though maybe not as many as it has Ace of Risk 17:16, 6 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 12:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of drum & bass on-line purchasing sites

  • Delete. It is a list of on-line purchasing sites. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links... 1.Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Themindset 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOT PJM 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Sliggy 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. RasputinAXP talk contribs 15:41, 3 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallstaff

Delete. This is a non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Zero Google hits for this musical group -- Lockley 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
After the delete a redirect to Falstaff is a good idea. Sliggy 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect; please don't use AfD for this. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Chetwynde

Non notable character. Should be merged with the article on the series. Esprit15d 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge as per nominator. Thryduulf 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - this does not need to be brought to AFD so this discussion can be closed. You are allowed to do merges yourself. Stifle 15:41, 3 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 as hoax. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Carter

  • Delete: I'm no WWE expert but this appears to be a total hoax. Someone please set me straight if I'm wrong. There's no sources listed and the only external link in the article leads somewhere that doesn't mention Tyler Carter at all. Internal links go to pages that mention everyone but Tyler Carter. The image is the same as Image:Shakira9.jpg, which has a different name entirely. Can this be speedied? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh, and the creator is an extreme newbie with botched pages and doesn't respond to any messages. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ah ha, this is just a copy of Trish Stratus with another name substituted in. There must be some speedy criteria for this... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Rory096 23:53, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Drake

Delete no content, not notable enough for Wikipedia San Saba 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The company is notable enough for wikipedia. The primary founder is notable enough for wikipedia. I would think the other founders are too. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Fightindaman 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Autodesk unless this person is notable for some other reason. No Guru 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One of 12 co founders. Non notable. If someone wants to add the names of the 12 co founders into the article, that's fine, but a particular merge is not needed since there is little content here.Obina 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-nocontent}} (CSD:A3). Stifle 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's enough context here, especially with the reference. I removed the speedy tag. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Absolutely useless empty article. Proto sub stub here. - Hahnchen 10:07, 7 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cakes Made by M.E.

Delete. Non-notable company. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable small business.Obina 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle 15:52, 3 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Mitchell

Not notable enough for wikipedia. Esprit15d 21:06, 1 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rez life

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

The result of the debate was just redirect the damn thing; anyone who knows better can merge from the history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dudi Jat

Reason Barely legible, and seems non-notable. Esprit15d 21:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge anything worth keeping to Dudi and leave a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Boldly redirected to Dudi, which covers the topic somewhat better. An aristrocratic Indian family clan, apparently. Lukas (T.|@) 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is there to merge? This article is illegible, apparently written by someone for whom English is a second or third language. Can the person who performs the merge pick their way through the article and pull out the appropriate sections to keep and dispose of the remainder?  (aeropagitica)  22:59, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fightdemback.com

delete group of 30 people, advertising. Melaen 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

delete The original article was intended as a harrasment piece against FDB. with the defamation removed (almost the entire article) , there really isnt much information at all duckmonster 5:41, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT + 8)

keep the article is probably worth keeping but should be titled FightDemBack! instead of Fightdemback.com. Defamation removed, added detail, wikified. Darrin Hodges 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

--- Could folks please identify when voting to keep out sock puppets. That said, if the article can be fleshed out with non defamatory stuff, that isnt also cheerleading, Im happy to withdraw my delete duckmonster 4:12, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT + 8)

OK, added my ID to my previous 'keep' vote. Darrin Hodges 00:27, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Chao

Non notable. Esprit15d 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Chao_(Sonic_the_Hedgehog) (which itself needs a cleanup; too much strategy guide in that article). Vanigo 22:39, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DominateGame

delete non notable freeware game. Melaen 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - ad for nn game. Thryduulf 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete random computer game. Stifle 15:54, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Photos

Reads like Spam or advert, maybe a redirect to Yahoo, or Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Charlesingalls759 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect to Yahoo! StarryEyes 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge without redirect. First of all, let's be fair: we have an article that covers "Google Images", "Google Groups", "Google Froogle" and others (List of Google services and tools). So I'm not advocating to retain Google and remove Yahoo. I'm against *all* articles of this kind, not for their commercial/advertisement aspect, but simply because they are a maintenance pain. Nobody can keep up with each and every feature/service a web site decide to provide; so, unless we have historical info, commercial facts or even undocumented things that can interest/be useful to the user (such as Gpuzzle or April Fools Search), all that such articles supply is info which are either found on the original site itself (so why replicating them here?) or info that are outdated (which will always happen soon or later). Thus I think that when possible we should ascribe them to a proper context-article, where they can be indicated to the user as external links. Or in other cases simply cited in the main article as "some additional services". As a rule of thumb: avoid info and details that easily become outdated. --Gennaro Prota 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. I don't see what the harm in keeping the redirect is; should the technology become outdated, if people happen to still remember it and type it into the box, it redirects to Yahoo. No harm done. Incidentally, Yahoo Photos has remained unchanged for the past five or so years. Raggaga 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Yahoo!. Redirects are cheap. Stifle 15:56, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emucation

delete un notable site. Melaen 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:WEB, article signed, etc. Stifle 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page has been protected by Curps since December 1st, to prevent vandalism. Stifle 15:58, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellandi Signs

Corporate spamicruft MNewnham 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete as per nominator. Thryduulf 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP, advert, the only surprising thing is the lack of a weblink. Stifle 15:59, 3 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, it is obvious to me that the article is a joke. Thue | talk 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorian Panchyson

Delete 3 Google hits. none of them verify the info in the article Bill 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I found four google hits, one was an obituary, listing Dorian Panchyson as a surviving grandchild. The other three list Panchyson as making the Dean's list in 2003. Unlikely to have earned a PhD and composed any noteworthy theories in just three years. -- Geo Swan 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}, probable hoax. Stifle 16:01, 3 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 12:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polymorphalenecitrate

Hoax that conceived as an ad [39]. Or vice versa. - Liberatore(T) 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — The listed URL is invalid and there are no google matches. Curiously though there is a Alan Atwood who won a William Randolph Hearst Foundation Scholarship at Savannah College. Perhaps the article author was trying to make page seem more legit? — RJH 17:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, among other things. Stifle 16:02, 3 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 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electonehk

Non-notable web forum, according to the article has "100+ members and 500+ messages". - Bobet 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete nn-forum. Thryduulf 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 16:02, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empirically quantifiable handsomeness

Delete unverifiable. Possible hoax. Bill 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete. No google hits as an exact prhase. Unverifiable. Thryduulf 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. The article is very short. This article needs further expansion before being considered for deletion.,,,,,,,Ariele 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax or WP:OR. Stifle 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if respectable references are not added. Thue | talk 20:05, 3 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 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben_Kelso_Jr.

Is this guy notable? My dad is as notable as him. (Opes 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

  • Delete Son of a notable person needs to be notable themselves. This person seems to have done normal things. Not sure about your dad :) Obina 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC
  • Delete Does not seem to be independently notable. Avalon 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete per above TMS63112 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Does not appear to be verifiable or notable besides his father. Looking at WP:BIO, it's a case of a slight merge to Ben Kelso. Stifle 16:05, 3 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 12:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inteenz Christian Magazine

Non-notable Web magazine. 3Ghits.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as random web magazine. Please come back when you have an audience of 5000+. Stifle 16:06, 3 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 13:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Petros_Religion

The page appears to be a complete hoax/vanity page for this guy Petros. -- Saaber 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It is not...If you go to myspace in the religion group the petros religion is on the fifteenth or so page with over 900 members. Its an actual religion and more members join every day. The founder has started to receive donations through myspace.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.142.224.135 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This most defiently is not a hoax, Petros is actually is for this.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.142.195.171 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of the ten members shown on the front page of that religion, not one declares 'The Petros Religion' to be their own... -- Saaber 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the myspace article even syas that it (like unitarian universalism) has members who are also members of other religions. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.142.224.135 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on grounds of notability (or lack thereof). And please make it official policy to delete anything and everything which hosts on myspace! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Kingboyk (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign. --kingboyk 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school, college, or altered mental states one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 900 ganja smoking followers is not enough to be a notable religion just yet. Dr Debug (Talk) 04:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No I must say the petros religion is completely real and many people are joining it!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.142.234.230 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable with no legitimate sources. A page on "myspace" is not a reliable source. CDC (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I bet that you could find ANYTHING on myspace..... show me that myspace doesnt have some group for christian people or a group for jewish people, myspace will have almost anything, as should wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.195.171 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I totally disagree - Wikipedia should very much not have everything. Please see also WP:WWIN. Stifle 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - if there's anything that WP:ISNOT, it's school boy pranks like this. Camillus (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT and the myspace test. Stifle 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 4 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Britpop musicians

Britpop as a genre is very hard to define, and I could make a strong case for the removal of many of those listed. No doubt, someone else would make a strong case for the reinstatement of a few names that I have just removed. The list is out of date, inaccurate and unloved, and doesn't offer any great improvement over a category. A Strong Delete from me. kingboyk 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep; Britpop was the major music movement of 1990's Britain. The list could do with clean-up, but not deletion. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing the deletion of the article or the Category:Britpop category, just that list! Could you tell me, how does that list help Wikipedia? Don't you see what's happening with it - people just come along and add their favourite British band in order to get an extra link! Early to mid 90s was 'my time' in music, and I'm British - and I sure know that Carter USM, Ned's Atomic Dustbin and Relaxed Muscle are not Britpop! --kingboyk 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying the list needs clean-up, but we have lists of musicians for most other genres (Just look at Category:Lists of musicians) and Britpop should be no different. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Have to agree with kingboyk; this is much better served by a category. (I do consider Carter USM Britpop, however. Just listen to the song "World Without Dave". But what do I know? I'm just an ignorant Yank.) StarryEyes 23:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd fight an armed duel to defend my notion that Carter are not Britpop, but I can't prove it. Which kind of makes my point :) Thanks for the support, and if you haven't already check out 101 Damnations and 30 Something. --kingboyk 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like this type of list as it complements our coverage. Needs short descriptions. -- JJay 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Britpop is too hard to define, and it would be more economical just to add a similar list to the actual page for the genre. --tksteph
  • Keep. Seems reasonable to me. The great advantages of lists over categories is that you see the redlinks to see what needs to be created. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's category material at best. Appears to also be a list that is unlikely to ever be completed, and badly defined to boot. Stifle 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unfortunately this page typifies all the problems we're having with the main Britpop page - People hear the word once or twice and decide they know what it means, then argue about it forever. It would be a nice idea if people didn't keep coming along and adding bands to it, unfortunately this is what is happening and will continue to happen. With the category it is redundant anyway. --Sachabrunel 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if it survives this vote then I vote it get another serious trimming - 50% cut or more. --Sachabrunel 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You'll notice that I've trimmed a lot away already. I've also changed the definition of what is acceptable there by restricting it to British, first-wave britpop bands - otherwise it's just unmanageable. Feel free to trim away further. I'm still strongly in favour of deletion though for the reasons you've just put so eloquently. (PS Adding your vote isn't really a minor edit :)) --kingboyk 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. The list is manageable, you just need a few editors working together towards consensus. This isn't out of control like the Best-selling artists/albums articles. You can refer to other online resources like Allmusic, NME, etc. for some pointers. These suggestions also apply to Category:Britpop --Madchester 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem is, the two editors who have been cleaning it (myself and User:Sachabrunel) both agree it should be deleted. I personally won't be sticking around once this debate is over, so that leaves one.
Your other point (I got an edit conflict as you were adding it) - I read NME every week in that era so I have a fairly good idea already; that's not the problem. It's the maintenance and usefulness which is the problem. Keeping that list sane is a lifetime's commitment! :) --kingboyk 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - appears to be inconsistant. Essexmutant 12:18, 5 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 Mailer diablo, who probably forgot to close this. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarlem

Delete. Apparently a slang term (a portmanteau of Scarborough and Harlem). Already has a Wiktionary entry. Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. Not notable enough to merit its own article, and subject not substantial enough to ever be more than a stub. Mostly a vanity page for scarlem.net. Skeezix1000 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that the vanity page of the photographer behind scarlem.net was previously deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christophe Richardson). Skeezix1000 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slang terms don't merit their own distinct articles. Bearcat 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slang. Not Wikipedia worthy. --Dogbreathcanada 07:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What next, separate articles on Scarberia and Hogtown? Luigizanasi 07:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat. Ardenn 07:45, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostie Dvizheniya

Non-notable song (which even the article describes as only "quite interesting". Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I could change this if it's cleaned up. Stifle 16:15, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master volume controls

  • Delete/Merge Non-Encyclopedic...I probably could have Speedied it, but maybe we should merge it somewhere? (Postscript: Maybe we could clean it up...)
    Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I'd be happy to "clean it up". 204.86.231.10 23:28, 26 January 2006 Drbob1a(UTC)

  • Delete for the moment, Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle 09:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC) It's better, but not best. Weak delete still. Stifle 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Edited I have now edited the article to remove the second person pronoun, and to tighten up the language. I'm not sure what you mean about "Wikipedia is not a how-to"? Please check the edited version and see if it meets your standards. Drbob1a
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencylopaedic in tone, and fails to mention whether the control in question goes up to eleven. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:36, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFIF

as it currently stands, this is a single link to a page about the development page of a format which doesn't appear to actually have been used in the software it was to have been proposed for. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article lacks verifiability) Mozzerati 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT (a promotional tool) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:38, 1 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 was Delete no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. None of the keep opinions have provided any policy based argument for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Mason

Craig Mason (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsuccessful candidate in an election. I looked on his campaign Website for any other claims he might have to notability--came up with zippo. Blueboy96 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Second vote by this IP Fritzpoll (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless shown to be notable. Simply being a candidate twice doesn't meet the notability criteria - see WP:BIO#Politicians. --Tim4christ17 talk 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Come on, we don't need to shoot this article down, if we expand it a little it will be a good article, so we should keep it!!Futuramadude (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, then - what are the further claims to notability? The AfD isn't focused on length, but on whether Mr. Mason is notable. Also, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy - the administrator who will close the debate will be looking for reasons why it should not be deleted, not simply more "votes". --Tim4christ17 talk 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Babajobu 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey punch

A made-up sex move which has, apparently, never been recorded. Cited authorities include Urban Dictionary (so it must be true, then). Most discussions in anything even approaching a reliable source seem to restrict themselves to saying it's unlikely. The article as written seems to be little more than an excuse to link to articles like dildo - I don't think even Roger's Profanisaurus would include this. I reckon it's complete bollocks from start to finish, although it got kept here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, extensive usage in common parlance[40], and precedent for keepage per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Teabagging. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come on, the Tony Danza Variation? This is sheer UrbanDictionary nonsense and has no place in an encyclopedia. StarryEyes 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Caveat:I am not thrilled with the idea of putting my name in support next to anything related to donkey punching. However, I must vote my wikiconscience here for a few reasons. First of all, the teabagging precedent (God, am I citing something called the teabagging precedent?) and the previous AfD show a developing consensus on such topics. Secondly, the article itself has developed beyond that of a dicdef (if the article stunk, I would probably vote for transwikification). Tertiarily, it is not a neologism or bull shit, as I have heard this term since at least 1997. So, yea, save the donkey punch (note to StarryEyes: I do agree that anything containing the words Tony Danza Variation is highly suspect). Youngamerican 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current status as an urban legend is more likely than not due to a lack of verifiable sources...it would not surprise me to see reports of it in documented abusive relationships. Also, the teabagging precedent, however silly it might sound, is indeed important here. - CorbinSimpson 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So we should keep it because it is not verifiable from reliable sources? That's an interesting interpretation of Wiki policy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the implied causality. I meant that despite having a lack of verified sources, we should still keep it. Much bigger and more important articles are unverified as well, which in my mind is a good precedent for allowing common knowledge without verification to remain in the encyclopedia. - CorbinSimpson 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Noooooo! If other articles are not verifiable from reliable sources then they should be deleted. Verifiability and reliable sources are firm policy. Notability is a guideline, verifiability is absolutely not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
  • Comment This seems to confirm its existence, at least in the porn world. I'm still digging around for more... youngamerican (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —Brim 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the act itself may be fictitious, this term has been in usage for quite a while. As part of the common vernacular, I'd say that it deserves a place in Wikipedia. — [anonymous] 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Qualified Keep If it doesn't get cleaned up and the profanity and rampant misogyny (of the article, the concept of the act itself seems hopelessly woman-hostile), it should be deleted. If it's maintained better, well...keep it. At the moment, it's nonsense, but the term is one people refer to and wonder about, and if we can get this anecdotal, ridiculous tone out of the article (the quotes at the beginning, the warning about possible castration), it's worthwhile. Ugh. --4.235.135.81 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It's been around for a year and a half. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is not very informative, and contains dubious information. Wikipedia is not a place for some boys to spread their street vernacular. Lengis 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though this act may be immoral to some, the fact of the matter is that this article provides a good definition for this slang phrase. Wikipedia is not a moral stomping grounds, it is a forum for the conveyance of useful information. This is useful information. What if a parent's kid asks them what it is because they heard some kids at school say it. Definitely keep this.... Anonymous 21:42, 6 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: CSD G7: sole contributor requested deletion - page created in error. Thryduulf 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Octavie E. Butler

Delete - Mistakenly created thinking I had typed in "Octavia", when I'd actually typed in "Octavie" Mwelch 22:38, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nexus Distribution

This is a very short stub that gives no explanation why this company is any different to the multitude of others in its field. All three inbound links were added by two anon users with IP addresses in the same range. It feels like advertising to me. Thryduulf 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I followed the links and confirmed that is in the top 100 logistics firms in the US according to one website. (This list did not include some notable trucking firms, though Nexus is broadly trucking and warehouse operations.) So, since logistics is a relatively small industry, this probably make Nexus not in the top 5000 firms in the US. Guide lines on firms are not that clear, but this one overall seems non notable. Wouls be pleased to change my vote if there was verifiable evidence of notability provided.Obina 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Obina. Stifle 16:25, 3 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh Sanctum

Non-notable website. Spam. Ezeu 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Creator of Seventh Sanctum here - the profile was created (not at my behest) by one of the site's regulars. I do feel the initial creator included too much extraneous materials. I have edited it to a more reasonable size. I must Abstain due to my involvement.XWayfarer 10:23, 26 January 2006 (EST).

  • I will have to Abstain here since I count XWayfarer as a personal friend. However, I would question the nom's judgement that the site is non-notable; while "Seventh Sanctum" gets 18,800 Google hits, slightly on the low side, looking at how those hits refer to Seventh Sanctum shows that people are recommending it as a valuable resource; people are calling "the best source on the Internet"[41] and "the current champ"[42]. Here you have a college's English department putting the site on a list of resources it recommends to its students, andthese people are using the site's generators in making their independent film series. Again, I have to abstain, but I hope people will consider these factors before making a judgement about the site's notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - alexa ranking of 113,599, and the forum only has 117 members. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this should be on their website, not on the Wikipedia. Stifle 09:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep noted as a useful reference in the article "Master the name game" by Arthur Plotnik published in The Writer Magazine, Dec. 2005 issue. Crypticfirefly 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Merely because a website is recommended by someone somewhere does not make it notable. At least not by Wikipedia standards.--Ezeu 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I'm saying "weak keep." Crypticfirefly 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
I am relisting this because it is right on the border for consensus to delete. For something this close, I'd like to get more votes. Deathphoenix 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete KI 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep because I have heard of the site before, and some of my RPG friends have actually used it. It's not exactly world-famous, but think it is somewhat notable within the subculture. The article needs some cleanup though. Draeco 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, keep -- Simon Cursitor 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I would like to point out that an article on Seventh Sanctum was created previous to this, and although it was deleted, the deleting admin didn't offer any reason why it was deleted, only "listed for speedy deletion"[43], which rather suggests that it didn't actually meet any criteria for speedy deletion and shouldn't have been. If looking at the deleted version showed that it was created by the same user, that doesn't indicate much, but if the current article actually represents the second independent user to think Wikipedia should have an article on the subject, that should be factored in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pteronophobia

delete minor "phobia" 500 google hits. Melaen 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a real phobia. But I'm not sure the picture of the feather is necessary or appropriate. —Brim 06:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to -phobia.-Greebo | purr 01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But ditch the feather picture, if I was seeking a resource for my fear of Wiki Cabals I would not want to see a picture from the buffet where the Cabal had a meet-up Ruby 07:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Drini as a nn-bio (csd a7). - Bobet 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Echlin

Textbook Non-notable person page - would probably be a candidate for speedy deletion -- Aim Here 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete One sentence. Nothing more. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete StarryEyes 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously. Draeco 23:53, 1 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plans and apologies

Was tagged as a speedy by Stifle, but asserts an album release, which is a claim of notability. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nonnotable. KI 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless I am mistaken it is an EP (Extended play) and an album. Regardless of whether it is an album or an EP, I don't think that it meets the criteria WP:MUSIC, because it has not entered the Top 40 or meets any other criteria. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although quite a few relevant Google results for "Plans and Apologies" (including quotes), it's still less than 1000 and hence not enough. They're much further along than most of the bands that show up on AfD, if that's any consolation. StarryEyes 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This was updated since I tagged it, and I agree it's no longer a speedy. However it is still a delete. It does not have the two album releases on major labels required, and while the author claims it meets the criterion of having been prominently featured in a major music publication (my emphasis) (see here), I do not see this as either prominent or major. Additionally, the band members' names on the article do not correspond with the names on the website. Stifle 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the original poster of the article. I would agree that the band are just emerging into 'wikipedia' status so to speak, and are on the border between being notable enough, and not quite. I felt they had a large enough fan base, radio play, and publication reviews to warrant a placing. On reading through the WP:MUSIC criteria, it would seem that 'spot' (ie. one-off) radio plays are not enough. However, the support of Drowned in Sound, I thought, was enough. Perhaps the Wikipedia article on Drowned In Sound could be updated a little. It has continued to grow over the last year, and is now Europe's most widely read music website. It has more readers per week than the NME for instance, and is perhaps the most significant 'tastemaker' within the UK indie community. (I don't think I should be the one to update the entry for it though, as it could look like I was trying to manipulate things in favour of the plans and apologies entry!). I would argue then, that it is both prominent and major for an indie band. No hard feelings if you disagree and delete the entry though, it is reassuring to see that Wikipedia has such stringent entry conditions. PS - confusingly, the band members change their alternative names every year or so, so there are several versions out there! If I knew their actual names, I'd have gone with that... Gus Peterson 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since you mention NME, can I ask - have you/they been featured in NME yet? If they have, in what context? Unless NME have gone seriously down hill I'd be surprised if they'd overlooked a notable British indie band. --kingboyk 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • They haven't been featured in the NME (as far as I know). Would probably be on their press sources on their site if they had, but no mention of the NME. That may change in upcoming weeks with a new single out in March, but for the moment, no NME. Gus Peterson 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying an article in NME is essential of course, but it's a reasonable indicator along with what else is written here that this band aren't quite notable enough yet. Perhaps you should save a copy of the article to your user space and resubmit it in a few months time if they've made a bit more of an impact? --kingboyk 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • New Source Looking through your list of notable music publications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_magazines) , I see that Careless Talk Costs Lives is on there. The band have received favourable reviews from them in the past. If I put a link / reference up on the entry, would that save it? Or if you just need to see proof, here's a reference to a Plans and Apologies review in Careless Talk Costs Lives on CDBaby.com, which I believe is quite a large online retail store - http://cdbaby.com/cd/plansapologies Gus Peterson 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I appreciate Gus Peterson's efforts, and welcome him to Wikipedia, but I don't think this band is notable enough just yet. --kingboyk 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats no problems, will see how things turn out over next few months, and in the meantime, a delete if thats the right way to go. There are some other bands I was meaning to submit (with a higher profile than Plans and Apologies - should have done them first really!), but will see who things turn out with them in terms of the needed profile for Wikipedia. Gus Peterson 00:24, 6 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 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Adams' First State of the Union Address

Uncle G and Howcheng insist this is original research (see: Wikipedia:No original research). If that's the case, then according to their logic, this should be deleted. KI 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I fail to see the point why this qualifies as original research. It is an important and historic speech and we know it exists. It has an encyclopedic value etc. etc. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dr_Debug StarryEyes 23:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep we even have wikisource on it. —This user has left wikipedia 01:38 2006-02-02
  • Keep As far as I can see, all Uncle G did was ask for more sources. What's there isn't original research anyway. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doubtless discussed in many secondary sources. Merchbow 08:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep it

  • Strong Keep: I would like to see a wiki article for every State of the Union Address. A source(s) should definitely be cited, though.--Hraefen 23:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ServiceVilla

Pure advertisment on non-notable website. No Alexa ranking status. Hurricane111 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Delete-Advertising.--Pomegranite 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete per nom. Rory096 23:37, 1 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. Babajobu 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LifeStyles

proxy nomination for User:Chooserr - has attempted speedy 3 times, being reverted. Also working on teaching him how to nominate - NO VOTEHipocrite - «Talk» 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - can't see how this can be usefully expanded from one sentence.--SarekOfVulcan 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You don't? See Durex. Definitely a notable brand. StarryEyes 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking forward to changing my vote when someone does a similar fix, then. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete, way too small unlikely to be expandable. Should be treated just as ruthlessly as my F.A.C.T.1 article was. Chooserr 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Making a point, are we? I'm not sure what FACT1 is, but I do know that at least half of all Americans between their teenage years and their thirties know of LifeStyles condoms. Raggaga 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, he's probably making a point, but it's still a one-sentence article. :)--SarekOfVulcan 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. One thing's for sure: if it does get deleted, someone will re-create the page within about three months. They're a very visible brand, in America at least. Raggaga 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, extremely well-known and important brand, WP:POINT. bikeable (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep huh, how come one one heard of this? (too many underage editors). —This user has left wikipedia 01:36 2006-02-02
  • Keep very common, notable brand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because of it's notability. Even if it one couldn't write more on it (which I rather doubt), I don't see why it shouldn't be redirected to Ansell (which needs some work). Mairi 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't keep an advertisement just because it's the progressive thing to do. Ruby 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Well known brand of condom. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. —Brim 06:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Ansell unless there's something to actually say about this brand of condoms other than "it's well known." Does anyone know? Are LifeStyles condoms notable or distinctive or notorious for any reason other than being a readily recognized brand name? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"
  • Keep and expand. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Ansell unless expanded. Notable or not (and I lean toward the former, in this case), this is one sentence and a link, making it not even a stub. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable product. Cnwb 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep. This is a very notable brand in the United States. --Descendall 07:48, 4 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. Babajobu 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honey (model)

I'm doubtful of her notability and suspect this is either promotional or a hoax, especially since the user who first created the article just happened to be named Honey101. I found no relevant Google results for 'Honey model', the "official website" link at the bottom points to http://www.com, and there's no assertion of her notability anywhere in the article. They include a Victoria's Secret catalogue cover shot, but it cannot be her, given that that was a Fall 2002 issue and she was just twelve when it came out. They do not say anywhere in the article what work she's done. StarryEyes 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the girl in the picture is Adriana Lima, and I have no knowledge of her ever going by any kind of stagename "Honey". Draeco 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since the picture is incorrect, and the website link is incorrect, I have strong doubts about the rest of the article. Unverifiable, at a bare minimum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Merchbow 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Turnstep 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per user:Turnstep Bobby1011 18:43, 5 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. Babajobu 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

This is already linked in the relevant articles and does not warrent it's own. Alexa 300,000+ ∴ here…♠ 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

obviously i was wrong. feel free to close unanimous keep. i agree -- i expect people to know it, probably some repressed shame from ishkur's pictures of my raver days. keep it up. ∴ here…♠ 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - i'd argue that the site is rather notable in the online electronic dance music scene, especially when it comes to discussion on music genres --MilkMiruku 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable enough, 80K webhits. —This user has left wikipedia 01:34 2006-02-02
  • keep this site is indeed really known in all electronic genres and people with different interests I spoke with in the past knew this site (from experimantel 50s weirdness to modern jazzy music or dance music) --LimoWreck 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A notable resource in the definition and research of electronic music as a whole, as well as being pretty hilarious. Deleting this article would be a mistake. //User:DJRaveN4x
  • Keep -Notable across the industry. It's niche, but it rises above nn Ronabop 02:36, 5 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. Babajobu 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FindAdBlue.com

Was tagged for speedy for no content, but it has content so it doesn't qualify. Looks like spam instead so Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable website,. —This user has left wikipedia 01:32 2006-02-02
  • Delete advert Stifle 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Probably advert (see the relevant section of WP:BALLS), but for the time being I'm going for WP:WEB. Stifle 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not an advert. A website and free service enabling people to find a technology to improve the environment Howardcardinal 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is not spam. This is ridiculous - a major contribution to improving the environment - and someone wants to delete this contribution what is going on. Wo decided that they should delete this article - someone in the US - trying to stop Europe cleaning up the roads from Nox pollution. Does anyone in Wikepedia understand how important improving the environment is? You have to know that Adblue, and the need for it to work - and for truckers to use SCR technology - means that they need the European Findadblue website. This is not spam.

. User:Philradbourne@hotmail.com

  • Keep - it is not spam. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. I don't understand all the acronyms and terminology so please let me know what's wrong with my page. User:Howardcardinal
Just to cleaify Howardcardinal, it not your page. 2nd you dont have to put 3 "keeps" into this page (I belive Philradbourne@hotmail.com and Howardcardinal is the same person) Twthmoses 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. I see no notability for a website with a list a fuel stations, at least not yet, but it may come. Sounds like an ad. Twthmoses 02:07, 5 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. Babajobu 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik F. Øverland

Impressive CV and advert for SUBITO! Research&Futures, Norway. But is this guy notable? -- RHaworth 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nope not notable, vanity biography see User:Subito —the preceding unsigned comment is by This user has left wikipedia (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete CV. Stifle 16:26, 3 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 a joke article. Thue | talk 18:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9000

Nonsense article about a nn number. Draeco 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --ManiacK 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rory096 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete no claim of notability. —This user has left wikipedia 01:27 2006-02-02
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, I think. Maybe stretching it a bit, but I'd call for a WP:SNOW. Stifle 16:26, 3 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. Babajobu 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyAFL

  • Delete Forum Adverticement. I think it is enough that it is mentioned in Australian rules football external links. ManiacK 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 01:25 2006-02-02
  • Delete. No indications that it meets WP:WEB. With less than 1000 members, it fails one criteria. No evidence of third party verifiability. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"
  • Delete. --Roisterer 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advertising. -- Synapse 12:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Adds nothing to wikipedia Oliyoung 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:WEB. Cnwb 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bobby1011 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteFlying Canuck 02:02, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antiforbidden fruit effect

I'm not sure this term actually exists. I can't verify it anywhere, and it's had the "unsourced" tag for over 4 months. Joyous | Talk 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as copyvio. It appears to be real, but it's an exact copy of that page. Rory096 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Delete, as it has no real Google hits. Rory096 01:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that page is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. They give credit at the bottom of the page. Joyous | Talk 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, didn't see that. My bad. Rory096 01:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and maybe delete "forbidden fruit effect" too. —This user has left wikipedia 01:25 2006-02-02
    I saw that there was a similar article. I didn't tag that one because I've at least heard of the phrase "forbidden fruit," but I don't know about it as an official "effect." They're both created by the same author, for whatever that's worth, and both are similarly unsourced. Joyous | Talk 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete definitely failing WP:NOR and has the distinct whiff of WP:BALLS. Stifle 16:33, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoned Forever

nn documentary from a nn site (though it's pretty neat, Jersey REPRESENT!). Can't really find anything about either except self reference. Site fails WP:WEB. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Largely crystal ball expected to be sold in April of 2006. Also note the editors only contributions have been the addition of inappropriate commercial links. Dlyons493 Talk 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete google search for "Abandoned Forever documentary" original research "Abandoned Forever dvd" gives six results. —This user has left wikipedia 01:22 2006-02-02
  • Comment: I am new to this and still need to fix it up a bit, if it says something wrong that it shouldn't say then fix it. Also, I know it isn't well known on Google but look at the "hits" on the site, it reaches over 5,000 (every month I believe). unsigned comment by AbandonedForever (talk · contribs)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete also because user is trying to peddle his wares on the Columbine article. --Golbez 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. don't bite the newcomers -- Marvin147 05:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Huh? What's that got to do with it? RasputinAXP talk contribs 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC
    • Comment: Thanks Marvin, at least you understand that I made this my second day using Wikipedia. Abandoned Forever is just a popular website that a lot of people interested in Urban exploring go to. The only reason I mention the documentary is because it is one of the first documentaries to be made on abandoned places. unsigned comment by AbandonedForever (talk · contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remote Installation Services (RIS)

Delete - Verbatim copy from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/deploy/depopt/remoteos.mspx Gennaro Prota 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep must be cleaned up but it's an actual MS service used by the IT. —This user has left wikipedia 01:21 2006-02-02
  • Just a clarification: I'll likely recreate the article myself. I'm just asking to remove the current contents because we have a copyright infringement. Normally we cope with this by creating a new version, but since the article has no previous edit history I propose to delete and recreate it. --Gennaro Prota 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. If we'd caught this earlier it would be a CSD A8 speedy. Thryduulf


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

The result of the debate was delete (I speedied it earlier for it was at CAT:CSD and the afd notice was missing). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eswarappa

This isn't up to the standards of wikipedia and should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chooserr (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 February 2006

(It seems to be a joke article)

  • Speedy Delete, CSD G1.--SarekOfVulcan 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I was going to tag it before, but apparently the Eswarappas are a real family (according to Google). This article is clearly not encyclopedic, but maybe it could be refined (or totally redone). Rory096 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it has been deleted. —This user has left wikipedia 01:20 2006-02-02


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Lambert

Non-notable/vanity page -- Aim Here 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy a7 as non-notable bio. Rory096 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7 as non-notable bio. Hoax as he claims to be a drum juggler in a hardcore Oasis covers band. Capitalistroadster 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.