Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon City

Non notable webcomic, hosted on Tripod.com (?!) and found here. Google gives back roughly 25 hits for the search of "Dragon City" webcomic. - Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Tripod.com says it all --Ruby 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Monkeyman 01:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvi savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, per above. --Jay(Reply) 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Dragonfiend 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not provide proof/s that its subject meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. VirtualSteve 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable webcomic. --Terence Ong 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: fails WP:WEB. bcasterline^talk 18:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable for now. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMan^talk 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most definately not noteable. The Republican 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bunny System

Is this webcomic, found here notable? The Alexa ranking of approximately 4 million suggests otherwise and a google search for "The bunny system" brings up around 120 links, which isn't a lot at all. - Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa 4 million does more than suggest, it screams delete --Ruby 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to list non-notable web comics. --Jay(Reply) 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. I do like the bunnies, though. -- Dragonfiend 06:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not provide proof/s that its subject meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. VirtualSteve 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TheRingess 08:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: fails WP:WEB. bcasterline^talk 18:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman^{T}{L} 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just read through this one, and it's really cute in a twisted way. Since this AfD seems more or less decided anyway I feel no guilt voting to keep simply because I like it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'd vote merge if there was a page for "minor webcomics" which gave one paragraph discriptions about each, but the current style seems to be to use stubs instead. JeffBurdges 15:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultrageeks

A webcomic/blog found here. What's notable about it? Alexa gives back a rank of 2.5 million and Google gives 60 links for "The ultrageeks". Fails any sort of guideline at WP:WEB and before it. - Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa 2.5 million? Get rid of it --Ruby 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Once again, non notable web comic. --Jay(Reply) 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 06:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not provide proof/s that its subject meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. VirtualSteve 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 08:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alexa rank, WP:WEB, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: fails WP:WEB. bcasterline^talk 18:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely non notable. ric 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love, Life, and Pain

A webcomic, found here. It's been on hiatus since last September, so the absolute lack of Alexa data may be misleading. However, a search for "Love, Life, and Pain" webcomic on Google shows up about 90 links. Taking a look at the article, especially the section on its popularity will tell you it's anything but popular. - Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ruby 00:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not provide proof/s that its subject meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. VirtualSteve 06:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. --Terence Ong 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bier Suppe

A webcomic with 41 pages, found here and largely written by the webcomic author, a User:C Labombard. Alexa shows no data for the website, and a google for "Bier Suppe" webcomic gives under 50 links. Is this website notable? I don't think so. Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No alexa no keepy --Ruby 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 06:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not provide proof/s that its subject meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. VirtualSteve 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danaman5 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ric 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Cresci Comics

Another webcomic offering, found here. A google search for "Greg cresci comics" generates 80 links and there is no Alexa data. Is there anything here that makes this website any more notable than all the other websites out there? I don't think so. - Hahnchen 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn webcomic --Ruby 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Who ever is posting these non notable web comics, just stop. --Jay(Reply) 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 06:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article does not provide proof/s that its subject meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. VirtualSteve 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateway Church (Leeds)

This local church is so not notable, it doesn't even have it's own sanctuary; they meet every week in a theater in downtown Leeds. --Ruby 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely non-notable. We'd have another million and a half articles if there was one for every place of worship. --Jay(Reply) 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN and has no pages linked to it so not a redlink justifier.VirtualSteve 06:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/o prejudice unless rewritten: possibly notable, but this stub doesn't make the case. Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/o prejudice per Smerdis. JoshuaZ 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/o prejudice. Agree fully with Smerdis. ric 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual churches don't merit articles unless the individual church is itself notable. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathura Krish

WP:PROD nominator's reason was "Probably hoax, Google only has 2 hits, none of which are related to the movies listed below.", which sounds about right. CDC (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per original PROD rationale --Ruby 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. enochlau (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. deeptrivia (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN VirtualSteve 06:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 09:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.-- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. ric 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --James 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was dealt with by copyvio. There is no consensus to delete the subject of the artice, though. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Calvary Holy Church of America

This is an article about a small church which makes unverifiable claims such as "more than 249 persons were saved" --Ruby 00:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, unverifiable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. This article is tedious to read, which makes it hard to spot that it isn't exactly a "small" church. It appears to be a Protestant denomination with a number of churches in different states. See http://www.mchca.org/main.htm for more info, this appears to be a reasonably widespread church denomination. I agree that statements such as "249 people were saved" is hard to verify, but believe that in the context of this article, something like "249 people became members of the church" is meant-- but such problems can be fixed without deleting the article.Crypticfirefly 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Unfortunately, I just found a big copyright violation: most if not all of the article was copied from the website listed above (under "history"). Crypticfirefly 03:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Might as well delete now. First version was a copyvio, as stated. Superm401 - Talk 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep assuming copy-vio info is removed and at the min a good stub is made out of whats left. ---J.Smith 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is a delete in its current format.VirtualSteve 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 09:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep and cleanup Jcuk 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article, Keep Topic The article should be deleted as it's just copyvio, but it's worth having an article on the church, so don't consider this to preclude writing something that isn't copied on it. Night Gyr 12:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on content. If someone replaces this with a decent stub or article about the Calvary denomination, contact me and I will reconsider.--Isotope23 16:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up.-- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. However, if someone were to write a stub in the temp folder, I would support that being copied over to this namespace. Capitalistroadster 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on content. Fully agree with Isotope23. ric 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. When it is resurrected we'll deal with it again. Claims of how many people were saved will not save this, however. If 249 dead people were raised and could be verified, that would make it notable. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2T Organization

This is not a real company (yet?). Sorry. CDC (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ruby 00:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 01:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, bad hairpiece. Ronabop 07:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's clearly WP:NFT and/or WP:V. Reading this article was two minutes of my life I'll never get back... oh well. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.-- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 17:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: considering it doesn't exist, it obviously fails WP:CORP. bcasterline^talk 18:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and WP:NFT --Goatrider 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elite flyers

Advertising. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with above--Acebrock 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete defintitely advertising. --Jay(Reply) 01:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TheRingess 01:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a fancy online game server --Ruby 01:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert.-- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsubaki Risa

WP:PROD nominator's reason was "Non-notable video game and fanfic character" which sounds about right. CDC (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because as the article says, "Not much is known about Tsubaki Risa" --Ruby 01:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 09:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Koch

It is written by a user of the same name, and appears strongly to be vanity. It claims notability, but this is not substantiated nor explicitly descrived.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - vanity article, advertising, not even an article. --Jay(Reply) 01:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 01:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable, vanity, bollocks, etc. dbtfz^talk 04:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. If we start to speedy delete hoaxes, things will get out of hand. It's isn't nn-bio. Superm401 - Talk 04:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity bio. ---J.Smith 06:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 09:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete., as per Jay.--Johnnyw 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO: a Google search [1][2] doesn't seem to turn up anything related to this person. But the article doesn't satisfy WP:CSD. Since it claims over 100 awards, it does assert importance. bcasterline^talk 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy as vanity. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Malone

Appears to be advertising, as the top camerapeople would probably work in the film industry. It seems nn in any case.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't a resume website. --Jay(Reply) 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay --Ruby 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.--Jersey Devil 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like an advrt. NN-bio anyway.---J.Smith 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. IS an advert. Daniel Case 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Genuine entry. People search for information on this videographer all the time. It is valid as an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxyel456 (talk • contribs)
  • Note - Author of Keith Malone. No other edits aside from this.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolceoro

This is a disputed WP:PROD, the prod tag was replaced out-of-process several times. However I can't find much independent external coverage, so the company doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Kappa 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn company. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I stuck the prod tag on originally, the article read too much like an advertisement. The original author is probably new to Wikipedia and didn't understand the rules against removing templates. Though I left notes on their talk page asking them not to delete until a sysop had time to resolve the issue. I also suggested that they insert a little bit more biographical detail in the article (ownership, date of creation, etc.) and the original author either didn't read the message, doesn't speak English very well or simply doesn't care to make the article more encyclopedic. *Delete TheRingess 01:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is no rule against removing templates, not {{prod}} at any rate. Anyone can remove it for any reason. Please reread the PROD proposal. "Leaving the template on" is equivalent to agreeing with the removal. (I'm voting delete nevertheless.) rodii 03:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Another non-notable company listing. --Jay(Reply) 01:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Traffic Rank for dolceoro.com: 1,828,825 (which makes it a small business) --Ruby 01:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn company and per above.--Jersey Devil 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN company. rodii 03:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company, but expensive (and Flashy) website. I wonder if the same company made their encyclopedia entry... Superm401 - Talk 04:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 09:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Kappa has added a speedy tag and noted that the author blanked the page. I'm ending this discussion now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armadda regime

completely non-notable, likely to be vanity judging by creator of the same name.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND for notability standards. —ERcheck @ 01:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-band --Ruby 02:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete per guidelines in WP:BAND ---J.Smith 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Ruby. --Johnnyw 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:BAND. bcasterline^talk 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Martyman-(talk) 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. The article does contain a small claim of notability; not a speedy. PJM 04:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anhydride Decarboxylase

Non sense. I've never heard of this enzyme. IUBMB search results in NO entries. Geogle results are either wikipedia or defining anhydride alone. This enzyme doesn't exist.--Wedian 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: All contributions of User:172.151.158.176 are non sense. Enzymes Myline phosphate kinase, Peptidal Transferase and Pyruvase Deaminase don't exist either. Delete all.--Wedian 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are three independent definitions for decarboxylase ("Any of various enzymes that hydrolize the carboxyl radical.") but I don't know if there is an anhydride variation, unverifiable so far. --Ruby 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about decarboxylases. Decarboxylases are a whole group of enzymes, a subclass of Lyases. Wikipedia has articles for some decarboxylases e.gUroporphyrinogen III decarboxylase. The IUBMB (The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology)[3] is responsible for enzymes nomenclature. Please refer to the Enzyme naming conventions. If an enzyme exists, it will be in their database.Please search their database here. No results are retrived. However enzymes as Uroporphyrinogen III decarboxylase exist in their database. A complete list of decarboxylases can be found here. As you can see Anhydride Decarboxylase doesn't exist. The protein data bank has no record for it either. Same applies for the other 3 enzymes. These enzymes exist only in wikipedia.--Wedian 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per Wedian's impressive exposition of the problem --Ruby 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Superm401 - Talk 04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wedian's research & explanation. ---J.Smith 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- well summarized Wedian! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per Wedian.--Isotope23 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Wedian above. ric 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete these fictional enzymes as per Wedian. 'Pyruvase deaminase' is the worst.. there's no such thing as 'pyruvase', and pyruvate is conspicuously lacking in anything to deaminate. -- Mithent 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a hoax. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was somebody's already dealt with it. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Pandrol clip

Delete sex toys are one thing, but this..? Rklawton 01:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I shoulda thoughta merge Rklawton 17:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Peter Horn deleted the speedy tag while he was dinking around and writing this article --Ruby 02:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why delete? Can any one sugest an alternative way to describe this device, or should the article become an entry in the Wiktionary? [4] [5] --Peter Horn 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Delete as not notable enough for its own article. Merge information in a relevant railroad article.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 21, 2006, 04:05 (UTC)
• Delete & Merge per Wtwilson3. ---J.Smith 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Rail tracks. There's probably a suprising amount you can write about something as unobtrusive as this piece of technology, but that content could quite happily sit in another article until there is enough to make it worth splitting out. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per GeorgeStepanek Jcuk 09:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per GeorgeStepanek. So that's what they are called. — Graibeard ^(talk) 10:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It's worth knowing about but we don't have enough for its own article yet. Night Gyr
• Merge I was the one who put the tag up but we could merge it into rail tracks. American Patriot 1776 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per GeorgeStepanek.--Isotope23 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Since it's already in the article, would anyone object to a bold redirect? Night Gyr 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all, since it has already been boldly merged. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Boldly Redirected. Night Gyr 12:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Door Ministries

This is a little group that runs bible studies in a few high schools and college dorms, no Alexa rank for their website, no outstanding achievements --Ruby 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN club/org. Don't those qualify for speedy? If so, Speedy. ---J.Smith 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No idea how notable it is, but this article and Mustard Seed Ministries are almost identical - delete both, or merge and redirect. JPD (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Delete Mustard Seed Ministries -- nn. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synthetika

Vanity page by high school (?) musician, talking about an "album" he made. No commercial release, no apparent connection to anything or anybody of public interest. No significance. I had marked this as {prod} but somebody objected that there is "lots of good information" on the page. This seems retarded to me, so let's see where the consensus lands. Uucp 01:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete He's just now finishing his demo ? --Ruby 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete how can you write an entire article about something and only mention it in the last graf? apparently, when the article is a copyvio[6]. — Adrian Lamo ·· 10:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Martyman-(talk) 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aeternitas Demo

Disc was never released and seems to have created no ripples in the musical world. Created by non-notable high school(?) musician. Honestly, this might be a speedy. Uucp 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have a demo CD of my electronic music at my website too, but I won't write it up on Wikipedia --Ruby 02:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Probably should've been coupled with the "band" Afd. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---J.Smith 06:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its a demo fer ... 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Martyman-(talk) 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetNobel.org

Non-notable website. Prod tag removed by User:68.98.164.66 Cnwb 02:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Alexa doesn't even have a record for it. Superm401 - Talk 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---J.Smith 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. certainly not notable.--Wedian 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Chick Bowen 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, yeah... — Feb. 28, '06 [10:43] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Mudface (band)

• Delete: Non-notable band that doesn't meet standards of WP:BAND. No hits on AllMusic or Amazon. Yes, the article is long and detailed but, when it comes down to it, the band has only hung out with and played some shows with notable bands. WP:BAND suggests two full-length albums but this article mentions only a few demos. Band has already taken a few breaks and changed their name once. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable yet. Kusonaga 09:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A good and informative article on an underground band. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: They're underground all right. They're so far underground that all of their demos are under a different band name! We should consider changing the name of the article at least since Mudface has literally released zero music. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does nto satisfy WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 23:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeeJay Link

Prodded but tag removed without explanation. It's some kind of music chart. No vote. NickelShoe 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nn website. Wiki isn't google. Bobby1011 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Levicoff

• From now on, do not put these in discussions, Merge --FlareNUKE 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No case made for deletion; if you want it merged, then either do so or discuss it on the talk page, not afd. (And no, blanking the previous vfd on the talk page isn't discussion.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete non-notable vanity. JoshuaZ 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing my vote to keep after looking at Zophar's Domain --JoshuaZ 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Actually I'm fine Merge. JoshuaZ 15:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. per above. --Jay(Reply) 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Dukey

Biography of a dog who has "earned cult status in some online communities". The one genuine claim to fame (or should I say "fame") is that Dukey apparently appears in the Trainz railroad simulator. I'm not sure how we know it's Dukey and not, say, Lassie, but in any case I think this merits at most a mention in Trainz, and a deletion of this article. bikeable (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I created the model for Trainz, so I can say with 100% certainty it's Dukey. Abstaining from voting as otherwise certain people will make my life not worth living. FiggyBee 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• ok, thanks for the info. I still think Dukey deserves a spot in the Trainz article, but not a separate one. bikeable (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A biography of a dog which MANY have come to love! There is a large community out there of Dukey fans, and just because one has not heard of the beloved dog, does not mean this article deserves a deletion. There are many seperate large interent relations to Dukey, as well as ACTUAL proof and word of mouth that Dukey is in Trainz. Dukey has become a symbol, and loved by all who learn about him! Keep this article.--Gods killed 04:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dukey is quite known though, it would be unfair to delete an article that a few people took time to put up. It's not just there for fun...it's up because it is based on a real thing. I just don't see why you would want to delete this... DON'T DELETE! --King Andy 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the owner of Dukey and I do know all the facts. Dukey is no joke although it is unbelievable what he has achieved just by being a dog, its surreal but still REAL. It is amazing how many people know of Dukey. It keeps growing. A lot needs to be added still about Dukey's history and family tree! Keep! --David_VI 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dukey is 100% real, and has a rather large fanbase, which has extended well beyond Trainz. Most notably, Dukey is idolized among a large portion of those who partake of the last.fm website. Dukey's popularity is continually growing, and the ranks increase on a daily basis. KEEP DUKEY!!!!JeffTheTerrible 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence that this dog meets the canine equivalent of WP:BIO. We certainly don't need to know about his family tree. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Capital. Can I say sock puppet? I mean, common... 5 people in a row who don't know how to format entries into an AFD all within an hour? ---J.Smith 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And can I say assume good faith? I resent and deny the allegation that I have created sock puppets - I was asked by David_VI by instant message to confirm that the model in Trainz is of Dukey. Apart from that, I am staying out of this AFD - and my apologies for not knowing the 'correct' formatting. FiggyBee 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet? I did not just join because of Dukey, but reather he is part of the reason. I have contributed twice now to my knowledge, and just because we have just joined does not mean that should exclude us from wanting to share our knowledge of a subject that has become widely known. There are people that even we do not know who talk about Dukey. I recall a discussion on a french forum about the dog. It is not just us, there are plenty others who would love to know more about Dukey, but just dont know where to look.--Gods killed 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Capitalistroadster... doesn't meet WP:BOW-WOW. Also, when we have four users who jumped on the AfD minutes after it was created, who have no significant contributions to Wikipedia beyond this article and its AfD, and no edits prior to today, vehemently opposing its deletion... the reasoning behind which sock puppetry is alleged by J.Smith seems not too far-fetched. I'm just going to leave it at that... --Kinu ^t/_c 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not denying that there's clearly some outside organisation going on here. I'm just denying that it's me behind it. I wasn't even aware that the article in question existed before today, when I was contacted directly by David_VI and asked to post here. FiggyBee 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, If your truly innocent, I apologise for blaming you. I blame the timing. ---J.Smith 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Someone said to me Duke deserved a Wikipedia page and not being a user I thought id attempt the task of making one which was quite tough (for me anyway) but had some help. The other people who have commented (excluding Figgybee) are people from http://www.last.fm who just signed up and came to support Dukey out of good means. If hes not worthy of a small wiki page then fine I am sorry and I apologise for the lack of AFD formatting, i'm new and its quite a task learning all this. Had to start somewhere. I still say Keep! but its out of my control really ---David_VI 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as said above. Wikipedia should not become an area for blogging and similar practises. Perhaps a mention in the trainz article, but fanning it out into a full article is perhaps not necessary. Be aware that there has to be a little impartiality here at wikipedia. Bringing 'sock puppets', albeit accidental, into this discussion is again not the best thing to do. Finally, I think "Someone said to me Duke deserved a Wikipedia page" should have been taken more 'as a compliment' then as a true recomendation... 217.205.250.130 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (tommylommykins)

  I will admit, that Yes i signed up for the sake of making a page for Dukey. I will also admit that in my honest opinion he deserves it. There was no, and is no, 'sock puppeting' going on. The closest thing to making people 'sock puppets' was myself in an IRC server telling Dukey's owner that his page we made was up for deletion, and how we had to try to save it. I am sorry i don't know much about editing and so on, on account of i havnt even had my Wiki account for a full day...i didnt know i was expected to be a Wiki-genious in order to pitch in for the community. In all honesty and no disrespect to anyone, what harm could a Dukey page do? All I see is that we are all putting up a strong fight to keep a well known, and real, underground character's page around. I have seen some of the articles up for deletion and I see how they do deserve it...but ours we all put effort into and time into. We all helped write about him, and we all would be quite sad if the Duke cannot have his own page. Im sure Wiki can set a side a tiny part of its server for our tiny page...--King Andy 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please note you are taking part in the practise of meatpuppeteering. As such, your votes should be discounted. Also, read through Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articlesFinally, it should be noted that since all the users who have voted for a keep can all be considered meatpuppets, there could technically be no 'proper' keep votes tommylommykins 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let's remember not to bite the newcomers, and to assume good faith. bikeable (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• You cant just assume everyone is a meatpuppet... As I've said I actually take part in wiki in other parts other than just Dukey, and I actually do believe Dukey does deserve his own wiki page. As for WP:BIO, Dukey is not a person. A lot of those things the dog can not achieve, like, being published, unless dogs learn how to write. Nor can a dog be credited for making an album and such.--Gods killed 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since there is no WP:PETS, WP:BIO is the closest guideline to apply... otherwise this is just a "delete non-notable dog" proposition.--Isotope23 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ok so what can be done to the article to keep it so it will not be deleted?--David_VI 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at WP:BIO, which does not generally apply to dogs, but there's no reason it couldn't. I understand that you all think Dukey merits an article, but from the point of view of an encyclopedia, we just can't include everything, and I can't imagine that Dukey could pass WP:BIO without some major media attention. Take a look through today's list of articles for deletion and you'll realize that many hundreds of articles are created every day that describe stuff that simple isn't encyclopedic. If we include everything, wikipedia would become an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which is not our goal. Don't take it personally -- I'd encourage you to stick around and add to other articles, or create new ones that are notable and verifiable. bikeable (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I like how Dukey isnt a person--Gods killed 20:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, probable forumcruft. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Duke's page doesn't meet the WP:BIO information, but can't you just once make an acception? It's not like the guys who pitched in on making his page did it just for shoots and ladders (to be appropriate), ALOT of people know who Dukey is...as apposed to a guy who makes his own page just because he has nothing else to do. Please, I beg of you all this small favor, let us keep the Dukey page up. --King Andy 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Guys and girl :P--Gods killed 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of rules is not to make exceptions. Wikipedia has criteria for its content; while you are "free" to post, it actually means "free" as in "beer," not "free" as in "lawless" (see: WP:ENC). To give "favor" and make one subjective exception would set a bad precedent and be more unfair than being objective, as hundreds of pages get deleted for similar reasons on a daily basis. And it is nothing personal about your work: if the consensus is to delete, then it simply means that the subject of the article did not merit inclusion. Do not be discouraged, and please continue to make constructive and positive contributions to Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can definatly see it from both sides, I just wish there was some way to make it so we can save Dukey's page...--King Andy 00:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Oral sex. Since this AfD is for Cum fart, I am only merging that article. Anyone wishing to merge and redirect felching, creampie, or queef don't need an AfD to do so. Deathphoenix 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cum fart

Delete. Does not warrant an article. Was probably created as a result of inappropriate redlinking. No encyclopidic value, can be described in one sentence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.246.247 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-20 18:34:57.

Fixing improperly transincluded nomination. No vote. — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep Obscene? Definately. Notable? A little bit. Encyclopedic? It walks the line. Bobby1011 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscenity. - Sikon 04:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Obscenity is not a criterion for deletion. — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Obscenity is not a criterion for article deletion, but articles cannot have obscene titles. As I understand, the subject of the article is spoken about somewhere else. Smashy. - Sikon 13:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe move to EncyclopediaDramatica:Cum fart. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought thanswiki can only apply to sister projects. - Sikon 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable term, has 114,000 hits in Google, but if you remove "cocktail" from the search, get just over 50,000. Too few to be significant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

50,000 google hits is actually fairly significant :) — Adrian Lamo ·· 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• merge with felching, creampie and queef into Oral sex. AnAn 04:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't anal sex be a more appropriate merge target? BD2412 T 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • for semantical issues, queef and felching cannot be merged with oral sex. A queef is purely vaginal, and felching can be either vaginal or anal. Charangito 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• merge with creampie Night Gyr 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WINAD or merge per above suggestions, or transwiki to Wiktionary Schizombie 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vulgar dicdef. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• As much as I do not think much of this being in an encyclopedia if it is a delete so should Fart be - both should therefore be delete or both merge as per WP:WINAD VirtualSteve 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per AnAn. --Johnnyw 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per AnAn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. For argument's sake, we have an article called "blow job" which links to Oral sex. Time to wash my fingers. --Jay(Reply) 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. 1) Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for children or people with two molecules of good taste to rub together. 2) The talk page is much better than the article IMO -- that should be saved somewhere.Herostratus 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN the talk page if you must. - Sikon 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, the talk page is definitely better than the article! Schizombie 07:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah I BJAODN'd an excerpt of the talk page. Herostratus
• Delete. Votes to keep a worthless article purely because 'Wikipedia is not censored' are inappropriate. Proto||type 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to creampie. AFAIR, the latter already survived VfD.  Grue  18:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - there should be some standard of encyclopeadic, and a daresay this would miss the cut (pun not entirely intended) – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to creampie as per  Grue  Charangito 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Fact is (no matter how distasteful to some) this is a sociological phenomenum (as fetishism) and should be cataloged, examined, and presented in a factual and unbiased manner, not deleted. Charangito 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But is it a BIG enough phenomenum to warrent its own article?? C'mon people there should even be this discussion.
• Smashy, per Sikon. A fellow on the article's talk page makes a good point (edited): [Caps Lock ON] Surely you are jesting, good sirs. Who [on earth] wrote this article? Is not Wikipedia, in countenancing the continued existence of articles such as this, in effect, when it asks our good patrons for donations, asking for money so that more [similar material of less-than-scholarly value] can be created? Also, consider 1) the encyclopedia value of the article (which is distinctly limited IMO) vs. the problems that it brings, viz., in addition to being unsourced, marginally notable at best, and generally all-round offensive, envision the interview segment that begins "But Mr. Wales, what is this article on Cum fart here, where does that fit into your philosophy?" Herostratus 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:49] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Lust Treasure

Films notability cannot be verified. Furthermore, a Google search using the term "Lust Treasure" produces 700 hits. Not only this, but the first hit is the Wikipedia article (and the mirror from Answers.com). Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - good candidate for {{prod}}, too. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no context for a start. Stifle 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Recreation of multiply-deleted content User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universism

Several articles have already been created on this subject; several of them have been deleted by the VfD/AfD process, and others have been deleted by speedy deletion as substantial re-creations of previously deleted material. This article contains much of the same text as previous versions; however, the actual reason that the article was nominated for deletion in almost every previous VfD/AfD is a lack of evidence of notability. The article now contains more evidence of notability than previous versions did; in the view of several editors, this is a reason to decide the fate of the article by AfD, rather than speedy deletion.

• Keep and cleanup. The article still references a "story" in the New York Times about Universism that was an op-ed piece and not, as Universism's promoters would claim, a "feature" on Universism; however, they have had a front-page story (a story, this time, not an op-ed piece) in the LA Times. I think the bar of notability has finally been reached. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim politicians

This is one of the few times when I think that a category would serve a better purpose than a list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. --InShaneee 03:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely. Coincidentally, I just nominated Muslim athletes for deletion for the same reason. joturner 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a list can have more information than a category. Fix the list to be more inforamtive, dont delet it. Also, half the article is NOT a list, its a description Muslim politicians, and that can definitly not be included in a category. Im gona spice up the list so that your single objection will be voided. --Striver 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete - The stuff in the article isn't very encyclopedic, eg, discussing the status of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the rest is just a dic-def.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

commentWhats up with the deletion frenzy? Guys, we all know that categories are great, but they have their weaknesses. They cant included extra info, like birth date and field of proffesion, something that a article can do. I mean, take a look at Islamic scholars. A category will never achiev that kind of information. Further, why dont you go and delet and categories all other article here: list of lists. This is totaly unfair, why dont you take a grab att List of jews as well? --Striver 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• • You're free to do so. Anybody can add an afd tag to an article. Karmafist 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The relationship of a potitician to his or her Islamic faith is potentially much more significant then is the case with most other religions. There are historical and religious reasons this would be so. A category could not deal with that effectively as it can be rather complicated. It is also of interest as a starting point for history people. I took a class on Radical Islam, but it also dealt with modernist and liberal variants, and a list like this could've been a valuable starting point.--T. Anthony 06:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and expand, make note of western muslims, which is impotant when dealing in the English Language. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no difference between this list and for instance List of Catholic leaders and politicians // Liftarn 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest adding that to a category of its own as well if it doesn't have one already, as well as other politicians by their respective religions or lack thereof. Karmafist 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Liftarn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - List is better. i agree with Striver's comment --Yahussain 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize - I don't often agree with Zoe, but this is one time where she's right on the money. This would make an excellent category, but is more of a list rather than an article, there isn't any meat in this right now and it's doubtful that there'd be enough that couldn't be done in a list anyway, so also a weak rename to List of Muslim leaders and politicians, to standardize with List of Catholic leaders and politicians, but make figure in there is added to the new category. Karmafist 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with User:Striver (who may be interested to know that people often do "take a grab" at List of Jews). Udzu 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver. KI 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keepper all above AND categorise. Lists and categories are both useful in different ways. Jcuk 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.--Zereshk 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to List of Muslim leaders and politicians. NoIdeaNick 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 reposted content (already three times deleted : # 13:52, 9 November 2005 Thue deleted "Future Infinity"

1. 23:23, 26 October 2005 Fire Star deleted "Future Infinity"
2. 19:17, 19 October 2005 JIP deleted "Future Infinity"

JoJan 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Infinity

Very small potatoes online role-playing game, Alexa rank for futureinfinity.com: 4,111,370 --Ruby 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Previous nomination was incorrectly transincluded. Re-posting. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Article is currently a speedy candidate as recreation of previously deleted content. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not gonna delete itself ... — Adrian Lamo ·· 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Get rid of it per the above. Kusonaga 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Game

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day at school. Original research. No NPOV. Bobby1011 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete KI 04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Here we have a literal example of a thing made at school one day. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am trying to start an article for people to write about home-made games. As I have time to add more games I will do so. DrewQuinton 4:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the optimal venue for original research in re. games . — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But intro belongs in BJAODN: "new games are games that you and your friends have made up amungts yourselves, and would like to share with the rest of the world. If one finds himself (or herself) with a few friends and a little too much time on his hands, and would like to occupy that time, continue reading below." Daniel Case 06:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Cnwb 06:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Chairman S. | Talk 07:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Squigish 07:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as just about as WP:NFT as it gets. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is not what the wiki is for. Kusonaga 09:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless Kiddies games - not encyclopedic. --Notjarvis 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.The Republican 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (seems the quintisential definition of things you made up one day at school). Would have thought this was perfect for WP:PROD tho'. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System-∀99 ∀ Gundam

Obscure fancruft. Nonnotable and hard to search for due to the weird symbols. KI 04:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Bobby1011 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we have articles for the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C), which is even far less notable and fancrufty not to mention that the Turn A is the centerpiece of a tv show named after it, which probably makes it notable. Timon 04:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Timon. Weird symbol but a re-direct for "System-99 Gundam" will be useful. Gundam is as notable as Star Wars and Dragonball. These 2 have "obscure" facts and trivia as well. If the other 2 can be accepted, why not this? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 04:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There already large number of article of Gundam mecha. And Turn A itself is quite standout from other L-Zwei 05:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm quite worried at the nominated deletions lately. This is an good article, and though could do with refernces, is in no shape or form qualified for deletion. -Zero^Talk 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zero. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep due to precedent, although I wish we didn't have obscure fan trivia here at all, and kept it to the important characters/things. -- Mithent 00:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I moved System-∀99 ∀ Gundam to WD-M01 Turn A Gundam. Turn A is an important fictional machine in Japanese animation history. --shikai shaw 04:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aerobin

Appears to be advertising. Bobby1011 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleteas per nom.Blnguyen 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the article has been cleaned up. Not sufficiently notable commercial product - only gives some 200 Ghits Dlyons493 Talk 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. ---J.Smith 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 01:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Awesome Compilation

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleteas per nom.Blnguyen 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 65,500 google hits. Kappa 18:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. According to their web site touring internationally. Passes "international tour" bullet point in WP:MUSIC by the skin of their teeth. Tour is required to be "reported in notable and verifiable sources" — you be the judge. Weregerbil 08:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 94,800 google hits for "My Awesome Compilation", most of the first two pages is relevant, and, most importantly, they appear to be touring England ('"My Awesome Compilation" tour' yields 36,400), which is the third criterion listed in WP:MUSIC. --Calamari 08:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Addition "My Awesome Compilation have announced some tour dates in the UK before they go to Japan and Australia" [7]. Clearly meets third criterion... --Johnnyw 14:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, quick google gives bbc coverage and an interview from two years ago Night Gyr 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Calamari. --Johnnyw 14:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This request was retracted by the nominator in favor of talk page discussion. Discussion started on this page regarding the reorganization of the majority of the articles listed in this AfD can be found on Talk:List of Muslims. Those who weighed in on the debate here are asked to take a look at Talk:List of Muslims and a proposal regarding the organization of several articles and lists below. joturner 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim athletes

This should be a category that lists Muslims athletes, not its own article. joturner 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason stated above: they all are lists that should be categories instead. Some of them may just need to be deleted without being replaced by categories.

• Muslim writers and poets
• List of Muslim scientists
• Muslim comparative religionists
• Muslim entertainers
• Muslim artists
• Muslim soldiers
• List of famous Sufis
• List of Muslim Dynasties
• Muslim scholars
• Muslim doctors
• Muslim astronomers
• Muslim mathematicians
• List of Islamic historians
• List of Islamic philosophers
• List of Islamic Jurists
• List of converts to Islam
• List of Islamic and Muslim related topics
• List of Anglican church composers
• List of Ashkenazi Jews
• List of preachers

Note that the above does not fall under cardstacking since, if you were to look at each individual article nominated for deletion, you will see they are all simple lists.

Yes, take a specialy hard look at Muslim soldiers, Muslim scholars (who already cleared a AFD) and List of Islamic philosophers who can NOT be categorized.--Striver 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Striver's Additions Follow

wtf, why not including this as well:

• List of Jews
• List of Christians
• List of Hindus
• List of atheists
• List of Buddhists

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Here, you forgot Islamic scholars --Striver 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

• Delete and form category if it doesn't exist already. Bobby1011 04:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize. Even then, some people think that it isn't necessary to categorize by religion, unless it affects their public life. In most cases of sportspeople, it isn't.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so in Islam. Sharia penetrates every single aspect of life, down to personal hygiene. Dont forget the hijab rules, and rules against alcohol and other drugs. --Striver 05:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sportspeople generally don't drink alcohol during sporting activity; hijab isn't a big deal, as sportspoeple aren't characterized by their fashion statements while playing tennis.as for drugs, I guess we could have a category for drug cheats couldn't we??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be an issue what you wear. I believe some Islamic traditional dress effects performance in track-and-field as well as certain other sports. I believe the Iranian women at the Olympics, for a time anyway, only competed in shooting because it was the one area unaffected by their dress codes.--T. Anthony 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Whats up with the deletion frenzy? Guys, we all know that categories are great, but they have their weaknesses. They cant included extra info, like birth date and field of proffesion, something that a article can do. I mean, take a look at Islamic scholars. A category will never achiev that kind of information. Further, why dont you go and delet and categories all other article here: list of lists. This is totaly unfair, why dont you take a grab att List of jews as well? --Striver 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't put Islamic scholars up for deletion. And the articles listed in the List of Jews article have more information. Could the articles above potentially become that informative? By presenting this request, I saying I think not. Many of these articles have been up for over two months, but they are just lists. joturner 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• So? Is that a new rule? If a stub is not de-stubed for two month, then it should be deleted? Give me break! --Striver 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete hardly any content.--CltFn 04:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, i hope you are going to vote the same on a eventual afd for all the lists in List of Jews? Since when does one delet a article that does not have enoght content? Shall we start deleting all stubs as well? --Striver 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

look at this Muslim scholars This page has been empty since its creation ,how about filling in some information? Right now it is just a list of links, and thus should propably be a category page . We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too --CltFn 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim scholars is an entry way to other lists, some of which I worked on. If you want to create a Category:Lists of Muslims to replace it I'd be good with that. As the idea seems to be just delete Muslim lists I think this is essentially a form of bias. We have a fair amount of Muslims at Wikipedia, but not all that many so Muslim lists may not be as well-cared for. The idea that that makes them deleteworthy is silly. Or I'm way off here. Check with some at Category:Muslim Wikipedians to get a sense of whether they want these or how they feel about it.--T. Anthony 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too

Yeah, i agree, if we are going to vote for all thos Muslim lists, lets bring them ALL on! --Striver 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand unless we are confident we have articles on each of the notable Muslims in each category. I, for one, am not. Capitalistroadster 05:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster, note that almost all of the links on each of the pages nominated for deletion are in fact blue links and therefore have articles for them. joturner 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm sorry, I must agree that the lists are rather unencyclopedic and generally devoid of content. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I need to think more about the general issue of lists vs. categories. Neutral for now. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep-This is a ridiculously over the top delete effort that I think should never have happened. Even if some of these do deserve deletion there's no way all of them do. I've been here long enough that I get how intensely some hate/despise/loathe religion related lists, but they do serve a purpose. Policy on lists say lists are valid if the items are important to the topic or contributed to it in some way. To pick one I have on my watchlist, List of Christians, much of it is founders of several denominations too small have denominational lists of their own. Or important religious poets and missionaries of said faith. As well as being a link to other, often well made, lists. Things like List of Muslim scholars is also clearly relevant to Islamic history. Side issue why doesn't anyone ever AfD the numerous lists that are actually stupid? (Although the original for Muslim athletes makes some sense except that I thought it was already deleted)--T. Anthony 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists and categories serve completely different functions. The ways that lists differ from categories include: 1) they allow the all-important redlinks, that let us know which articles still need to be written; and 2) they can be annotated with critical facts such as birth and death date, country of origin, single-line-summary, or whatever else might be pertinent. There is an enormous number of useful lists on Wikipedia which contain information you could never find by browsing a category. By the way I strongly suggest renaming Muslim athletes to List of Muslim athletes to be consistent. Antandrus (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the naming of Muslim athletes see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim athletes--T. Anthony 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

72 houres AFD with no Muslim editors voting? No wonder it got deleted... --Striver 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Striver. See Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics#Featured lists for how lists can improve to become wonderful articles. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'Delete original articles per joturner, keep articles added by Striver. Yid613 07:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Keep all articles, including those "added" by Striver.

• Strong Keep Lists are helpful. They provide details and clarification not found in categories, specifically in cases like List of atheists. --TheMidnighters 06:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (Possibly Categorize or Paradigm Shift) Lists are helpful, but obviously there are many problems with incomplete research, verification, etc. Take, for example, the List of atheists (one I've followed more than the rest, mostly because of the volatile content constantly being edited) - first of all, there are many instances of people that are or were listed therein where the case is not particularly clear (a meandering blurb about uncertainty about the afterlife, and a ranting diatribe against organized religion, for example, do not necessarily indicate that the speaker is an atheist) and further, there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what constitutes a "major" atheist (usually an outspoken one who has made contributions to the cause). In short, there are too many false conclusions and misunderstandings, and not enough verification. Othersider 07:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Many articles (not just lists) have these types of problems, but deleting them isn't a very good solution. I think it's better to have them, flawed as they are, than be completely without them. As long as the subject covered in the list is verifiable, maintainable and provides more information than categorization does, there's a good reason to keep them. --TheMidnighters 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to List of Muslim _______. --Terence Ong 08:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you think that WP:POINT also applies to Striver's baseless additions of AfD tags to List of Christians, List of Hindus, List of atheists, List of Buddhists, and List of Jews, just to get revenge after some proposed that Muslim lists be deleted, as can be shown by this comment: Yeah, i agree, if we are going to vote for all thos Muslim lists, lets bring them ALL on! --Striver 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)? Yid613 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeps, course it does. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. While I might consider deletion proposals for some of the above, there are some really obvious keepers among them, and the wholesale proposal isn't helpful. Lists are not automatically useless just because you could also have a category. Bring them on separately again if you must, and argue each on its own merits. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the above is for the articles originally included by nominator. Speedy keep, of course, for those added out of process by Striver. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, lists are very usefull in their own right, and fullfill functions that Categories don't.PHG 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...the categories are simply too broad...it makes more sense to have lists of Shi'ite Muslims, or Sunni Muslims, or Presbyterian Christians, etc. KHM03 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (probably should be renamed "List of Muslim athletes", but keep). I see no major difference between this and for instance List of Christians in Entertainment and Media. This nomination smells a bit funny. // Liftarn 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per those who suggest to delete it and did not convince me. gidonb 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Striver. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Categorize All are listcruft, including Striver's referenced "List Of Jews", 'List of Christians" et al.--Isotope23 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and censure Striver for violating WP:POINT.--Isotope23 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep it's fine as a list. It is useful. The ones that begin with "Muslim" can be made into categories while others the begin with "List of" are useful as articles because they allow information to be added into the list. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Though i can't see much significance in Muslim athletes but lists for muslim historians and philosophers must be kept. As for listing versus categorizing, in my opinion categorizing is better but unfortunately most people-related categories in wikipedia are very messy. Biographies are categorized according to date of birth, death, nationality, location, religion, university alumni,prizes,...etc. When categorizing an article -especially for a very notable person or someone with multi-talents- usually one or more categories are missed. However, same articles are not likely to be missed in specialized lists. Consider Henri Bergson as an example, a Nobel laureate and not categorized in french writers or philosophers!. Nevertheless, in the List of French people, Henri Bergson appears as a french philosopher. Also, as User: Antandrus previously stated, lists allow for red links. So, for now i support all lists.--Wedian 21:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all the above lists and add categories for them. Lists and Categories are two different beasts that do two different jobs, as per T. Anthony's comments Jcuk 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People de-taging AFD articles in mid AFD

Wtf? You AGAIN removed my afd notices? FFS! Who are YOU to determine if i may or may not add a article to afd?! The articels WILL remain, removing them in mid afd i a blatant violation! Dont get me started on List of Jews, that even the nominator supported for afd a while! Not removing the list of atheist clearly shows that you have a agenda in remonving SOME of them.--Striver 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please, Striver, be civil. If the afd notice is removed from the original page, the discussion still remains on the AfD page. Simply add it back onto the original page. Kareeser|^Talk! 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver I think some of the ones you added were unjustified and was kind of a "making a point" violation. Although I think you should be the one to withdraw the AfD's on those. Fact is the original proposal was extreme enough on it's own that I think it would've attracted "keep" voters on its own merit. You maybe needed something to get our attention, but there were better ways to do that.--T. Anthony 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude. Check the history for "List of atheists" again, and very closely. Actually, I did remove the tag. Sorry, your "agenda" theory doesn't hold up. Removing notices "mid AFD" because they were never nominated "AFD" in the first place. Each article you nominate has to be given a separate AfD page - and you have to explain the merits of each nomination - and sorry, anger and want of vengeance because Muslim lists are nominated isn't good enough. It seems to be concensus that you actions here are an inappropriate violation of WP:POINT, so I wouldn't make it worse by tampering with WP:CIV. The real question is: who are you to disrupt and mess around with wikipedia in line with your own personal agenda? Yid613 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I left anger get the better of me, and in what i perceived as injusties, i broke WP:POINT. However, i would like to say that there was two (2) people that seriously considered voting down list of jews. Does that make it a little little little bit less bad?`

Ill try to trust the common sense of wikipedians a bit more in the future. I have had some ugly disputes with user:Zora over time, and since nobody seemed to care that i was right and she was wrong, i started to distrust people. I apologise. Feel free to remove any, some or all article on this AFD.

I also apologise for not being civil. I did brake WP:Point, but people broke the "do not remove afd tag" rule, and since people actualy did take my move seriously and voted on them, i perceived it as taken as a legit move. I would also like to point out that i added list of Jews after another user suggested it. That made me feel even more angry.

In short, a user suggested me to break wp:point, and another endorsed the inclusion. That made me confident that the move was accepted as legitimat. People trying to undo that against afd rules angered me and made me uncivil.

For the third time, i apologise. --Striver 21:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Striver, do not tamper with my request for deletion. Just because you have a problem with me nominating a large number of articles started by you for deletion does not give you to the right to start adding articles. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. joturner 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, dont remove my additions, you dont OWN this afd! If you can add to it, i also have the right to add to it!

DO NOT REMOVE MY EDITS! --Striver 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not disrupting to make a point, im just following your line of afding all list of religious people - That is only fair, lets vote for real, i want to get ridd of those list as well. --Striver 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver, please create your own request for deletion. You are clearly adding those other articles to sabotage this request for deletion. joturner 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Here you go "please create your own request"! You dont OWN this one, to tell me to creat my OWN. You made the rules: Add multiple list of people by religion. CltFn agreed with you and proposed to include list of jews. I did as he proposed, and for fairness sake, expanded it. --Striver 05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to waste no more energy on this; just keep adding articles if it makes you happy. I don't see how I'm being unfair. Are you saying I'm biased against Muslims? joturner 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

joturner, dont remove afd tags while voting is in progress. You are violating me and CltFn inclusion of List of Jews. --Striver 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved List of Jews to the list of the ones I endorse since I do actually agree with that one. joturner 05:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed List of Jews from my endorsed list because I fear it will comprimise the request for deletion; it's not as clear cut as the other ones. joturner 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, im saying you are AFD lists on random basis, looks like you dont want to see lists, period. Why else include Muslim soldiers, who is far from a single list? If it being simple is what bothers you, why dont you spend your energy fixing it, instead of trying to destroy peoples effort? Do you think the underdeveloped list came from nowhere? People actualy spent hours assembling the list, and you want to destroy it only since its not flashy enough? Since when do we delet stuff only since its stubby?

And you did such a poor job at picking the "stuby only" articles that you included Muslim soldiers, Muslim scholars (who already cleared a AFD) and List of Islamic philosophers who can NOT be categorized. This gave the obivous result of people assuming you just wanted to delet them since they where lists, period. Why else do you think CltFn said We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too? Well, i abliged him. Dont spend energy destroying peoples work, we have Zora for that. Im not sitting here to waist time, im sitting here to make Wikipedia better, and having people doing their best to destroy my and other peoples efforts only since they dont approve of how it looks RIGHT NOW is not doing this a good day. --Striver 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What i wrote is perfectly illustrated in you momentarly endorsing list of Jews. Cant you see people spent time creating that? you think it can be improved? Well do it, dont deleted it! --Striver 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the list of lists article seems to contradict my rationale for my request for deletion. Maybe it is a personal vendetta against lists of this type. Or maybe it's that the over-listing for the Muslim articles irk me. Or maybe it's that Striver is rubbing me the wrong way. I don't know, but I certainly believe that, at the very least, the majority of the articles nominated for deletion are unnecessary and worthy of deletion or moving to categorization. joturner 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i have been heated up on this issue, but from the bottom of my hart, i never inteded to uppset you. I was sitting here and working on a part of wikipedia that hardly anyone is touching, the lists, since 03:02, 21 February 2006 [8], when all the sudden all hell breaks lose at 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) with this. All the sudden, every single thing that multiple editors have put their valuable time on is going to be deleted for not being perfect? That made furious!

But putting that aside, you are my brother in Islam and humanity, and i hope to be at least friends with you after this. --Striver 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations

Might I suggest you all use this chance to re-rationalize the whole Lists vs. Categories scheme for all these subjects. It does seem arbitrary and odd to delete all the Muslim-oriented lists but to keep other ethnic-religious designated lists. Please form a new policy page, discuss, announce on the mailing lists, etc. But edit warring over this is bound to get ugly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My sentiment excatly: "You dont like it? Fix it! Creat a project page, dont afd the whole bunch, making people pissed while you are doing it!" --Striver 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lists can do things categories do not. At Wikipedia:Featured lists there are a few that involve religion or people. There is List of Archbishops of Canterbury, List of popes, List of Presidents of the United States, List of notable brain tumor patients, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological), and a few others. There are some lists I've worked on that I think are more similar to the lists up for AfD here and are of fairly good quality. For example List of Catholic authors.--T. Anthony 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If this survives the request for deletion, I am at least reccomending we better organize the pages regarding Muslims. The List of Jews page seems much better organized. Perhaps would could put all the lists onto the List of Muslims page so they are much more accessible. The confusing linking structure through the current lists regarding Muslims makes the lists look like a disorganized and arbitrary. joturner 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss that on the talk page. --Striver 20:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jakob Jóhann Sveinsson

This article has been around for a few months. The person's claim to notability is that he competes for a swimming club. This does not seem notable, as there is no international representation, even for a country which has no history of being a swimming power.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep pending confirmation of their notability. Bobby1011 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pending confirmation of their notability. Bobby, you have it backwards. The requirement is proof of notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Keep, based on Capitalistroadster's research. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, well here my nomination was knocked back because although the article doesn't assert notability, the subject is, apparently, notable. Bobby1011 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as nn-bio. The article does not assert the notability of its subject. whether he's notable or not. It's been around long enough for the author to do something about it. Same goes for that one. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy is not out of order. Punkmorten 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Represented Iceland at Sydney Olympics finishing 25th according to our Iceland at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. I had speedy deleted him as a non-notable swimmer when I noticed the What Links Here link. This ESPN link confirms that he was an Olympic swimmer [9]. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Finished 25th? He can sit in a chart or a list but no need for an article to himself. Ifnord 01:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra scientist

There is no evidence that this is anything but a neologism, and in fact this article was originally at Super-scientist which was also tagged as a neologism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This is just überstupidity. Bobby1011 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be CIVIL, Bobby. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Sigh I'm sorry. Bobby1011 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• As original creator of this überstupid article I agree now with its deletion. --David.alex.lamb 01:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Luigi's

Delete. Non-notable restaurant; vanity. Previously listed as a proposed deletion but removed. Superm401 - Talk 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete False advertising, Luigi's isn't famous at all --Ruby 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No discussion regarding the notability of subject. If no reason given for inclusion, delete as advertising.  (aeropagitica)  06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert and NN busness ---J.Smith 07:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above points - advert & NN. VirtualSteve 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the pizza shop's own website doesn't really say why it's "Famous". Tonywalton  | Talk 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete. It's been operating in DC since 1943 and is in no way advertising. It is a fixture on M street and in the Dupont Circle neighborhood. If it isn't notable, I don't know what restaurants in DC are. User:Tma88

• Here are two links about it:

[[10]]: "In a fickle restaurant town, longevity counts for something, and Famous Luigi's has been holding strong since 1943" [[11]]: "Before there was Domino's or Pizza Hut or Papa John's, there was Luigi's. Make that way before -- Luigi's opened in 1943. People who grew up in Washington consider Luigi's an essential part of their childhood."

Perhaps this will make some of you rethink your decision. In the world city of Washington DC, Famous Luigi's is the premier spot for pizza and has been for some time now.

• Delete. Non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not per WP:NOT the yellowpages? Nowhere on that page is anything about the Yellow Pages written, and if this were a Yellow Page entry there would be contact info or an exact address.

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep, after the bold renaming. Deathphoenix 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonpoint source pollution

Belongs in the Wikitionary. Bobby1011 04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It does, but it also belongs here. It has a huge amount of information and could be vastly expanded. Here are some potential sources: [12] [13] [14] [15] - Also, over a million g-hits on an exact phrase search. 12000 hits on google-schoolar. ---J.Smith 05:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I like the idea of renaming it. Makes sense. Append my vote: +Rename ---J.Smith 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Volumes have been written about Nonpoint sources and Point sources with respect to environmental (typically water) pollution. These can be greatly expanded. bikeable (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Nonpoint source pollution. The phrase "nonpoint source" does not appear to be used in any other context. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Boldly renamed. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bikeable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Nonpoint source pollution, in agreement with GeorgeStepanek. Significant in context per J.Smith, but title without "pollution" would have only dicdef content. Barno 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (don't delete) this article and, as I don't know of anything but pollution to be in question, I also concur with renaming by appending the word pollution. -Onceler 03:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 due to nn-bio -SCEhardT 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodolfo novak

Looks like a good ol' cut'n'paste job to me. Even if it's not, the style is unencyclopedic, the subject is not notable and the article needs lots of cleaning up. Bobby1011 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn artist --Ruby 04:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography and not written to WP standards, either. The WP Manual of Style should be referred to by the author.  (aeropagitica)  06:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN bio. Cnwb 06:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cnwb. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7; no assertion of notability, vanity. — orioneight (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete stuff. Pavel Vozenilek 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Tagged. bcasterline^talk 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Hart

Note that a previous AfD was for a different person with the same name. I am putting this one up because the only claim to fame that this Brian Hart has is that he has one imdb entry for a show which included all of the members of his family, and the only other thing that can be said about him is that he has a lot of relatives. Fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See also the ongoing AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Hart, regarding one of his sisters. With a grand total of one IMDb credit (in an obscure TV movie), Brian is even less notable than Elizabeth, who has three IMDb credits. As a second choice, redirect to Melissa Joan Hart, his famous sister. --Metropolitan90 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of the Hart family needs to go rydia 04:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'NOOOOO!' - Bret Hart. Um, delete this. Proto||type 11:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gren グレン 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 described below [16]. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:58] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] List of heterological words

Pointless. We have List of autological words, and every adjective that isn't autological is heterological by definition (except the word "heterological"). The overwhelming majority of words are heterological. - Sikon 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, it's amusing, but unmaintainably large Night Gyr 13:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- there are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, and most of them are heterological. To include them all would make the list too huge to be meaningful. Unless there's some criterion for deciding which are "good" heterological words this list will be pretty much arbitrary. Reyk 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete. Stifle 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's intended at a joke. Better than deleting would be making a redirect to List of autological words, where it currently says: "(A word which is not autological is heterological. These are also listed)," which I find a bit wry. Obviously, the criterion to be an interestingly heterological word is that it represent a category that is generally applied to words: e.g. "long" is not a long word. It's not interesting that "tentacled" isn't tentacled, because we don't generally think of words as falling into tentacled and untentacled categories, whereas we do categorize words as long and short. If we were to keep it, with a criterion for determining which heterological words should be listed, that's the criterion you want. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero Point Software

This is a crystal ball piece about a game developer who is waiting for a contract and funding to produce a game...as the title suggests, there is zero point to having this on WP. --Ruby 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Spam - non notable until they actually do something -- Tawker 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Bobby1011 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As I said on the talk page, which you should have bothered to read before nominating it for deletion, it is NOT crystal ball, since it's verified — go read the policy again:

  Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

• The facts presented in the article are verified, so they cannot be speculation or prophecy. By your reasoning, an article about a drug company that has not actually started producing any drugs yet should be deleted on sight.
• The only other argument you have is non-notability, which isn't policy. ··gracefool |☺ 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment a poorly written article in a french language forum is not a credible source. How about a press release or something for us to go on? Bobby1011 05:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine, I've added the press release from their site, and another reference (found by Google). ··gracefool |☺ 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The press release says that the project is in the negotiation phase. Come on, this deal could fall through at any moment. The article is premature. I stand by deletion as the best option at this very early stage. Bobby1011 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There is no deal, and the article doesn't claim there is. The article is not premature, it makes no predictions. The article is talking about a game which is in development, but without a publisher. Should we get rid of all articles about software in development without publishers? That would include most open-source software in development. ··gracefool |☺ 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Should we get rid of all articles about software in development without publishers? If it's supposed to be commericial software, yes, the same way we'd get rid of articles on unpublished books. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Why only commercial software? ··gracefool |☺ 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vaporware. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How can software that has yet to exist be considered notable? Until it has an effect on the game software-programming community it can only really be vapourware and WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The very first sentence of the press release: “Project IM” (codename) teaser is a brief, pre-rendered showcase presenting our game concept, currently in pre-development/negotiation phase. It's not even in development (as Gracefool asserts), it's in PRE-development, by the company's own admission, until they find a publisher/financial backing, and the article even says that as well. Vaporware seems just about right to me as well, as does crystal ballery. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, causality error in notability -- you can't cash in your future notability today. — Adrian Lamo ·· 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn software, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• How does an entirely factual article hurt Wikipedia? Again, this does not come under crystal ball or anything else on that page, according to what the policy actually says. ··gracefool |☺ 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notability. An article stating that I had a sesame bagel with cream cheese on it for breakfast this morning would be completely factual, also – and also not appropriate for Wikipedia. Come back when you've got a published game. (Or at least really famous vaporware). --Dcfleck 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Paul Wellstone#Aftermath. Content has already been transwikied: wiktionary:Wellstoning Deathphoenix 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellstoning

Removed from Wikipedia:proposed deletion, where it was called a neologism, listend here in order to allow for possible discussion, no vote. youngamerican (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Send to Wikitionary. Doesn't belong here. Bobby1011 04:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a neologism with little in the way of verifiable sources. What makes us think that Wiktionary would want it? Capitalistroadster 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unattributed protologism; no Google print hits. Doesn't appear to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Don't deprod things unless you want them kept. —Cryptic (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Kindly point out to me where it says in the guidelines in Wikipedia:proposed deletion where it says to not de-prod items unless I think it should be kept. I merely want a "broader discussion on the matter of an article's deletion," so I listed the article on AfD. youngamerican (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow up I posted a note at the prod talk page[17] calling for possible inclusion of a note in the policy that reflects Cryptic's sentiment. youngamerican (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nope, what he did was right. PROD specifically implies no controversy. If someone happens by and believes it is, in fact, controversial, it is entirely appropriate to remove the tag and send it to AfD. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Send to Wiktionary, perhaps add some material to make it less POV.Bjones 13:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Terence Ong 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath, where the controversy that spawned this neologism is described in detail. android79 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Android79. youngamerican (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google provides 403 hits, but most are unique and appear on "real" sites (largely political blogs). The word appears to be catching on, and a description of the phenomenon and the genesis of the word takes this beyond a dicdef. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Ifnord 01:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Clifford McElroy

Article found via "random article", appears to be non-notable. Ran Google search, only Wikipedia and mirrors show up in its 10-11 appearances. No articles link to this page. Ataricodfish 05:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a memorial to the dead. Non-notable biography and poorly-written obituary.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading on India

Non-encyclopedic matter. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. --Pamri • Talk 07:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark McClure

Welcome Mark! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Did you miss the introduction, tutorial and your first article on the way in? This is not a service where someone can submit a profile to announce to the world his or her own great achievements. I invite you, as a newcomer, to read these three articles first.-- Perfecto 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (darn edit conflict)

• Advertizing Bobby1011 05:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: advertising Tawker 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This guy is possibly notable providing verifiable evidence is provided. At the moment, it is an ad. Capitalistroadster 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Article fails WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. Copyright, too. Anyone want to {{db-copyvio}} this while there's still time? --Perfecto 06:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even one of the top five salespeople in the world can't sell me on keeping this one. Daniel Case 06:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Atrociously-written vanity advertising. Transfer to userpage if McClure intends to stay and contribute; non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Delete I am surprised that this has not been tagged as speedy delete! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I removed the speedy deletion notice; no CSD applies. Thanks. Chick Bowen 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh there is -- CSD:A8. If you want, I think 48 hours is still not up. --Perfecto 08:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• super speedy delete vanity. I've never even seen trite this bad on a user page. This guy must stand in front of mirror for hours on end just smiling at himself. Gotta go vomit now. (Unsigned by User:MiracleMat)
• Delete — Advertising. You guys are harsh... — RJH 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crying While Eating

Someone put this for speedy delete, but NN websites don't qualify for speedy, so I'm putting it here. Right now, I'm no vote ---J.Smith 05:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable. Tawker 05:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I speedied it, as it is advertising for said website. Bobby1011 05:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete Changing my opinion since it gets 0 link-backs according to Google. ---J.Smith 05:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB violation; non-notable website, advertising.  (aeropagitica)  07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN website. Reaffirms the belief that there truly is something for everyone on the internet! Cnwb 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. — Adrian Lamo ·· 08:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious advertisment, and per above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above. Knowitall 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep site is notable, let me do a better page for it Spencerk 19:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] February 12, 2003

-- Appleboy ^Talk 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC) should be merged in the proper WP event pages, I think this was just somebody wanting to bring extra attention to these events, PoV?

• Keep Appleboy you are mistaken, day pages have been created for Jan-Aug 2003-2005 (with Sep-Dec to come soon), for various reasons (and are included in the "proper" WP pages). There is nothing special about this day. If you agree that it was a simple misunderstanding, it might make sense to withdraw this nomination, as the afd notice is making February 2003 look peculiar. Pcb21 Pete 09:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep , looks very awkward with one day missing when other dates such as March 31, 2005 has an article on its own. --Terence Ong 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Terenceong. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the whole calander thing on wikipedia, whatever that's called. The Republican 01:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Per Pcb21 --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: so we are making a precedent that all dates are sufficiently notable to merit an article -- we've made this decision with inhabited places and certain categories of roads, certain categories of schools, etc., so it is not unreasonable, just unstoppable. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• I was thinking more of a redirect/merge, or however it should go, such as February_2006#22_February_2006 to fit with the naming scheme of how I have seen them being used. AfD was probably the wrong template to use --Appleboy ^Talk 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I thought there was a consensus to delete non-notable days.  Grue  18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. I don't buy the argument, "But there's another article just like it..." Same thing for dates. Unless the date is inherently notable (and by judging this article, it isn't) then it should go. Ifnord 01:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • These pages are transcluded to create February 2003, so deletion isn't really an option. Pcb21 Pete 10:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:04] <freakofnur_xture|talk>