Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 25

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --cesarb 22:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaczyzm

Rant Denni☯ 23:30, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete gkhan 23:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nonsense --Xcali 23:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete rant. NeoJustin 00:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete agreed. UkPaolo 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy away, patent nonsense Jdcooper 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Svelglistigor, Svelglistigor (disambiguation), and Svelglistigor (battleship)

Hoax, neither Google nor Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board have heard of this, I've tried searching for every possible misspelling of the word I could come up with, but with no result. At best it could be someone's own English translation of the Swedish name, in that case a real article probably already exists. Obli (Talk)^? 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- Elisson • Talk 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cymsdale 11:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom American Patriot 1776 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: if Svelglistigor (battleship) is deleted, the redirect page Svelglistigor boat becomes speediable. Bo Lindbergh 20:20, 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 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Rawlinson

(a)not notable, (b) possibly created by self (user PaulieRaw) Elf | Talk 00:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Vanity page, non notable bio. --Jay(Reply) 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography, non-notable, vanity. Camillus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: likely vanity, does not assert notability. Pagrashtak 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V; also remove any "advertising" inserted by him (i.e., at Dog behaviourist). --Kinu ^t/_c 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is actually a repost of deleted material, and should have been tagged with db-repost. Isopropyl 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isopropyl. --Cymsdale 11:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Isopropyl. --AySz88^-^ 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if Isopropyl is right (I didn't see anything in Special:Log&type=delete&page=Paul Rawlinson, though). Otherwise, userfy & delete --Karnesky 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per no, could be self article American Patriot 1776 18:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dont delete The article compliments Dog behaviourist article, Operant Conditioning and training techniques. The reason Paul Rawlinson is used above any other behaviourist is purely arbitarty, the article is desmonstrative of a modern behaviourist and reflects and compliments the Dog behaviourist article by allowing the reader access to an increased level of information. I would not have been able with any conviction to write about other behaviourists as many are quite secretive in regards to their work. However, Stan Rawlinson is well published I do have information on him and if you would prefer it I will change this page to reflect him as he is widley published in the dog and sporting press. isopropyl is not correct this a first post. PS the shorthand area is heavily biased to the negative. Paulieraw 10:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the above-cited WP:BIO and WP:V to see Wikipedia's policies. Any arguments for including an article on a person would need to meet these criteria. Elf | Talk 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, WP:BIO. Stifle 13:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Sailors

• Delete, content does not match with title Xorkl000 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Another one in the Test Article file. --Jay(Reply) 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G2 Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article appears to be about Brett Beyer who has had some success in Masters sailing competitions including world championships. [1] If it was in an open class or Olympics, that would make him notable enough for an article although under Brett Beyer rather than this. However, as it is a Masters championship, it doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
• Speedy delete as test page. Tagged. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, test page. PJM 03:17, 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 TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splash^talk 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ayak

definition of an obscure Inuit word--unclear why page exists! Hynca-Hooley 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Jay(Reply) 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-English dicdef. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. You definitely need to look at the history to understand what's going on here. Ayak used to redirect to AYAK which now redirects to Ku Klux Klan--because AYAK supposedly stood for "Are you a Klansman?". Then someone fixed the double-redirect and someone else decided to unlink to the KKK and... basically it's kind of a collaborative glitch, I think. · rodii · 04:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ku Klux Klan. Pepsidrinka 05:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. That is the place for definitions. --Cymsdale 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of random Inuit words!? · rodii · 14:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of all words, more or less. --Tone 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary. --Tone 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, as above. --Karnesky 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary they'll probably want it American Patriot 1776 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ku Klux Klan. Grandmasterka 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki 132.205.45.110 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki as above. AP 02:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI think this is a good meaning to have here. Wikipedia should not delete this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanand (talk • contribs)

Why can't we share what a inuit word is, why do we have to redirect to the KKK. looks racest and selective to share KKK info and not inuit words. its AYAK an obsure KKK meaning. Wikipedia should not have anything on this page rather then redirect to the KKK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.71.92 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as dicdef, which is not allowed under the policy, and unexpandable. Batmanand | Talk 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --SYCTHOS^talk 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rent-a-shills

Wikipedia:Etiquette failure — THOR ^=/\= 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  00:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Jay(Reply) 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per above. Kuru ^talk 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. (Note: R. Koenig, the author of this page, has implicitly accused me of being such a thing as well.) --Allen 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per above. Tagged. PJM 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as blatant attack page. I have warned the creator of this article. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:03, 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 speedy redirect. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Graham

A google search for "Phillip Graham" + cellist revealed 3 hits...none relevant. Claims to notability in article but provides no source. Possible vandal and possible self-biography. POssibly has been deleted before (he claims this in the article) Joelito 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article has been redirected to Phil Graham. I believe the redirect is the best solution. NoIdeaNick 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed per above. Redirect is fine as is. --Jay(Reply) 00:49, 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 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suave patria

The article (in Spanish) doesn't seem encyclopedic. Please see the Babel fish translation. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A poem or lyric without context or discussion of notability. Unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Articles written into an ENGLISH encyclopedia should be in English to begin with. --Jay(Reply) 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, absent any other contextual clues. Kuru ^talk 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As a poem, it does not belong in Wikipedia. That it is not in English would not be a big problem -- there's the translation desk for articles written in foreign languages (that may also be transwikied). Kusma (討論) 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete smoothly, not encyclopedic. Pagrashtak 02:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a poem text would not normally be an encyclopedia article. By the way, the poem was written by Ramón López Velarde [2]. As a remote second choice, redirect to him. --Metropolitan90 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, and this is English Wikipedia. --Terence Ong 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• As noted above this being an English encyclopædia is not relevant, the article could easily be translated. Jcuk 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kusma. --Cymsdale 12:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Computerjoe 22:17, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Rock in the 21st Century

Completely unsourced, and a badly-formatted title. We have an article on progressive rock and if that gets too big, it would be logical to split out subarticles such as history of progressive rock and origins of progressive rock. If an article on progressive rock in the 21st century is ever needed, it should grow organically out of a normal article, like as a subarticle of history of progressive rock. It's silly to have an article like this because 94% of the 21st century has not yet occurred. With all that said, I would have just merged it elsewhere except that there's nothing to merge because this is an unsourced list of albums and stuff that somebody decided was important -- hence, nothing to merge, and, even if an article on this topic was relevant, everything here would have to be removed because it is unsourced and opinionated, not to mention badly formatted and improperly titled (should be progressive rock in the 21st century, theoretically, but since this is more of a timeline than an article, it would be timeline of progressive rock in the 21st century). Tuf-Kat 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have changed the formatting of the entry. You are correct that the title should be changed. Because the subject of progressive rock is very broad, I chose to tackle recent events because most of those are easily verifiable. I did not realize EVERYTHING, even fairly obvious items, needed to be verified. There are several sub-articles already on the "progressive rock" entry including lists which are full of opinion and debate. I think a timeline of progressive rock (even one that, for now, is just covering events and beyond) is valuable. --Flonkus 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Flonkus 20 February 2006 (entry edited by Flonkus)

• I have sourced the article and tried to conform to a timeline format. I did some research and discovered several other musical genres with "timeline" articles, many of which have uncited sources and opinions. Please consider keeping this one or deleting all music timelines. For now, I requested a move (after asking for help) to change the article title to Timeline of Progressive Rock: 2001-present. I'd be more than happy to take on the task of doing a full timeline of progressive rock in the future as I have considerable knowledge on the subject. --Flonkus 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please use normal titles, and create a normal timeline. Why would we need a timeline for the most recent six years but not prior? Why would we start a timeline for a century that's barely begun, focusing on a topic far more closely associated with the 1970s than the 21st century? If you must make a timeline, make a timeline of progressive rock. The sources you've added are nice, but are not sufficient -- this is a timeline of "important, historical events" so you need to have a source that proves more than what occurred, meaning that it's fine to have a source that proves that Dream Theater released an album in 2001, that does not prove that that album's release was an important, historical event. And it's extremely inappropriate to use a band's official website to document something like this. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Work with me, please. I'm doing my part here and I am new to this process. I wanted to bring some attention to the current decade as the information on Wiki so far is sparse. I intended to cover other material later, but I will instead create a full standard timeline to resolve this apparent issue. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding Dream Theater, the artwork mishap is certainly historical in this context. And I did not cite Dream Theater's website. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Regarding "important, historical events", and "key recordings". I wanted to emphasize these words so that when others add/edit the page, they are discouraged from spamming, bias, etc. as much as possible. If this is the wrong way to go about this, I will just use the words "events" and "albums" that I've seen elsewhere. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • You should review these examples: Timeline of heavy metal, Timeline of punk rock, Timeline of alternative rock. They are completely unsourced, arguably preferencial. If you intend to hold a standard, why are these existing documents not held to the same? Thank you for your time. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I think those should be deleted too, but I'm glad this article is now at least consistent with them. Tuf-Kat 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While sourcing would be nice - I think there needs to be more than just an editor's opinion that a band is a progressive rock band or not - I like the way the article is laid out and believe it would serve the same useful purpose as the other rock timeline articles. Denni ☯ 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article meets Wikipedia:Notability. However, it should include references per Wikipedia:Citing sources. It appears to make for a good read as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I could use a little help a little more understanding as to what does/does not require proper sourcing. Thanks! --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The title of the article seals its fate. Encyclopedias don't write articles about the 21st century until the 21st century has finished happening. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. As mentioned, the article's name was changed and now will cover the full timeline of the genre. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. It is a work in progress. Sulfur 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm making daily additions when I have time. I will try to get a few others to help out as well. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article now has the title Timeline of progressive rock. I think the article has potential to give some background information that would otherwise make the main Progressive rock article long and unwieldy. The article may currently lack some depth, and it had a bad title to start with, but there's certainly room to improve it instead of tossing it out together. Also, remember WP:BITE. --Elkman 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks, Elkman. I made a couple of newbie errors early on, but I have an interest in contributing lots of musical content to Wikipedia. I'm already very impressed at the vastness of the resource to date.--Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Inclined to Keep, now that the page has moved to a more holistic title and is attempting to encompass the entire history of progressive rock. -- Saberwyn 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now the page is in a new format. I'll try to put some work in to improve it. Bondegezou 11:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work by various people has now gone into the page. Bondegezou 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--AlF 13:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Leave as redirect that works for me. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per JzG. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman's comments above. dbtfz^talk 03:14, 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 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff See

• Delete Jeff See is not of an elite status. There are many other college runners that have had better success in running than him (in college and high school). Sharpdust 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed. Non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. After breaking Alan Webb's sophomore record, his performance did not continue on the same pace[3]. In his freshman cross country season, he was 22nd in his regional meet and in the "Top 100" in the NCAA [4]. —ERcheck @ 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. He was notable for a period of time and shouldn't have to maintain it. --Cymsdale 12:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, since there is no evidence of genuine notability. This could change, which is fine. We have no need to scoop anybody, let's wait and see if he's still "famous" when the 15 minutes are up. Just zis Guy you know? 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:05, 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 Speedy delete (Non notable bio, prior version was a cross wiki link) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC),

[edit] Defunct

Whopee. Non-notable moderator. Hardly serious. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete or revert as non-notable person (CSD A7). Tagged. If you wish to revert, please do so to this version of the article. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or Revert back to original context. Kuru ^talk 01:58, 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 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Collections (2nd nomination)

This is the article's second nomination for Articles for Deletion. An archive of the original discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections.

As the Daily Collections is a non-notable collection of flash animations, I propose this page to be removed. The article is very unorganized and polluted with vanity information. It seems futile to clean up the text, as it is very likely the article will gradually deteriorate to its present state in the future.

From the past discussion, I have recovered the following:

Because of the above, one or more of four actions should be taken:

1. Delete. The article's contents and history will be removed.
2. Merge. The article will be briefly summarized and placed into Newgrounds as a short section.
3. Redirect. The article will redirect to Newgrounds.
4. Userfy. The article will be placed onto the user pages of the original editor, 24.109.9.205, and all primary editors.

My recommendation is to perform all four actions. Delete, merge, redirect, and userfy, all speedily if possible. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

Additionally, there was no legitimate reason to keep the article in the first discussion. All keep comments are shown below:

The only appropriate argument given was by Eleuthero, but as the "work" can be userfied, there is no need to keep the article.

[edit] Log

• Proposal editied to include R. fiend's suggestion below. --SYCTHOS^talk 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Proposal editied to include addendum. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Please post comments and suggestions below.

• This was a redirect to Newgrounds, and that was working well. Restore the redirect and protect. I have half a mind to do this right now, but I'll wait for more comments. -R. fiend 02:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article as non-notable (I don't seem to get any more than 20 unique pages, nowhere near all of which are relevant). I will support redirecting or recreation as redirect, but if we merged one article about a flash series to Newgrounds, we'd have to be fair and include every flash series in that article (the mind boggles), and I'd only be inclined to userfy if the editor(s) involved requested it. -- Saberwyn 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We could ask the editors whether they wish to userfy, and conform with their requests. We could also allow the editors themselves to add the redirects at their discretion. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this, re-create the redirect per R.fiend. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per R.fiend. --Terence Ong 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Billpg 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. An excellent display as to why re-nominating is and should be permitted. Lord Bob 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. -- Krash (Talk) 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per R. fiend. Grandmasterka 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lord Bob. Stifle 13:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I count 12 deletes, 5 merges, and 3 keeps. On a strict vote-counting schema, this translates to 60% consensus to delete, which is not enough. These articles should probably be merged because that's the highest number of non-delete votes, but even among the five merge votes, there is exactly two for InfoWorld joke languages, one for Joke programming languages, one for InfoWorld joke programming languages, and one with no suggestion. Where these articles should be merged to is a debate that doesn't need an AfD to determine. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VALGOL programming language, SIMPLE programming language, SLOBOL programming language, LAIDBACK, Sartre programming language, FIFTH programming language, C- programming language, LITHP programming language, DOGO programming language

... is a fictional programming language invented by John Unger Zussman as a spoof of ... and San Fernando Valley slang (valspeak). It appears in a humorous list of "lesser known languages", published in InfoWorld in 1982 and later posted to Usenet. This is the original text pertaining to ...:

Oh my... —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable programming languages. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Joke programming languages or similar. These are an important part of computer humor culture. You are obviously taking them too seriously. --ZeroOne 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...important part of computer humor culture. Evidence? I can't find it. And don't find them particularly funny no. —Ruud 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on your definition of "important" ... it's widely known at any rate. Try this search. At least 100 hits for VALGOL, including grammars, derivative works, compiler implementations, mentions in other sources. A lot of it is just references to the same material but that does show notability. That it is not particularly funny is not particularly relevant to whether it's part of a culture or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That was just a response the me "taking this too seriously" and did not influence my vote. Also, this search only gives me 167 unique hits, most not very relevant. —Ruud 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• weak merge (and conditional on finding a place to merge it to). RJFJR 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) on further consideration I retract voting either way. RJFJR 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and wasting our time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless claims of being "important part of computer humor culture" can be substantiated. VegaDark 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiSource; barring that, merge all and redirect to InfoWorld joke languages or delete. Usenet publishing is public-domain, isn't it? The articles describe interesting languages, I'm just not sure they're encyclopedic. --bmills 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles aren't causing anyone any problems. Let them be. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - these are all entries from a single mag article?! worst case, merge them all. (No need to transwiki this anywhere, unlike the source code articles). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 05:47Z
• Delete Yup, I saw these ages ago, didn't want to AfD because there's that many articles and AFDing them is a lot of work, coincidentally I was going to go prodding these today seeing how there's a lot of esoteric languages in prod and no one's really contesting those... anyway, the point of the ramble is: Delete the lot. These are joke languages. It's an old joke, it's a well-known joke (included in the fortune(6) database at least in Linux), but I really don't think it's a notable joke and you can't get much more fun out of it than just the quotations out of the mag article. Certainly the heck not worth making separate articles for each! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete perhaps a mention in Internet humor (or such), but certainly not separate articles. Camillus (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this cruft per WP:NFT Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge them in one article. --Tone 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Either Keep or Merge into one article. Old joke, but well known... people have written grammars for some of these languages. This comment is NOT under any circumstances to be interpreted as straight delete without at least a merge. I remember reading about these back in the 80s... an InfoWorld article is, with all respect to my esteemed colleauge JzG, not something made up in school one day. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense to the person that wrote the grammar, but even that could easily have been done in "one school day". It's still nothing more than an extended joke. The grammar wasn't that well-thought out, e.g. "Y*KNOW" translates to the multiplication of Y times KNOW, which is not what the valleyspeak intends. If we merge them all we have to delete the giant quotes to avoid reconstructing the Infoworld article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 19:39Z
    • Well sure, it's not a perfect grammar and could have been done relatively quickly but the language phenomenon is more than just something made up in school one day by one person. I mentioned the grammar to substantiate notability for the language, not because it's perfect. People refer to VALGOL in other works fairly frequently. Heck, even some of the delete votes (User:Wwwwolf for instance) concede notability, saying it's well known. I don't see why this needs deleting. At most, merge into one article (although that was proposed before for the 70-odd minor languages but not done). ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ALL as unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just for the record: Previous AfD round results: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related --ZeroOne 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all (preferred) or merge all into single article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Interesting, entertaining, and certainly worth the space they take up. Rinne na dTrosc 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not really a question of whether they're interesting, entertaining, or worth the space. Rather, the question at hand is, "do these articles belong in an encyclopedia?" —bmills 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that indeed is the question. And the answer is: Yes they do, because they're a notable (published in a major magazine as a complete article, not just a mention, and then repeatedly referenced in multiple sources) enough part of computer culture/lore to merit inclusion. One article for all of them authored by the same author is fine, and set up redirects for all of them to that article, sure... but delete? No. Wrong answer. (as I said above) ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable individually, but notable collectively as part of hacker culture so merge to a single article. Suggest title InfoWorld joke languages per bmills. —Blotwell 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to InfoWorld joke programming languages, or somesuch. Stifle 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge merge them. Snakes 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 08:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anshe Chung

Anshe Chung is an important pioneer in the virtual world economy and has been featured on television and in countless newspaper articles. Her status can be rightfully described as a "celebrity" of this new medium. Deleting this Wikipedia entry would be a loss to everybody who is using Wikipedia to research virtual worlds and their economic and social dynamics.

Actually, this article should be merged elsewhere for now. But why did you create this AfD subpage? +sj + 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and do not merge. There is more to say about the ramifications of this business' actions than is appropriate for a section in Second Life. Anshe may be a big fish in a small pond, but big fish make waves, and they have been the subject of media attention. The article as it stands is not perfect, but there appears to be material and references in the talk that should help with that. GreenReaper 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no merge. Perhaps at some point there will be more such businesses and it would be appropriate to make this a section of an article about such businesses. At this time they seem to be in a class by themselves. Tualha (Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, This article pertains to an entity that exists in only a small number of online spaces, and doesn't reflect internet at large. --Ice 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, As far as I can tell Anshe Chung has been the subject of more media attention than any other Avatar in the history of MMORPGs, placing her well above Wikipedia's threshold of "ecyclopdia-ness"Carl Henderson

• Keep, 22,400 results from google, many from media outlets, is notable enough.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oyako Ryugaku

Doesn't appear to be more than a Japanese-English translation, which is not what wikipedia is for. Delete. Fightindaman 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.The term Oyako Ryugaku is entering the English Vocabulary to describe a particular type of Japanese visitor expanding around the world. There appears to be no English Language equivalent to describe this form of tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholsp02 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: A google search for "Oyako Ryugaku" yields 16 pages in English. I would hardly say it has entered the English language sufficiently. By contrast, a search for "Au Pair" which you used as a comparison on the articles talk page, gets 21.5 million hits. Fightindaman 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• "entering the English vocabulary"? Gee, doesn't that mean neologism? Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mitsukai; non-notable neologism, admitted as such in article, and unable to verify widespread usage. Note: also see AfD for Ryugaku. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since there is no evidence of actual English currency. Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; NNN. PJM 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic translation. -- Krash (Talk) 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary 132.205.45.110 22:53, 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 Redirect to System testing per nom's withdrawal. -- JLaTondre 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System functional testing

*Delete: Non-notble minor term. Also, wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think redirect is the best solution, lets just do that and get this off the AfD list. --Hetar 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to System testing. In fact I will boldly do just that. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I admire your boldness, but isn't that a bit out of place once the article has been marked AfD? :) --Cymsdale 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Aha. "You should not turn the article into a redirect" is the suggestion in WP:GD. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Well, I don't think it's controversial in this case, but I won't do it again. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 19:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per George. —Ruud 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. PJM 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect is good. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect works well. Suggest withdrawl per WP:SNOW. -- Krash (Talk) 22:13, 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 merge.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of villages in Samoa

• Delete: This article was prodded and then de-prodded without explanation. Useless list that links nowhere, see WP:NOT. --Hetar 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have managed to find a few links for the page, among others, the capitol of Samoa was listed here. I shall add more later. Nmpenguin 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It has some links now and it linked from Samoa. Now agree with Schizombie below. Merge. --Bduke 05:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of cities, towns and villages in Samoa Schizombie 07:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Schizombie. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge is good as it says villages too. Although lists of villages are apparently otherwise acceptable as we have List of villages in Serbia and Montenegro, List of villages in Northern Ireland, List of villages in Nebraska, and List of villages in West Virginia among others.--T. Anthony 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment in some jurisdictions or geographies the term village has a different connotation than cities or towns which are incorporated and exclusive. Village may be more like township in certain Midwest or East Coast US States which may encompass land both inside and outside of an incorporated city or town. That said, I don't know what the situation in Samoa is. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"

Merge for now, although precedent seems to be to have regional lists of places rather than national. This would mean creating List of places in A'ana List of places in Aiga-i-le-Tai etc. Jcuk 10:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Schizombie. Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Schizombie.--Tone 14:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Schizombie. PJM 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delist as per Pavel Vozenilek. NoIdeaNick 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have done the merge to List of cities, towns and villages in Samoa so this material will not be lost. Of course in the what seems the unlikely event that the decision here is 'keep', my merge can be reverted. --Bduke 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Now it has been merged (Salelologa was left out), so this can be Deleted. We should of course keep the information on the other page. Sorry for the confusing use of three bold words. Ardric47 04:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryugaku

Straight Japanese to english translation, does not appear to have much content besides this. Delete. Fightindaman 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• "entering the English vocabulary"? Gee, doesn't that mean neologism? Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mitsukai; non-notable neologism, admitted as such in article, and unable to verify widespread usage. Note: also see AfD for Oyako Ryugaku. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (particularly for foreign languages) or a slang or usage guide. Also I agree with Mitsukai, if it's "entering the English language", it's a neologism. JIP | Talk 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as no evidence presented of English usage currency Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wictionary--Tone 14:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt they want this on Wiktionary. —Cleared as filed. 15:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic translation. -- Krash (Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary, along with Oyako Ryugaku and OYAKO 132.205.45.110 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's got no currency to speak of so Wiktionary won't be interested. Stifle 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirect to Andy Milonakis. Aaron 02:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Milinokis

Redirect. This page's title is a misspelling of the intended person's name. Thus, this article is unnecessary. Wickethewok 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Andy Milonakis to orient users who may inadvertently make the same spelling mistake in the future. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to correct spelling. Humans make mistakes, and are well known for hitting the wrong keys sometimes. -- Saberwyn 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We have consensus from the deletion nominator to redirect to the correct spelling. Can we get a speedy redirect and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 01:50, 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 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C Pluribus Unum

This is the exact same case we had with Super Mario 4. But this is worse. Super Mario 4 was at least a little humorous while it lasted, but this is completely pointless. I'm putting it up for deletion for lack of importance. Plus, it has the wrong categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi III (talk • contribs) .

• Delete, speedy if possible per nominator. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sycthos, is this your nomination or is it someone who has forgotten to sign in. 14 Google hits including Wikipedia article and no reliable sources [5] leads me to a position of delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that was actually Luigi III. I have added the {{unsigned}} tag. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry about that. LIII 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Pagrashtak 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and unverifiable. --Cymsdale 12:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteus, per nomus. PJM 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:19, 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 redirect to database. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Database instance

This doesn't seem to say anything significant. It sounds to me like it is saying that a database instance is an instance of a database. RJFJR 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to database. This definition isn't right anyway [6]. —Ruud 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to database or ODBC. Sounds like a misguided description of particulars of ODBC on Windows. --bmills 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. It defines database instance as in terms used by Oracle. Other systems use different definitions. Pavel Vozenilek 15:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to database. PJM 16:29, 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 MERGE to Pepper spray, although I'm not at all clear that this would improve the article, so I'm just going to redirect. If someone can write better sentence than this article currently contains in Pepper spray, then great. -Splash^talk 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepper spray ring

Nonsense with link to commercial site Blastwizard 02:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Pepper spray, without the commercial link. There seem to be enough such rings for sale to be mentioned in a sentence or two. (You can see several relevant hits at [7].) –Sommers ^(Talk) 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge and redirect, sans advertlink per above. -- Saberwyn 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• merge per above seems good Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree...merge as above. PJM 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• smerge pa Computerjoe 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Pepper spray and delete advertising spam.  (aeropagitica)  23:13, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio Cobb Meiser Extrodionaire

Non-notable. Vanity Joelito 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this article is very useful . Antonio is notable.He is a very known person. DO not delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummer931 (talk • contribs)

• Delete: Non-notable. CSD A7? Blue520 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio (CSD A7). –Sommers ^(Talk) 02:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. PJM 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious speedy delete material per A7, also a borderline attack page. VegaDark 03:09, 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 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samochód pancerny

Untranslated article from the translation desk. Discussion from there follows. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about or what language it's in. Zelmerszoetrop 08:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's in Polish - Introvert ^~? 08:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's about armoured cars. If there's anything new there it can probably be incorporated into armoured car. KolyaFrankovich 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Polish. The content seems a bit more military-oriented than armored car, with comparisons between armoured cars and tanks, as well as their military uses (recon). IMNSHO nothing from there is worth merging into the English article; straight delete. --your friendly neighbourhood expert on Polish vanity articles (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the guy who knows his Polish vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is very shallow information about armored cars, far bellow threshold quality here. Nothing specific about Poland's armament here. Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Stifle 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CLJ

From the translation desk, has not been translated for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Portuguese, about the "curso de liderança juvenil". Kusma (討論) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think that means 'leadership course for youth'. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks like a religious course of no particuler relevance to an Anglophone audience (note: that's working with automated translators, I have no Portuguese). Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If nobody cared to translate it in two weeks, it's probably not up to much. Stifle 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle.--み使い Mitsukai 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Allen (football player)

Nominated by anon, no reason given. AfD ophaned, listing now VegaDark 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - notable but needs fixing with relation to NFL player bios Tawker 01:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep unless we are prepared to delete hundreds of NFL bios. I think the unwritten rule is they are noteworthy enough if they have ever played in the NFL, let alone a current player. Also, nominating this for deletion was the user's 13th edit, many of the others of which were AfD tags to pages that got reverted. VegaDark 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, per above. PJM 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Pepsidrinka 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Sulfur 05:29, 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 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianforumsite

Web forum that the article claims was opened in December 2005. Site has an Alexa rating over 3,000,000 while Google has only 21 hits, none of which appear to qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of verification. Delete as per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 ^talk 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per WP:WEB, which this article fails. bcasterline^talk 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. VegaDark 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. --Hetar 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB violation.  (aeropagitica)  09:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all Internet fora with fewer than 330 members are non-notable. JIP | Talk 10:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:WEB --Cymsdale 12:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per good points above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:32, 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 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi

Non-notable. Originally speedied, contested, moving to AfD. 121 Google results, but summarizes to 8 displayed hits. nefisa.co.uk has no Alexa ranking. Copied author's talk page response below. Delete _└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The nefisa website is something that needs documenting as it's got a big following and is somehwat like a web. I have made the article about it's creator because he's someone who has released music publicly - if it's going to be deleted then I shall change it to be just about the website. I have spoken to Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi before, but am not a friend nor is he aware I am making this page. I believe it to have value because the site is influential in many ways. One has to experience it to know this.

Thanks, J,

• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since neither the subject nor the website have significant coverage Out There, as far as I can tell. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --SpencerTC 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per WP:CSD A7. Some websites and corporations are listed on Wikipedia, although their founders are not. Re-tagged. If the author disputes the tag, a seperate discussion can be held on the talk page. --SYCTHOS^talk 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a speedy (he has asserted that he released two albums, which is enough to avoid that CSD) but it's unverifiable. Stifle 13:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete by consensus and consent of author. Friday (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DelGripo Films

I tried deleting this via WP:XD, but the author reverted it and insists that because he plans to go to film school next year, his film company needs an article. But, it's really just some guy with a camcorder, there's nothing verifiable or significant here. However, since he insists on Afd, here we are. Friday (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

I'm not just a guy with a camcorder, and I am going to film school next year (Columbia in Chicago, which is a highly accredited art school). The person trying to delete my page has no idea who I am, so he can't accurately judge me. Until he has actually met me, he cannot say for a fact who I am, or that I'm "just some guy with a camcorder". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.222.203 (talk • contribs) .

I suppose I've been rude. I'm sorry. This is not meant to be any judgment on the quality of your films. But, you're right, I have no idea who you are. And, since there don't appear to have any reliable sources talking about your work, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you do. It's for exactly this reason that your film company does not belong in an encyclopedia. We get articles about garage bands and amateur filmmakers all the time, and we don't consider them significant or verifiable enough for inclusion. This is not meant to be a judgment on your work, it's simply a judgment about what does or does not belong in an encyclopedia. No offense is intended. Friday (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. As above: the only thing being judged is notability; and with 0 Google hits [8], this article qualifies as non-notable. bcasterline^talk 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and probably WP:OR. I visited the delgripofilm home page and the hit counter read "21", though that may be incorrect. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My film company will not pop up on any search engine because I don't want to pay to have it listed. I don't care anymore, delete the page. I just wanted my page on wikipedia so I could gain more notice since wikipedia is used by many people. And since I don't have to pay anything to get an article on wikipedia, I liked the idea of it. I don't have tons of money to spend just so I can get recognized. My previous abbrasivesness was, somewhat, uncalled for. I hope you understand what I've tried to say, and my intentions.

• Sorry, we're not the yellow pages. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know, back off now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as rewritten. -Splash^talk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timing mark

Seems to serve no purpose; links to French articles go nowhere Jim62sch 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sulfur 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, now that the content has changed. Sulfur 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails to establish context or importance. Link to OMR goes to a disambig page, Interwiki articles at fr: do not exist. JIP | Talk 10:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. JIP | Talk 08:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks context; might change my mind if some were added. --Cymsdale 12:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain Removing my delete vote after article change. --Cymsdale 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the article to be about two uses of timing mark, one being on an engine flywheel, the other being on an OMR sheet. I won't vote since it's now "my" content. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & redirect to top dead centre. -- Krash (Talk) 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Stifle 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Vaughan City Council. Although there appears to be no overall consensus it looks to me as if the parties that are most interested feel that a redirect is the best compromise. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Shefman

This page should be deleted because it is a promotional page for a nn person. The top 3 Google hits for Alan Shefman are: the same Shefman's home page for his company, the Vaughan Ward 5 homepage, and this article. It doesn't help that his son is the main content editor, as per history. MSJapan 03:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• No Vote Fine, I have a conflict of interest here so I won't vote. That being said, we have already agreed in the past that all members of Vaughan Council are entitled to Wiki articles. I strongly encourage people to vote down this AfD as we are already in the process of adding the articles for other Vaughan Council Members. pm_shef 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman (second nomination) came down to a keep, after the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Shefman was shut down due to an utterly absurd and out-of-control partisan bickering match that rather closely resembled what's beginning to unfold at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (and I wouldn't be overly surprised if that one involved some of the same people). Although I understand that not everybody is convinced that city councillors deserve articles, actual AFD precedent has tended to favour the view that they do...and I'm less than eager to start up a debate again, especially on an article that's already gone through this process and survived. I have to say speedy keep, if only on the grounds that there's no valid reason to revisit this yet again. And, frankly, I strongly suspect that the sole reason this was nominated at all was as a payback shot against pm_shef — there's no other conceivable reason for this to happen now. Bearcat 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not even Canadian, nor do I live there, and it's interesting that you ascribe this to a personal motive, because that tells me there's something going on that maybe shouldn't be, 'especially' since there's seems ot be a whole group on WP concerned with Vaughan politics, if the other AfDs are any indication. Anyhow, I happened to come across the name "pm_shef" on a talk page, clicked on it because it looked interesting, saw that said Shefman wrote an article about another Shefman, looked at the article, surmised the relationship (and was proven correct), saw non-notability and a conflict of interest, and thus requested the AfD. MSJapan 05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You'd be correct that there's something going on that shouldn't be. Review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (and the constant vandalism of Talk:Simon Strelchik today by multiple brand-new editors) if you need background. See also past partisan foolishness at Susan Kadis. There's clearly some axe-grinding going on; for what it's worth, my interest in the discussion is limited to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia administrator who was involved in sorting all the bullshit out last time. Bearcat 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete to the entire City of Vaughan if it will end this endless debate on their no-name, non-notable city councillors. --Dogbreathcanada 05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• IDEA-- perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier. pm_shef 05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is good enough for me given positions with City Council, School board, library board, Human Rights League, and Ontario Commission on Whatnot. -Joshuapaquin 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per precedent of prior AFD. And no, we shouldn't have a page for the Council, as we wouldn't be able to properly talk about non-council activity in such an article. Also, there's no precedent for every member Vaughan Council either. Also, generally, people wishing to do a renom, really need to give a good new reason. --Rob 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per previous debates. - SimonP 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable. Per WP:BIO WP:BLPand precidents, this is not a notable nor national office. Local officials are not inherently notable, and this person not notable for other reasons. Can anyone guess how many similar people there are in just English speaking countries?Obina 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since city councillor is well below the levels per WP:BIO and there is no evidence of any other claim to notability. Obina is right on the money. Just zis Guy you know? 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if only in the name of the most basic fairness and because nominating this article for the third time in three months is excessive when the two previous consultations showed strong consensus for keeping the article. The first consultation showed 7 keep and 0 delete (discouting the anonymous user who voted four times) and the second showed 10 keep and 2 delete. I understand there's no limit to this and people can merrily continue to put up the same article for deletion again, and again, and again, and get their point on their thirty-sixth attempt when they have exhausted everyone. I also understand that the nominator was acting in good faith and seems to not have initially realized that this particular case had already been discussed at length and settled. Note that I have no particular interest in this debate and before today I had never even heard about the city of Vaughan. Actually, on the general principle I would agree with the nominator's reasoning, if we were to discuss a general rule or guideline. The mere fact for someone to be or to have been a city councillor is not in itself much of a claim to notability unless it is accompanied by some notable elements. But at the present time, the choice of this particular article for target in order to make a point is especially ill-chosen and especially unfair. People have actually been doing work in good faith in application of the previous decisions on this very case. Changing the decision now on a whim would be a waste of time both for the people who did that work and for the participants to the AfD discussions and would be detrimental to the trust and the cooperative spirit of the community. Therefore, if someone feels like proposing in the appropriate forums a discussion for explicit guidelines on the matter, let's do that, it's a good idea. Then we'll act according to whatever guidelines will have been agreed upon and for all similar articles. But until then, let's leave this article alone, there is no reason to single it out. It has earned some respite. Asclepias 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the last argument is fair. Two previous yes votes should settle the matter once and for all. Jameswilson 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP. Ardenn 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am torn on the concept of city councillors being notable enough for articles, but it seems to me that any city larger than Prince Edward Island should be entitled to pages for its councillors as no one would question the notability of members of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. - Jord 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AfD precedent. Mangojuice 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong vote for Redirect to Vaughan City Council. This solution seems reasonable to the involved parties. It's too bad this all had to happen here on AfD: an example of when process fails us, maybe. It does seem a shame to lose all the information in this article, though, so I hope the article will simply be changed to a redirect rather than deleted. Mangojuice 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note Please note continued blanking by user:70.29.239.249 - pm_shef 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete This man is NOT notable. The Mayor of Vaughan has 2 or 3 sentences, though a veteran of Vaughan Council for 21 years; the local Councillor Alan Shefman, chosen in a by-election 13 months ago, has 2 pages.

Why? Because Alan Shefman's son is pm_shef and he is a staunch Liberal. Why do councillors Mario Ferri and Sandra Yeung Racco have two pages (before I shortened them today) and councillors Linda Jackson, Joyce Frustaglio, Peter Meffe, Tony Carella and Bernie di Vona have two lines? Because both Ferri and Racco are proclaimed Liberals, and everybody else is not; even Racco's spouse, Mario Racco, is a Liberal MPP. And being a Liberal seems to be the criteria for receiving glorified, self-promotional encyclopedia listings in Vaughan. And help from pm_shef .

To the admin reviewing this article, I plead with you - for the sake of objectivity, of encyclopedic integrity, remove this article and place it among the heap where over 5000 other councillors of Ontario are confined. *Delete VaughanWatch 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then expand the other councillors' articles, sunshine. Nobody here has a responsibility to do the work for you; if you think something needs to be expanded, then expand it yourself. The only reason this guy has a longer article than the others is because somebody who knows something about him took the time to write it, not because anybody thinks he deserves special treatment. So if you know something about Joyce Frustaglio and Linda Jackson and Peter Meffe and the others, write them up. Bearcat 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Bearcat. The point is that these profiles should not be expanded. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I believe it should be scaled back to a couple sentences. 70.29.239.249 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a maximum length restriction on articles. The only two choices available are "the article can be as long as it needs to be to cover what's encyclopedic about this topic", or "the article doesn't belong here at all". There's no provision for "this person can have an article, but they're not important enough to permit it to be longer than two lines". If they're not important enough to warrant whatever length of article can be written about them without dipping into trivia, then they shouldn't have articles at all.

Whether city councillors deserve articles or not has been a point of contention on AFD, with decisions in both directions. But it's not within your authority to dictate how long of an article these councillors deserve or don't deserve; they either get as long an article as somebody feels qualified and able to write, or they get nothing. Them's the rules. Bearcat 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is their a process to remove biased administrators? 70.29.239.249 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're alleging that an administrator has behaved in a biased manner, you can directly address your allegations with them. Otherwise, you can kindly stop with the ad hominem attacks and start providing specific details about what specific content you're actually disputing. Bearcat 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens. I vote Keep but if one is deleted then they all should be Deleted both incumbents and candidates.--Eyeonvaughan 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Municipal incumbents, maybe; Wikipedia precedent on that question has been mixed. Municipal candidates, however, absolutely do not merit encyclopedia articles. Bearcat 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is their consensus for the following: pm_shef the author of this article and the son of the subject, along with MSJapan and Mangojuice have suggested one central page, like Hamilton City Council, that should store all Council information. I have just created such a page: Vaughan_Council.

Here is what pm_shef has to say about this *Idea: "perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier."

We would then *Delete this page and add it to Vaughan_Council.

VaughanWatch 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• If people would agree to the deletion of all individual vaughan councillor articles (excluding the mayor) as well as candidate articles (which shouldn't be there in the first place), then I'll go along with that (since it was my idea anyways). pm_shef 16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As far as I can tell, fails these two applicable WP:BIO criteria: (1)Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature; (2) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect as per consensus on election talk page. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete No claim of notability; council member for Ward 5 is not one. . I may well express the same opinion on the other articles. Septentrionalis 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok again it looks like we have consensus for deleting this page and all councillor pages except the mayor, but including councillor information on Vaughan_Council. Am I right? VaughanWatch 20:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged them all for deletion per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. If there is a consensus, no further action will need to be taken and the pages will be deleted in five days. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I tagged the councillors Ohnoitsjamie missed, all vaughan councillors (except the mayor) have now been tagged for WP:Prod and we can make the single council page. Glad this could be worked out. pm_shef 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Count me in favour of the merger; it strikes me as a positive solution to the dilemma. Bearcat 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• So according to user:TenOfAllTrades we shouldn't be deleting these, but redirecting them to the new amalgamated page... something about the license. So I guess whatever admin reviews this, if it could be kept please, so that we can turn it into a redirect.. pm_shef 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

speedy redirect everyone has come to a consensus that all vaughan councillorsand candidates are to be redirected. Why is this still up? when all the others has been redirected--Eyeonvaughan 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Only an admin can end the afd early. The others had prod tags, which can be removed outside of a formal process. Anyone who is in agreement with the consensus can change their vote accordingly. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note User:Eyeonvaughan's continued blanking of a page currently undergoing AfD debate in contravention of WP policy. pm_shef 18:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can an admin do their job and delete this thing? 70.29.239.249 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• The admins job is to decide on the consenus view when the proper time has elapsed, there is policy for this kind of thing, and WP policy needs to be respected. pm_shef 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sincere expectation criterion

• Original research. The term exists only on Wikipedia and an unmoderated mailing list, and the source is a thread from several years ago. The previous nomination got bogged down in a discussion of the merits of the criterion, which is irrelevant because it's original research and has no published source. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would rather see this be an en bloc deletion nomination that includes all Mike Ossipoff's criteria as well (with the possible exception of favorite betrayal criterion and summability criterion), otherwise I can't vote for just this single criterion for NPOV reasons. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi there. You are free to nominate the other pages if you believe, in good faith, that they should not remain on WP. En bloc nominations have a tendency to produce no clear consensus, since some participants will judge the entries as one while others will make individualized decisions. Hence individual noms may be preferable. Regards —Encephalon 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion was mentioned only in a single thread in a single mailing list. This thread is more than 7 years old. And this mailing list is unmoderated.

This article is obscure. Even the author of this article is unable to justify his statements about this criterion. Whenever he is asked to explain his claims about whether a given election method satisfies or fails this criterion, he refuses to answer and he claims that all those who don't see that he is right were dishonest and Mike Ossipoff devotees. Markus Schulze 09:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Markus Schulze, if you don't stop with these unfounded personal attacks, then I'll be forced to start a request for comment concerning your behavior. If you simply disagree with my argument on talk:sincere expectation criterion, JUST SAY SO, but don't claim it doesn't exist. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete original research, possible vanity. A voting system with no academic reviews presented, actually an article about one thread on one message board some years ago proposing something which clearly never caught on. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Pavel Vozenilek 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable original research. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hope this helps build the consensus that was lacking last time. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm persuaded by rspeer's comments here and in the DRV. —Encephalon 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravioles

nn, advertising. Out of 512 possible hits on Google, item only has 1, an indexing directory which has archived this particular article. Anything else is likely mirrors of this article. み使い Mitsukai 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No real releases, website doesn't exsist, per nom --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sulfur 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Article was last edited in April 2005, and the upcoming web site doesn't exist. If it's only popular in the area of Rosario City, then it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's test of importance. --Elkman 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. --Cymsdale 12:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as any fule kno, ravioles is the English plural of "raviole", the singular of "ravioli". Or something. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 22:39, 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 as either copyvio or unwanted. -Splash^talk 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Ward Wood

Delete The subject does does not seem notable enough for inclusion, references in the article seem to be to others whose identity is not established in the article (Lee, is this General Lee?). I did not WP:PROD As I realsize this is debatable. SailorfromNH 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep magistrate, judge and representative in the State Assembly, notable. Blue520 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as unsigned poster below points out is copyvio Blue520 06:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete article is copyvio [9] (forgot to sign) Sulfur 06:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• This unfortunately cannot be speedied as it is beyond the time limit. If it weren't copyvio, I would support keeping and expanding. As it is a copyvio, it should be deleted unless the copyright problems are sorted out. It has been reported as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. No judgment on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Leave to WP:CP. Stifle 13:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TEC42

Advert for a startup company. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per CBW. I went to AFD it and you were already there! :) (Note, deleting this will orphan Image:Tec42logo.png.) FreplySpang (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I dont see this as an advertisement. It was very informative about water cooling, helped me out a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2006.
• Bummer, theres no "cite this article" link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 February 2006.
• water coolings the bizomb, someones reading too much into this shiz. MarryPoppins(Talk) 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.58.214 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 February 2006.
• Um. too close to call on advertising, i say leave it for a few days.DUkeofPete(Talk) 05:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• God, this screams "advertising" so much that it's not funny. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note this edit by 69.162.58.214 to remove a delete comment. Also this edit to forge MarryPoppins signature. Also the only edits by 69.162.58.214 and DUkeofPete at this time are to this article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• 2nd comment User 71.162.37.175 only edits were two to this AfD, five attempts to linkspam the TEC42 website and one rather odd edit.
• Wow, you guys sure get down to business. TEC42 is my company and I posted this article. I dont know much else to say about it so I am sorry you feel it is advertising. I will continue to revise it tonight and hopefully by tommorrow I will have something more acceptable?Slopigyo(Talk) 0:31, 25 February 2006
• Yeah, clean it up a bit, I don't think we should delete it right away anyhow, appears someone out there likes it.. Sl33pingRules 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)User's only edit, quelle surprise --Calton | Talk 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not meet WP:CORP. --Hetar 05:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, and the obvious sockpuppeting ain't helping. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks fot the help, and that is not me. You dont have to believe me but I think I know who it is. A friend of mine who finds the internet a playtoy. Slopigyo(Talk) 2:11, 25 February 2006
• Delete as advertising. The article goes on about how hip and cool the company is, but without previous knowledge, I find it hard to find out what the company actually does. JIP | Talk 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like vanispamcruftisement to me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete due to lack of context (CSD A1). Tagged. Sockpuppets are also tagged (with 69.162.58.214 as the sockpuppeteer, not Slopigyo, as the latter did not vote on the AfD). --SYCTHOS^talk 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never mind after reading above comments. I will re-consider the speedy delete when the new version is published. --SYCTHOS^talk 00:07, 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 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egg Box Publishing

nn, advertising. Google only logs 721 hits (many of which are mirrors) for "Egg Box Publishing". Alexa doesn't have it ranked. み使い Mitsukai 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB --Cymsdale 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WEB (and the Alexa rank, come to that) are surely irrelevant, since this article is about a publisher, not about a website. AndyJones 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete probably vanity/ad. First book quoted is The Zoo Keeper which has an unimpressive 900k Amazon UK sales rank (see here). (About the same as my book, come to think of it. Oh dear.) Anyway, notability not established, for me. AndyJones 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 17:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:49, 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 Speedy Delete by Shanel as recreation of deleted material and CSD A7. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Bryant

Non-notable. Probably vanity Joelito 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as non-notable bio (CSD A7). –Sommers ^(Talk) 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy this same article was deleted last week. Xtra 05:11, 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 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yamachi

Delete, the fandom around this is hardly significant for it's own article, let alone to define a term found in it. The information pretty much seems useless, so I don't think a merge with other fanfiction type articles would be appropriate either. Ned Scott 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. fancruft, pure and simple.--み使い Mitsukai 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. JIP | Talk 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Fancruft should be (at best) a secondary factor for deletion. The appear to be minor characters, so they should probably be merged into the main Digimon article per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --Cymsdale 12:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but this is likely non-canonical, which tends to be a consideration. Note one of the terms used: seme, a term from yaoi fanfiction, which is almost always non-canon. This is likely nothing more than some rabid fangirl trying to get attention for her favorite "pairing". I have no problem with the individual characters having their own slots here, but that's a far cry from this.--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was non-canonical, that would convince me. I don't know enough about the source material to know. --Cymsdale 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

they are "not minor character", though. They're two of the main characters in Digimon Adventure, and play a sizeable role in Digimon Adventure 02. Circeus 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing my vote for merge. I don't know enough about the topic to judge. --Cymsdale 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, definite fancruft. Circeus 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate, unimportant fancruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are so very many Foo-Bar pairing neologisms and they are so transient that it is far beyond WP's scope to cover them all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If it goes anywhere, it'd be under "fan interpretation" in the appropriate series article. Circeus 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And promptly be deleted from that series article as speculation/fanfic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate. Circeus 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see a problem with that either, if covered in a general sense. But under a seperate article for one pairing alone? That's opening the door to all kinds of chaos.--み使い Mitsukai 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Definitely. That's the whole reason I voted delete too ;-) Circeus 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate.
          Agreed, but some case would have to be made that this is a common or significant pairing in the fandom; after all, every character ever has been paired up with another character in the same (or another) fandom at least a dozen times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. BS and Rubbish. - plau

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-95 exit list

A list of highway exits. That's it. Wikipedia not being a list of indescriminate information, I say toss this. Was PRODed, but tag removed on the grounds "...exit lists encouraged, per WP:IH". WP:IH is not policy nor even guideline: it's Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, and the "encouragement" is a single sentence inserted into it. Calton | Talk 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree -- Ned Scott 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Useless list, see WP:NOT. --Hetar 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's some WP policy that mentions not including bus stations and this is along that line, although there are an awful lot of insignificant train stations that have entries as a result of a WP project on trains. Schizombie 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless list. Can you not use a map for the same information? I don't believe that this list would be useful to a researcher, nor that the justification on WP:IH is valid.  (aeropagitica)  09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete I was gonna vote merge, 'til I read the I-95 article and found the relevant information encouraged in WP:IH (bulleted list of intersections with other Interstates and Major roads) is already there. Change vote as per info from Rschen below, to Keep Jcuk 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, if you read further down, you will find that exit lists are encouraged. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Information is too cumbersome to work into the article on I-95 itself. A single article with the content is a preferable solution to splitting the content across 15 articles for I-95 in each constituent state. List is useful to a researcher; many maps do not provide this information readily. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says that this type of article should not be created, but due to the length of I-95, splitting the exit list off of the main article and into its own article is an appropriate and limited exception. C.Fred 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. They still sell maps, as far as I know. PJM 17:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not Mapquest. Fan1967 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's long enough for its own article, and it's a pain to split it up among the individual Interstate 95 in New York and similar pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per C.Fred. Comment. In its current state, the information is not particularly useful. However, if at some point the article includes a map of the road, and presents itself in an intuitive format, this information could become useful. Section-ifying the article and improving the data format would be a good start.  Cdcon  18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#Exit lists. Format properly please. -- Krash (Talk) 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move exit lists in to the seperate "Interstate 95 in (state)" pages. The Maine list on here is two years out of date anyway. Kirjtc2 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and if information is out of date, please correct it. Do not merge; the purpose of lists is to keep this information separate from main articles. Lists of this sort function as appendixes, an important and valuable function in reference works. Fg2 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but article needs improving badly. More information on what county/town the exit is in, its mile point, anything notable about the area the exit serves, etc. Polaron 02:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the point has been raised repeatedly, yes, the article needs significant attention: formatting, adding location information (county/city), mile marker numbers, (old exit numbers for GA, FL, etc.?).... The original author is continuing to go ahead with the raw data entry. Once this discussion clears, then we'll be going in and formatting, sorting, expanding, and otherise getting the data into final form. --C.Fred 07:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very badly formatted; should be split among states like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. Redirect to Interstate 95 without a merge. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A single redirect, or a list of "the exit lists can be found on the following pages," so they're one click away and not two? —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Either way, it's a single click. The mileage table can have direct links to the state pages like on U.S. Route 30. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the page on the highway, at best. Getting seriously close to violating Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Split into sub-pages per state and format per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways. Mangojuice 16:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryku_Uchiha

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• And the fancruft keeps on coming! Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike

• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. - CNichols 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike

Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK, Xyzzyplugh, how do I do that? Cptmike
  • If you click on your own name (at the end of the last sentence you typed, there), this will open up your user page, where you can enter any text you like. --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh,wait,today's the sleep over! OK guys! Sometime this afternoon,K? I'll show it to em' then you can feel free to delete it. Cptmike
• Delete obviously, given the above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike

• Speedy Delete Plenty of free websites to post material to show your friends. If exceptions are made for this, then everybody and their granny will want to have page to show their friends too. Green Giant 02:17, 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 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mcdev

nn, advertising. Alexa gives it a rating of 2.5M, Google hits for McDev McDaniel Development only garners 416 hits. Lastly, page has not been touched since 23:03, 22 April 2005, when it was created. み使い Mitsukai 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable website, WP:WEB violation.  (aeropagitica)  09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 16:50, 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 keep and cleanup. Punkmorten 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qalal

Delete, google search on this term suggests that article is factually innacurate Xorkl000 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Google search [10] suggests that it's legitimate, not a hoax. bcasterline^talk 06:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Not only referencing BCaster's google notes, but note that it was referenced on other pages, such as the Arc of the Covenant, to quote:

The first chapter of the Mishnayot describes the vessels that were hidden - including the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of the Lord, i.e. the Mishkan, the Tablets of Moses, the altar (with cherubim) for the daily and seasonal sacrifices (the ushebtis), the Menorah (candelabra), the Qalal (copper urn) containing the Ashes of the Red Heifer (ashes from a red cow sacrificed under Moses, necessary for ritual purification of the priests), and numerous vessels of the Kohanim (priests).

Better justifications than simple Google searches will probably turn up more, but this is very notable regardless.--み使い Mitsukai 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

fair enough, agreed that it is notable and should stay, however still poorly written and lacking in context - can we send to cleanup?--Xorkl000 09:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep inaccurate? Quite possibly. Notable? For sure. Yes, send to cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• To cleanup it goes. Punkmorten 14:53, 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 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No_Win_Situation

Delete as Non-notable. Googling for one of the Album resulted in only 67 pages. Wikipedia Page was created one year back and has only one edit from anonymous user.. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Searching for this doesn't convince me that it meets WP:MUSIC, though I am willing to reconsider vote if verification/evidence to the contrary is presented. (Alternatively, redirect to Kobayashi Maru? Nah... :P) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qadr

Delete, nothing worth merging with Al-Qadr Xorkl000 06:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does nothing to aid a reader's understanding of the word Green Giant 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — advocacy with no critical analysis. — RJH 02:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with redirect to Qadar (if you look at the author's note, "(Qadr (destiny) is one of the six articles of Islamic faith)" it's a reference to Qadar), or a disambiguation page for Qadar and Al-Qadr Schizombie 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Quidditch. -Splash^talk 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quidditch World Cup

Totally useless except for select Harry Potter maniacs who honestly have nothing better to do than to look into the history of a fictitious event of a magical sport from some children's book. Seriously, why isn't "Battle of Honour" from Romance of the Three Kingdoms the novel an article? JK Rowling's idea of the world cup probably came up after watching football's world cup, and getting a rush of feeling that it should be created for Quidditch too. Delete. Colipon+(T) 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete However, why was the page for it blanked? Schizombie 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 07:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to either Quidditch (this topic should be treated there, at best) or Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup (the video game)... take your pick. This seems like a reasonable search phrase, so it's worth the cheap-and-easy. An article about this one event seems like Pottercruft, however. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quidditch. While you're there, merge information into the "Fictional History" section, eliminate the speculation on the dating error. -- Saberwyn 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quidditch or the Goblet of Fire. Not that I've read them, you understand, it's for my kids... Just zis Guy you know? 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quidditch. Should definitely be redirected. Guy: Well I have read them and their great. But in my defense, when I first began reading the series I was a child around Harry's age. --Jelligraze 14:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• The autograph-hunter's invariable protestation: "it's for my wife/kids/friend/mother/whatever". Of course I've read them all multiple times! How can I not, with two school-age sons? Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Quidditch. --Terence Ong 15:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Saberwyn -- Waggers 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup which should dab back to Quidditch anyway. This is also the common name of a (terrible!) real-life video game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• A simple redirect to Quidditch is all thats needed. I think an aggressive call for deletion is a bit over the top, as is the uncalled for baiting of Harry Potter Fans which somewhat lacks civility. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quidditch. --Optichan 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quidditch, then merge Quidditch into Harry Potter, redirect Quidditch to Harry Potter and fix the double redirect for Quidditch World Cup to point to Harry Potter. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. I'd happily support User:Doug Bell's suggestion if he's willing to do it! --kingboyk 19:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is for Quidditch World Cup not for the main Quidditch article, so any such suggestions about merging articles, that are not part of this AfD process, should be done on the relevant articles talk page as per normal Wiki procedures. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, important event in the Goblet of Fire book. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I think the Quidditch World Cup was only put in the GoF for two reasons: 1. There is no other Quidditch match in GoF thanks to the Triwizard Tournament, 2. It allows the reappearance of the dark mark, which unites Voldemort with his Deatheaters, in an eerie situation for all to see which inevitably creates a very dramatic scene of chaos. From what I can tell the Quidditch World Cup was equivalent (in length & importance to the story) to that of any other Quidditch game played in the other HP novels. Granted in the HP world it is a very important event, but in the story itself it equates to all other Quidditch events. --Jelligraze 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Quidditch — maybe make a new section — and dablink to Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup. Hermione1980 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Quidditch Dalf | Talk 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful (there doesn't seem to be much) and redirect to Quidditch. --Deathphoenix 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Quidditch, per WP:CRUFT. Stifle 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rykiri_Uchiha

Original fan material - CNichols 06:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kill the fancruft!--み使い Mitsukai 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more fancruft Just zis Guy you know? 14:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mmmm....crufty-licious. PJM 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for similar reasons as Ryku_Uchiha below. Green Giant 02:20, 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 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryku_Uchiha

Original fan material CNichols 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• And the fancruft keeps on coming! Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Alright,that's enough! Listen,I'm the author of this page and I just wanted to show this to my friends tommorow at their sleep over! Besides,I'm so lazy,this is probably the busiest night I've ever worked! So please, wait two days. Thank you. Oh, and Don't delete-Cptmike

• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. - CNichols 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh,please! As Bender Bending Rodregiuez would say, "Not a free host,blog, or webspace provider, my ass!". OK,so it isn't any of those things,but still,can't you wait like, two days? Cptmike

Cptmike, feel free to copy the content of your article over to your user page. Then you can show that to your friends. --Xyzzyplugh 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is merely a discussion that will go on for a week. After the week is over, an interested admin will try to determine the consensus. However, do not remove the afd tag from the article. happy editing. TheRingess 07:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK, Xyzzyplugh, how do I do that? Cptmike
  • If you click on your own name (at the end of the last sentence you typed, there), this will open up your user page, where you can enter any text you like. --Xyzzyplugh 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh,wait,today's the sleep over! OK guys! Sometime this afternoon,K? I'll show it to em' then you can feel free to delete it. Cptmike
• Delete obviously, given the above. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Miscalculation! I haven't left yet! Leave it!Cptmike

• Speedy Delete Plenty of free websites to post material to show your friends. If exceptions are made for this, then everybody and their granny will want to have page to show their friends too. Green Giant 02:17, 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 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gangs_Of_Gta

Delete. Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 1,710,247. Xyzzyplugh 07:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sandstein 07:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:WEB, forumcruft, likely WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. If by some miracle this article is kept, it should be pruned of all GTA gang insider information, as no one else cares about it. Wikipedia should not let people who are part of MMORPG gangs write articles about the same MMORPGs. JIP | Talk 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable advertisement. --Hetar 19:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Tried to revert to a proper version after spotting a vandalism, oh dear there isn't actually a good version of this article. Pointless. Smitz 11:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Looper5920 11:22, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gen2x

all it is is an advertisement Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Shameless self-promotion (the two authors' only edits to Wikipedia are to this page), and rife with first person pronouns. Even if it wasn't blatant advertising, the company doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Most search results are about baseball bats and not this software (which also doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE). --Kinu ^t/_c 08:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if you want to advertise, contact your local newspaper and buy advertisement space. Your business can't be so poor that it can't afford even a quarter of one page or so. JIP | Talk 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertisement. Green Giant 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, with some interest in a merge. I'll add a tag since it's been suggested, but it can be decided editorially. -Splash^talk 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StreetWise

Non noteable newspaper; only link to is list of newspapers in chicagoland Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect per below --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep based on Karnesky's work. If not that, then Merge and redirect to Street newspaper. This is just one of many papers of this type, and if it's not strong enough to survive on its own, then it can be easily folded into this article without issue.--み使い Mitsukai 07:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Slight keep. This is a stub, but I think it is just as notable as Real Change, (which I just fixed a redlink to StreetWise in) and Spare Change. Having been in Seattle, Boston, and Chicago, I can see that Street Wise seems to be the most prevalent, for whatever that is worth. Anyway, all three articles should be treated similarly. If StreetWise is merged to Street newspaper (which wouldn't be unreasonable), the other two should also find homes there. --Karnesky 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it a little bit. It now contains content comparable to the other two articles. --Karnesky 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Newspapers are presumptively notable, the burden should be on nom to show otherwise. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to street newspaper, unless it can be expanded. I don't see enough independent information to merit independent treatment. Postdlf 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that the circulation is twice that of Spare Change, which has a presumption of notability, should make this particular paper notable (barring any other differentiating content in Spare Change. It also reenforces the subjective belief I mentioned previously that StreetWise was more pervasive. If anyone votes merge, I think it would be beneficial to also say whether or not those articles which haven't been AfDed should also be merged (and why). --Karnesky 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As these papers all function the same way, the only variation between them appears to be their city, circulation, and how much the vendors keep. Those are mere statistics, which can easily be incorporated into the street newspaper article, perhaps in table form. Unless one of these papers has something unique about its history or its content (such as notable stories, contributors, etc.), I don't see why any of them should have an independent article when they can all be adequately covered in one. Postdlf 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, but put mergefrom and mergeto tags on the appropriate articles. Nom now wants to merge & redirect this & two other articles. Because it effects multiple pages and there are no deletion votes, this is a discussion which should be had on the talk page for Street papers (the article that the other three articles would possibly be merged to. --Karnesky 13:59, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendternet

First, let me reassert that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not one for neologisms (see WP:Avoid_neologisms. Even if it weren't, it's definitely a vanity article. From the page itself, this "term" was invented by the author, as he asserts proudly within the first couple sentences. Isopropyl 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, -- Ned Scott 07:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism, dicdef, vanity, blogcruft... take your pick. The first sentence says it all: "The term Friendternet was coined in February of 2006..." --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Tch. Be nice. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as above -- Francs2000 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. I had no idea wiki members could be so hostile. p.s.-If you took any time to see the site, you'd see I'm not a "he". (very observant) Who IS allowed to submit new terminology without getting pounded by commenters? Learned a real lesson here. The nastiness is unnecessary. Entry was made with no negative intentions, really. Ah well. Sarcomical 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry you feel you're being jumped on here, but these things tend to get listed quite quickly. New terminology is generally unencyclopedic and is mostly deleted from Wikipedia: it has to be quite notable to remain. Apart from that terminology tends to go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francs, I see now the whole process a bit more clearly. And I appreciate your tone as well. So sorry for not paying closer attention to the rules. I'll probably not check in on it again and just let it drop. I'm not interested in making any debates over something so silly.  ;) Thanks all.Sarcomical 08:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism, Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not the place to "submit new terminology" — ever. We are — or try to be — an encyclopaedia, and our job is to document existing phenomena, not to advertise new stuff. That's why so many people jumped on it at once. That said, categorising the article as "vanity" was unnecessary: if there are good reasons to delete an article, then they can be raised without the dreaded v-word that often causes offence; if there aren't, then mere suspected "vanity" is not enough cause to delete. By the way, Sarcomical, tea cozies (I note we don't have an article about them; oh, the same!) are designed to keep your teapot warm for longer. Nobody likes to drink tepid tea! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:14, 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 speedy delete Tim | meep in my general direction 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seena Ghaziaskar

Doesn't meet Bio requirements WU03 07:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for the love of all that is holy, please delete! -- Ned Scott 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A7 as I see no claim of notability (statements such as "His current record is 0-0" don't count). Tagged as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per Kinu. Chairman S. | Talk 08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable potential boxer.  (aeropagitica)  09:34, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Samuels

User (posting as various IPS) clearly doesn't want a page and has vandalised WP to such. I should note that I filed this afd only after a person claming to be Samuels has made multiple legal threats against Wikipedia (see http://jimmywales.blogspot.com/ for a cite. I suppose one could say my objectivity is biased by the fact that I am accused in the above vandalism posts, so I will not be voting either way in this AfD. Tawker 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep national party leaders with media coverage and references. Most of the work seems to have been done by User:CJCurrie, a fine Wikipedian. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. It's not a registered political party [11], so how would this be any different from you calling yourself the "Caesar Party of Canada" and rating a Wikipedia entry as a national party leader? The registration requirements are hardly onerous [12], there's a registered Marijuana Party of Canada among others. Notability would depend on whether he's rated any mention in the media (a passing mention in a Time magazine article and various newspaper stories is cited, which may be significant). Regarding complaints about having a Wikipedia article, it would seem that if a person is a self-described "national political party leader" then he imagines himself to be a public figure, and public figures usually come in for public scrutiny, for better or worse. The Cosmopolitan Party of Canada could certainly also be nominated for AfD. -- Curps 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  I'll admit I haven't heard of the party before, but as I said there's references- you note Time Magazine, the article also gives the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen. The Marijuana Party is, by the way, a well-known party, or at least it is as much as it can be without being among the four that get into Parliament. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• While this is a well-written and referenced article, I doubt that he meets WP:BIO. He is the head of an unregistered party and he seems to barely get 100 votes in his constituency. Delete.Capitalistroadster 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Stong keep He's run for election three times, written a bunch of books, created a bunch of websites and founded an unregistered political party. While each of those things on its own may or may not be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, together they certainly are. Is Wikipedia diminshed by including this material? It isn't. Not one bit. Is it diminished by deleting it? Yes, it is. Firstly, there are people, like me an CJCurrie, who are interested in the characters who populate the firnges of the political scene. Wikipedia is exactly the right place for this sort of information because Wikipedia is not paper. Secondly, wha sort of message do we send out by deleting a lengthy article largely written by a fine Wikipedian like CJCurrie just because a few people think that the subejct isn't "notable" enough. Ground Zero | t 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . I like Ground Zero's summary, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on it. What's really good about the Wikipedia article is that it gathers so many sources into one article. This man has run in pretty much every election happening federally or provincially since around 1992 or so, and if he's now leader of a federal political party, which does occasionally get radio coverage (he's been interviewed), print media mentions, and has been endorsed by two federal politicans (see endorsement page on his site), it warrants an article. The fact that he's going on a rampage to complain about it in this case reinforces the need to keep it (if it wasn't so well sourced that would be another matter), not the need to delete it. Technicalglitch 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

added- I think he meets the criteria for "notable", even if he isn't "famous" or "important". Technicalglitch 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable, interesting, vandalism is irritating but not sufficient reason for deletion. (If the nominator is abstaining, then this AfD doesn't have a single delete vote so far.) (no longer true) --Malthusian (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the latest addition of rambling spew, I really think we should keep the article. Ground Zero | t 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up the cruft. We really don't need to know who this guy sued or got sued by, we don't need a five-page list of every book he's ever non-notably self-published and we don't need to know the minute details of his party. FCYTravis 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. CJCurrie 21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to draw the attention of readers to this page. CJCurrie 04:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) And this. CJCurrie 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A further comment on notability: I do not believe that one can (i) advertise oneself as the leader of a national political party, (ii) register over 65 ISBN titles and extensively advertise one's books, (iii) campaign for public office three times and (iv) [apparently] oversee a quasi-religious movement, and then (v) claim not to be a public figure. Raymond Samuels is hardly the most notable person in the country, but his "publicity" is ultimately of his own design. CJCurrie 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As with Daniel Brandt, his activities on Wikipedia makes him notable. Where ^(talk) 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Running for election makes one a public figure of sorts, making his legal threats totally ludicrous. Some of the gossipy stuff in the article might be trimmed, however. *Dan T.* 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The sort of under the radar yet ultimately entirely notable topic a non-paper collaborative encyclopedia was made for. Samaritan 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dan T. I don't like legal threats. Stifle 11:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Where and User:Ground Zero, figure is notable as per WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article, Block user for NLT. Ground Zero said it clearest.  ALKIVAR™ 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to 9/11 Truth Movement. There is little well-argued support for retaining a standalone article. Much of it is "but we have Pokemon articles". Well yes, we do. That doesn't have a great deal to do with this article though, which is largely unrelated to Pokemon. The 'merge to' arguments are well-enough supported, with the supposition that deleters will grumble but live with a merge as a compromise position that I reckon there's a reasonably consensual position on this. That said, a merge is an editorial decision. Fuddlemark's point about right's to express POVs is on the money, by the way. -Splash^talk 23:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Citizens' Commission on 9-11

KEEP: The Citizens' Commission is the best single DVD summary of the good evidence, without the nonsense and poison pills, that 911 was a USG covert operation. Michael Green

• Delete claims "congressional hearings" on the 9/11 attacks. User:Striver created this page and has been pushing alot of '9/11 truth' POV around Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jersey Devil 08:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Do not offend me by implying i have not the right to represent my view here! I am starting to real angry and uppset over such statements! How come i am "sopboxing" when trying to represent my view, but you are contributin when you try to do the same? Im not far from losing civility. As for your accusations to the article, it clearly says: "The commision IS FORMED AS a United States Congress hearing" and not "The commision WAS a United States Congress hearing". Maybe you didnt even bother to read the title, "The Citizens Commission on 9-11", ? IF you even bother to look at it, you will see that it is a very good description. Even if it was a bad description, you should fix it, not delete the whole article. Further, it is notable for several resons, one being that Cynthia McKinney, a congresswoman, participiated in it. Man i am angry! --Striver 10:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, you don't have the right to represent your view here. Neither do I, nor anyone else on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a democracy, free speech forum, or personal website; and WP:NPOV is our second-most important policy (behind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). I don't have an opinion about this specific article, but I would hope that you have a better reason for creating it and similar articles besides a desire to express your own point of view, and a better reason for keeping it besides taking offence at the "nomination" above and being worried about your "rights". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I didnt mean it that way, i meant that all povs must be represented, including mine. --Striver 14:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is this a somehow particularly noteworthy conspiracy theory deserving its own article? Is a congressperson sitting in on a commission highly notable in the USA? Their web site seems to be mostly about selling their reports, complete with payments for the reports going to some survivalist stuff shop. Weregerbil 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a article about any theory at all, this is a article about a civil commission, and quite a noteworthy such, among those people holding those views. And in fact, it is noteworthy in its own acount as well, since Cynthia McKinney is participiating.

• Comment One member of Congress participating in an event held by 9/11 'truth' organizations does not count as a Congressional hearing. Do you know what a Congressional hearing is? (note that I am not trying to be hostile and I apologize in advance if I in any way sound like I do).--Jersey Devil 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken, bro *smile*. Thanks for being so polite to me. Bro, the event was about the most prominent researchers in the 9/11 truth field getting together to have a commisson about 9/11. Now, as it turned up, they choose to mimic the congressional variant. That does not make them a Congressioan hearing congress, neither is the article claiming any such thing. I will edit the article to clearify that. --Striver 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the US; my main source of information on the workings of the US government is The West Wing :-) There they'd send a government representative to sit with some fringe group meeting so they can say they covered all the bases. The survivalist connection here really smells like nam pla. Weregerbil 11:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what you meant, but if you questioned wheter Cynthia whas there on her own, or sent by someone, you only need to look trough the recording to see clearly that nobody in politics would "send her" to that Commission. Her point of view in that Commission is not far from being politica suicide. Further, she was no a congresswoman at that time, she had been fired, but she was re-elected not much later. Politicians hate her, the people love her. --Striver 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV push to the extreme...unencyclopedic and violates WP:NOT.--MONGO 11:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo. Could you give me a single line that is even a LITTLE BIT POV? Man, you make me curse out loud while im typing! You not liking the article does not make the article pov! You certanly chose the correct name! --Striver 11:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment please be civil if you wish to continue editing on wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 11:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I and Mongo go back, we have history... But you have right. I lost my temper on that last line. --Striver 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

History? I only remember you from a few days ago at most.--MONGO 13:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a long "few days". --Striver 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable (apart from all the POV). As already pointed out, this isn't a "United States Congress hearing", and there is no indication this "commission" is notable even in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Echo the soapbox comment by nominator. Sandstein 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why people like to repeat things i have proven false. The article DOES NOT claim that it is a United States Congress hearing, and the evidence of it being notable " in the circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists" is that the follownig people where among them:

• Cynthia McKinney - is profiled as a rejecter of the official version
• John Judge - co-founder of 911 CitizensWatch
• Paul Thompson - the author of The Terror Timeline
• Michael Ruppert - founder and editor of From The Wilderness

They are among the top of the "circles of 9/11 conspiracy theorists". If you still dont know how those people are notable, then at least admit you have no idea of who is or is not notable among those holding my view.

--Striver 12:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable commission of conspiracy theorists, and a web site with the main purpose of being an ad for the report of the theorists. Weregerbil 12:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it can be argued that it was non-notable for everyone else, but it is notable for those in the group. Its like saying that the religious festivite of a minor religion is non-notable, only since you never heard of it. I clearly showed that the most prominent people holding that view where present in that event. Notability does not mean whether you care, rather, if the relevant people care.

Is doing "the report of the theorists" not what wikiepdia is about? How can you vote delete for doing what wikipedia is about, reporting points of views?

People, dont delete things only because you dont agree with the view! --Striver 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether the people in the group care is irrelevant. Whether the world at large cares is. The discussions I and my friends had in the pub last night were important to us, but they still aren't encyclopedic material. Can't find notability in this conspiracy theory report or the proceedings that created it. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the views, it has everything to do with WP:N. Some conspiracy theorists calling themselves "a commission" is not automatically notable. I have no POV agenda I am trying to push here. Weregerbil 13:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Weregerbil above. Any content can first be merged to 9/11 Truth Movement, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, or maybe September 11, 2001 attack opportunists. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont get it, why can this event not have its own artice? It shows every single sign of being notable for the persons in the concerned circle!--Striver 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement, as its only claim to notability is its affiliation with that group. (And clean up the content first.) JDoorjam Talk 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So, everything affilitated with the 9/11 Truth Movement is to be merged there? Why not merge everything related to Islam inte Islam? Why not merge Salat into Islam, since it is only notable due to being a part of Islam? --Striver 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No, everything that doesn't have enough content that it should be a separate article should be merged there. Salat should not be merged into Islam because there's more than enough content to discuss Salat in great detail on its own page, but still give a general overview of it in its parent page, Islam. I don't see that there's enough material here that this shouldn't be merged. My reasoning is, if someone wants to get an idea of what the 9/11 Truth Movement is all about, they shouldn't have to run all over the Wiki to find information. If this is worth saying, it's small enough in content that it's worth saying on the 9/11 Truth Movement, rather than putting shards of this topic all over the encyclopedia. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn and POV. --Aaron 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A commision with a congresswoman participiated in it is nn and POV? Could you expand on HOW it is POV? I really like it when people say "delete, pov" to a article, without the slightest motivation on HOW it is pov. Further, POV is NPOVed, not deleted. --Striver 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's my understanding she was not a Congresswoman at the time... though who can tell? The article has no dates. I do have to agree with Striver that "POV" is a rather weak reason to delete this article, as the article is about a group (and maybe an event? Who can tell?) with a POV, but that does not make the article itself have a POV that cannot be, you know, N'd. JDoorjam Talk 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement as per Jdoorjam. Every commissioner was a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The article itself is a stub and is unlikely to acquire much new information. This indicates that the article should become a section in the 9/11 Truth Movement article.  Cdcon  19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable event, notable group, notable individuals, yet another bogus deletion attempt. SkeenaR 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to 9/11 Truth Movement or Cynthia McKinney. What remains in the article is mostly verifiable information rather than POV, but there's no indication of particular notability. Was anything accomplished at this event that would make it notable and distinguishible from the views of this movement? --Dystopos 02:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Media coverage, World premier of a movie, former and future congresswoman participiated, great oppurtunity to spread the message... Why do you think people would record the entire thing and put it on the net for download, if it was non-notable for those in the movement? --Striver 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN UE --rogerd 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The Citizens' Commission on 9-11 web sites are primary sources for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The McKinney web site does not mention the article subject. The other web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Article is expanded, some votes may need to be re-evaluated. --Striver 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with an appropriate article on the conspiracy theory. Not notable in and of itself. --Carnildo 02:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Morton devonshire 11:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Still delete. From the article: The commision was modeled after United States Congress hearing. So both a congressional hearing and this commission have a bunch of people asking questions from another bunch of people. Putting in a congress reference does not increase the notability of a meeting of conspiracy theorists. Neither does a flood of redlinks to nn people and nn conspiracy groups. Weregerbil 12:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have answered that, why do people keep ignoring the issues that make this relevant, and keep repeating things that DOES not make this relevant? Why dont you delete this sayng "they drank water, that does not make it notable"?

This was the bigges things that happened to the 9/11 movement then, ONLY that makes it notable, even if you ignore that:

• There where VERY prominent people among the 9/11 truth movement there.
• One of them got into congress a few month later.
• A decade long Canadian mainstream journalist was present.
• Media was there.
• Families of the vicitims of 9/11 wherer there.
• A world premier of a movie happened.
• The whole event was recorded and is still distributed for download.
• Notable writers where there

Guys, why do you keep ignoring that, and keep saying "sitting like a congresional hearing is not notable, delete"?--Striver 14:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. My high school used to do Model UN, which means I guess they were "sitting like a a UN hearing". Does that make them notable? Any useful information here can be merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. Isopropyl 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FFS! THEIR NOTABILITY DOES NOT LIE THERE!. What next? "I can also talk, does them talking means that was notable?". I have on several places on this talk page listed why the event is higly notable among 9/11 Truth activists, and nowere has nobody stated that they are notable for aranging the even like a congress hearing! Stop giving strawman arguements! --Striver 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, this article is NOT about a therory, this article is about a EVENT. --Striver 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep. Needs more content, a copyedit, possibly a rewrite. Otherwise merge. GregorB 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholehartedly with that, im not a native english writer, and i do my best. I do creat notable articela about the subject, and i gooogle after sources, but my weak side is copyediting. But as things are, wikipedia is a mutliman project, each contributing with what we can. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not a notable group. I'm annoyed that Striver is also posting to talk pages looking for keep votes. Rhobite 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipolicy to summon attention if one believes it is needed. I annoy you for following Wikipedia policies? --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Association with a few notable people does not necessarily guarantee notability -- and the number of red links makes me wonder if those people are even notable themselves. (Additionally, many of the blue links are also AfDs.) bcasterline^talk 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The red links are there because not every single person is notable, for example the families of victimes are arguebly not notable in themselves. If they are, ill be happy to create a article about them. Not all blue links are upp for AFD, and those that are will make it. In my view, they are bad faith nominations, driven by a desire to stop articles about 9/11 truthmovement to be writen. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If wikipedia can have articles on Citizens' Health Care Working Group or Toe Jam & Earl (just try clicking "random article" sometime) I see every reason why it should have an article about a topic that some people, though a minority, think is of great importance. Kaimiddleton 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiment. --Striver 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Citizens Commission was one of the most unique, important and key historic events of the early public response questioning the official story. There were only a few unique organized events like this that took place, where members of congress, the victim's families, and 9/11 truth activists all came together to demand answers. Bov 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with an appropriate article on the conspiracy theory. Not notable in and of itself. WAS 4.250 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As I have said on most of these 9/11 AfDs, where in the policy does it say we should delete? This is a potentially significant - hence notable - gathering of people, in a public, media context to discuss a major world event and try to publish conclusions. Why not keep? Batmanand | Talk 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. A one time event that is not notable enough by itself. David Sneek 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks perfectly fine to me. God knows we get enough Pokecruft: this is far more notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As an AfD discussion grows longer, the probability of a mention of Pokemon approaches 1. David Sneek 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. fancruft is a particularly vivid illustration of the reminder that Wikipedia isn't paper. Trying to reduce unencyclopedic articles in such well-defended fandoms would be like trying to haul the United States into a world court on human rights. --Dystopos 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge, no notability established. Stifle 11:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge POV is not a reason do delete articles, it is a reason to edit them.Rich Farmbrough 19:55 2 March 2006 (UTC).
• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement as suggested by JDoorjam above. The article should be shortened, perhaps mentioned as a side note.—Kbolino 05:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C.R.A.P.

Clearly a bunch of nonsense and a non-notable website to go along with it. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Also delete Sexxxism - Eagle^amn 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, whole article is based of ideas formulated on a blog. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 09:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blogcruft, non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  09:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delllete as vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 11:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• blah... speaks for itself. Delete. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• D.E.L.E.T.E. as non-notable blogcruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft Nigelthefish 20:53, 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 -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexxxism

Unheard-of neologism developed by non-notable person who runs non-notable websites. See C.R.A.P.. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. - Eagle^amn 08:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per my vote on C.R.A.P.'s AFD. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 09:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More blogcruft, equally as non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  09:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delllete as vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 11:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Forbsey 11:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and aeropagitica. --Cymsdale 12:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neoprotologism/protoneologism. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:28, 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 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Balls McGinty

I'm pretty sure this is either a hoax or a load of misinformation. This article from the BBC mentions something about how Wikipedia misrepresented the subject of the article. CrypticBacon 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is the name of a character in Steve Martin's film The Jerk. The article looks like a {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  09:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another example of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks by the look of things. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most probably a hoax; the article lacks sources in any case. Sliggy 00:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note Iron Balls McGinty was a character in the movie The Jerk, but had nothing to do with this. --DanielCD 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arts in Decatur

Blatant advertising. —Xezbeth 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably useful information but not worthy of an entry. See if any of this stuff can be merged into Decatur, Georgia. CrypticBacon 09:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is an encyclopedia not a yellow pages nor a travel guide.Obina 10:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Forbsey 11:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Using wikipedia as it's own website. - Erebus555↔^talk
• Transwiki to Wikitravel, if they can use it. Otherwise, delete.--み使い Mitsukai 13:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suckage

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This forum has 25 registered users and no Alexa ranking. The article has been deleted before, but for being a dicdef. Punkmorten 09:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is not ranked and only has a certain number of users is completely moot, because that particular suckage site went up a few days ago. Other sucks forums have had hundreds of users. Disko 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Hey, my friend told me to come here and post keep. Is this the right place? -Friendvoter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disko (talk • contribs)

• KEEP Criteria? What kind of fukking goofy fukks run that pisshole. It's a worldwide encyclopedia and there are members from all over the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.45.171 (talk • contribs)

• KEEP Suckage.

Suckage context and source: Conversations with friends, since spring 2003. "I'm going to be up half the night working on this project? It's going to be major suckage," apparent meaning: Suckage takes it's meaning from the extremely common slang word "suck" (v), meaning "to be terrible, horrible, etc." and turns it into a noun, so that everything that "sucks" can now be deemed "suckage". It is to be used in the most informal setting. type of word formation: Another example of affixation: suck + age (n-forming). dictionary entry: suckage, n. Anything that is terrible, unpleasant. [suck + -age] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.45.171 (talk • contribs)

• KEEP This is the problem with the United States. Everyone preaches Free Speech, but if they don't like something they want it deleted. That is not Freedom of Speech, that's censorship. I have never scene a more hypocritical country in the world.

• KEEP !!

An encyclopedia has entries for all kinds of subjects, even the ones that don't interest you in person. The suckage is a strange community that reaches religious proportions... it is more a culture with ti's own ideals that just an online community. People often don't know or understand what the Suckage is. This article tells these people what they want to know. If you think this article should go because you find it uninteresting, then go ahead and delete a whole bunch of other shitty articles. FREE SPEECH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoink, King Spammer (talk • contribs) (first edit ever)

ALSO.. WHAT GOOD ARE ALEXA RATINGS ??? THEY MEAN JACK !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakwars (talk • contribs) (second edit ever)

• KEEP

As a moderator of other BBS's I have seen the "SUCKAGE" in action, Not many people realize the groups origins were founded by Dan Parisi, this is important because it covers many aspects of Dan's biography.. a couple of other of Dan's claims to fame can be found as being the owner of the controversial domains whitehouse.com and madonna.com, the later in which, he was sewed by Madonna the singer for. I can point out MANY different sites on Wikpedia that reference another web site... but how many of them have an actual history ?? Maybe if you let the suckage "GANG" tell the tale of the suckage, you will see the relevance of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreakwars (talk • contribs) (first edit ever) The term Suckage should stay.

• Speedy Delete Recreation of deleted material fits the critera for a speedy delete. Added Speedy Delete: Repost template to article. Furthermore, User:Disko was responsible for most of the stuff added to the page.--Jersey Devil 09:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, it is completely different to the last previously deleted content and I have removed notice accordingly. I recommend deletion due to not meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:WEB.--MONGO 13:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  Changed to strong delete per this Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as notable as any other internet community, and as relevant as other articles, see Rainbow Monkeys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disko (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete: per above. --Hetar 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Free speech is a fundamental right of every human being and should not be censored, the 'suckage' is as valid as anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.171.112 (talk • contribs) .
• KEEP There are articles on every other virtual communities here, so why are we playing pick-and-chose with what goes and what stays? I mean, there are articles on Goatse for crying out loud.

If you read the article, you'd see they mention that the SucksNET version of the forum only opened recently. I was familiar with Sucks500, and at its peak that forum had hundreds of active members and was one of the more popular free speech forums on the web.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.19.165 (talk • contribs)

• KEEP Free speech is a fundamental right of every human being and should not be censored, the suckage is as valid as anything.

This is the problem with the United States. Everyone preaches Free Speech, but if they don't like something they want it deleted. That is not Freedom of Speech, that's censorship. I have never scene a more hypocritical country in the world.

The term Suckage should stay.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hüd (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete as per Jersey Devil Capitalistroadster. --Karnesky 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, nn website. Comments from its few members don't change that. Fan1967 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. --TheMidnighters 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This has nothing to do with censorship. Deltabeignet 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With apologies to forum people, your web content is non-notable. Free speech doesn't mean a guaranteed audience on any web site of your choosing. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. This is an international encyclopedia, and has nothing to do with the state of free speech in America or anywhere else. Grandmasterka 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a forum for free speech, it's an encyclopedia, one with standards for inclusion that this article doesn't meet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable web forum that does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMan^talk 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable per WP:WEB. Oh yeah, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's free, but not lawless. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong speedy delete as per Jersey Devil. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to strong speedy delete per Naconkantari above. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. I can freely say, accordingly, that Suckage is not notable and fails the WP:WEB criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- it's not about American free speech it;'s worldwide. Members from Europe, Australia, Canada, etc. R.O. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.121.234 (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy delete as blatant self-promoting vanity advertisement per CSD A7 (non-notable group of people). We don't care about some trolling forum that's less than one tenth as notable as the GNAA. All of these meatpuppets simply makes me want to delete this even more. Tagged. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. James 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per meat-socky-pocky and unproven notability. The real problem with United States is that everyone has freedom of speech, but a) nobody has the time to listen to everything that gets said in the whole country all the time, b) nobody wants to write down everything they hear or read, and c) naughty people who inhabit the country demand, for some reason we foreigners (let alone the natives) can't comprehent, $$money$$ for computer hardware and Internet connectivity, both of which are needed to host Wikipedia, and a) and b) and c) considered together leads to the inevitable conclusion that Wikipedia must only include things that actually do matter, and not non-notable cruft like this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, flood of socks. Stifle 11:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Jersey Devil.--み使い Mitsukai 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid movement

I can't find any evidence that this subject is real. Booyabazooka 09:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  09:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and nonsense. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Although fluid movement is possible, like pouring water from one cup to another, it's a de facto thing! No need for an article. ^KILO-_LIMA 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - At a stretch, fluid movement could be used as a layman's term for some biological events but there are more accurate and appropriate terms for them like tissue oedema, osmosis or (tongue-in-cheek) micturition (or urinating for anybody who doesn't know). Green Giant 01:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quest Atlantis

Delete, Just doesn't seem notable enough for me as perWP:WEB Xorkl000 09:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM --Cymsdale 12:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement - The sentence If you are interested in being a member of QA then tell your teacher to go to 1. says it all. Green Giant
• Delete - per Green Giant Cje 12:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam spam spam spam.... --み使い Mitsukai 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Gere Solid

This article has no citing sources and lack of information in order to be encyclopedic, in any case. None of the pages have linked to this page, and the contributior who created it has left. adnghiem501 09:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also listed Image:RGSlogo.jpg at WP:IFD, just in case. adnghiem501 09:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, nothing in the above nomination, just by itself, would be a ground for deletion: however the article doesn't seem to assert any notability for its topic, and searching (enclosed with quotes) gets a whacking 24 google hits, so overall a definite delete. AndyJones 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andy. Even if this game is real, I feel safe in surmising that it doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Stifle 11:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Mumford

Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

• Delete per nom. Forbsey 11:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verified and potential nn. --Cymsdale 12:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:50, 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 speedy delete nonsense. -SCEhardT 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pati Balázs

This article is a bio of an insignificant person named "Pati Balázs". The article has a respectable amount of fiction, and this guy even asks for money! --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 10:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to mention, it is non-notable under WP:BIO. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 10:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, patent nonsense and all kinds of other reasons. · rodii · 14:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense and more. Ian13/talk 14:58, 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 -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junkslut

Protologism. One unrelated google hit. Was speedy'd, tag removed. Weregerbil 10:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not a notable word and is probably a sland word used within a group of people with no significant usage - - Erebus555↔^talk
• Delete. Penny Arcade invented it. Nifboy 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. dicdef/neologism. Isopropyl 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 18:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yet another neologism, created by a dude at a webcomic. Delete. -- Saberwyn 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; non-notable protoneologism/neoprotologism. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This word is less than a week old! Cyde Weys 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this and other slanguage derived from Penny Arcade could be a sub-article on the Penny Arcade article

Not worth it. Penny-Arcade has published, what, hundreds of strips by now? You can't possibly cover every little non-notable phrase or bit they've made up. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The reference to Wikipedia being the only source of reference info is the nail in the coffin. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. -Splash^talk 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COEBA

A worthy enough aim, but I find it hard to establish notability. Sounds like somethign widespread, but turns out to be a ministry of a single church. COEBA gets a few Googles, but as an ETLA many of these are not for this organisation. "Conference On Evangelizing Black America" gets around 150 unique Googles, including numerous directories. I know it has established an average of 1.5 churches per year, but is that actually a notable achievement? Maybe it is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per non-notable unless someone can provide a source of membership to establish wider notablity. Delete redirectConference On Evangelizing Black America. Arbusto 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In Fundamental Baptist circles an organization "should" fall under the authority of a church. On the other hand, this church could not have accomplished this without the aid of a large number of supporting churches ("members" referenced above. Arbusto) The costs are just too high. To date, COEBA has started over 20 churches with two more to start in 2006. Notability becomes more apparent when you consider what existed back in 1994. Thoughout the U.S. You could probably count Independent Baptist churches pastored by black men on your two hands. Today they number around 50! Over one third from COEBA activity. Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens. --Ben 01:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as "Wikipedia is the only "reference info." source fortunate enough to provide info on this shift/change as it happens." Wikipedia is not a primary source, therefore this is unverifiable. Stifle 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• (am I allowed to vote twice?) So even though the article itself references 8 different articles from external sources that document the COEBA movement in 7 different years, is it still considered unverifiable?? Of course it is verified, but I thought it was being considered for deletion because of "non-noteablity" only. Please identify the reasons for suggested deletion so they can all be addressed. --Ben 15:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• (am I allowed to vote twice?) No, you can only vote once. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• A non-wikipedia member wrote regarding this issue:

COEBA stands as the only significant fundamental Baptist effort targeting church planting in black communities. The measurement of this organization's "notability" may be skewed due to a lack of understanding of COEBA's ongoing work. COEBA would be more properly termed a "movement" than an "organization." Its absence of tangible infrastructure renders its success difficult to quantify, particularly by the casual observer. However, closer inspection and polling of those directly affected shed light on this fundamental movement that is nothing short of a phenomenon.

In addition to the more than twenty churches planted, this effort has single-handedly redefined the perception of black Americans in fundamental circles. Of the more than 10,000 fundamental Baptist churches in the United States, significantly fewer than 100 are pastored by black American men. Most fundamental Christians have never served alongside a black person. The great majority of the pastors of those 10,000 churches have been acquainted with COEBA on some level. This has led to an unprecedented effort to understand, accept and evangelize black people either directly or indirectly through the ministry of these churches. COEBA has done more to raise awareness of the need and potential than all other efforts combined.

Throughout the 1990's, COEBA was a rare and dominant church planting voice in fundamentalism, thereby helping to spark a revival of church planting emphasis in many circles, irrespective of race. In the movement's brief twelve-year history it remains the unrivaled source of counsel, inspiration and hope for pastors, laymen and Christian workers with issues regarding fundamentalism and the black community. There simply is no other cause that holds the position that COEBA has in fundamental circles. More than 300 churches support this effort verbally and through financial contribution. A majority of fundamental Bible colleges and organizations stand firm in endorsement. With nearly five million missions dollars given through the ministries of COEBA churches, COEBA has proven that its foremost commitment remains that of world evangelism.

Perhaps the most important facet of this movement is its training of the next generation of Christians, i.e., children in churches across the country. These youth possess great talent and skill and are leaders among their peers. Should the Lord tarry, they will grow into America's first measurable generation of fundamental black Christians.

COEBA's regional and national gatherings have consistently drawn representatives from hundreds of churches, Bible colleges and Christian organizations. Its most effective work, however, is through grass roots influence, counsel, education, encouragement and peer-to-peer contact. The impact of the COEBA movement vis-a-vis fundamental circles is an ever-evolving force that is changing the face of fundamentalism.

It takes time, and, perhaps, a generation to change the psyche produced by decades of missteps regarding Black America. Still, there are many on the bandwagon. Here is what several prominent fundamental leaders have said about COEBA: (the quotes below are copied from a 1999 COEBA magazine)

"COEBA, the vision of Lou Baldwin, a preacher of the gospel, draws my admiration and attention because it applies Bible remedies to the sinful human hearts of Bible-starved souls..." Bob Jones III - President, Bob Jones University

"I thank the Lord for the COEBA movement with the great objective of soul winning and the building of churches... This organization is doing a work that is much needed." Dr. Lee Roberson - Chancellor, Tennessee Temple University

"New Testament curches are the salt and light America needs. Praise God for Pastor Lou Baldwin and COEBA -- a gift from God to Black America." Dr. Sam Davison - Pastor, Southwest Baptist Church

"Pastors across America should thank God for raising men like Dr. Lou Baldwin ... It is my prayer that through COEBA many thousands of lives will be influenced as we move into the 21st century." Dr. Paul Chappell - Pastor, Lancaster Baptist Church - President, West Coast Baptist College

"COEBA is on of the greatest biblical missionary movements of this generation." Dr. Don Sisk - President/General Director, Baptist International Missions, Inc.

"This is a movement that has the hand of God upon it. The Lord has provided visionary leadership through Dr. Lou Baldwin to reach so many millions with the gospel." Dr. Clarence Sexton - Pastor, Temple Baptist Church - President, Crown College

--Ben 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Union Jam

Non notable, returns 64 hits on Google. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 21:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. Also, please note Irishpunktom that this is a discussion and not a vote, and the closing admin may disregard "votes" without rational. refer to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• The festival appears to be real, but doesn't Google well. As the article currently stands, there is nothing to indicate notability. Delete unless expanded. Punkmorten 14:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreeing with Punkmorten; I find nothing to support this event's notability, such as more-than-passing mentions in either major Philadelphia paper. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:35, 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 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeder Support for Image Boards

Non-notable (33 Google hits), possibly stale, software project. Article created by only (?) developer. --Pjacobi 11:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a very well-known project; among imageboards probably 1 or 2 people use it. Nice idea, but Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Ashibaka tock 22:40, 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 REDIRECT to Bob Barker seems sensible. -Splash^talk 23:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Barker

This one line article seems to be about someone actually called George Barker. The Panoramic painting page gives more information, this article is uneccesary, Delete. ::Supergolden:: 11:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• We already have George Barker (painter). Delete unless someone can legitimately expand on "Robert Barker". PJM 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per PJM. -- JLaTondre 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bob Barker. Haikupoet 02:45, 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Reaction Solution

• Speedy Delete the page has been deleted before which makes it subject to a speedy. Unfortunately the User:Striver who made the page has removed the speedy deletion tag on this article [13]. The article itself is nn and POV trying to promote Alex Jone's movies Jersey Devil 11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the term is notable, Google gives 25 000 hits on "Problem Reaction Solution" [14] and 27 900 000 hits on Problem Reaction Solution [15]. Alex Jones movie is not THAT popular that i would creat 25 000 hits on a TERM used in it, clearly proving that the term is used widely outside the movie. It is actally irrelevant from where the term comes, 25 000 hits is enogh to make it notable in it self. Being delete once does not mean that it should remain deleted for ever. This is a new and fresh afd--Striver 12:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as recreated content. I'd do it myself, but the page creator and I edit some of the same pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't David Icke the guy who dresses all in blue turquoise and says lizardmen rule the world? If he agreed with me, I'd keep quiet about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe you find yourself in good company with Art Bell than. You share his views on Sept11. SkeenaR 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Turquoise. JDoorjam Talk 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't see me adding Art Bell as a reference to September 11, 2001 attacks, do you? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Would be of dubious notability even if new. It appears to exist online almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories, e.g. [16] / [17] . This article is one of several equally POV-heavy (and badly written) 9/11-related articles recently created by Striver. Sandstein 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean its not notable since its used " almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories"? So, does that mean that Fard is also non-notable since it is used exclusivly by Muslims? Could you point out the pov, so i can correct it? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there are a lot more Muslims than 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That's why an Islamic concept such as Fard can be of significance to a great number of people, even non-Muslims. Problem Reaction Solution, on the other hand, seems to be a neologism used only within a small circle of persons with no discernible impact on the broader discourse (on 9/11 or anything else). See WP:NEO (or maybe, considering the seriousness of all this, rather WP:NFT :-). Greetings, Sandstein 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It being prominently used among the 9/11 truth movment makes it notable, it is not a neologism, it was used surely more than 20 times in 1999 by David Icke when in University of Toronto Only that in it self makes it notable. --Striver 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, even then it warrants at the most a well-sourced brief mention in the main 9-11 conspiracy theories article, and not its own article. Even so, what you call the "9-11 truth movement" is objectively the viewpoint of a small fringe minority (and for most others it's somewhere between paranoid silliness and downright offensive). All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing. Greetings, Sandstein 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 9/11 neologism, it was used prominently already in 1999.

Further, not that it maters, the 9/11 truth movement is not a "small fringe minority". Does "small fringe minority" include a:

• A Professor of philosophy
• The former chief economist of George W. Bush
• A Professor of Physics
• A Air Force Lieutenant Colonel
• The former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry
• A former narcotics investigator for the LAPD
• A United States House of Representatives Congresswoman

No? BUT, even if it was a "small fringe minority", deleting it is a violation of Wikipedia policies. All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing" is against Wikipolicies:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Source: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

IF we can have Ass worship, why not this? --Striver 17:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete unencyclopedic, fails to demonstrate notability.--MONGO 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

25 000 google and you say " fails to demonstrate notability"? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Google does not mean everything for notability, you know. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but Alex Jones, Dacid Icke using the term does make it notable in it self, even witout 25 000 google hits. You got several articles starting and describing the term, that does make it notable in it self. You see films using that term 30 times, that makes it notable. --Striver 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, unencyclopedic, nn. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Mongo and Ter. --Aaron 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to plain old delete as crankcruft following Striver's expansion of the article. --Aaron 17:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean, we can have Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, but not this? Common people, what are you doing? --Striver 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We're following WP:CSD. --Aaron 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep. Striver's often divisive and inflammatory, and openly admits that his views are waaay outside the norm. I think it's because of these things that this article is getting deep-sixed. This term has been used in news sources, and is in use all over the web. Yes, often in tinfoil-hat-style conspiracy diatribes. But it's in use. (Striver's also right about ass worship -- wtf is that about?) This also seems a lot like an extension of the "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect, which seems to be the academically accepted version of this same concept (i.e., no shady government conspiracies, lizard men, Illuminati, space Nazis, etc.). If that article had been written, I'd suggest merging this content over there. In fact, as it stands, if this article survives (doesn't look promising), I'll probably move it to Rally 'round the flag and rewrite it... muahhahhahahahaha. JDoorjam Talk 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Ehh, nevermind. Upon review, there's not really much there that could be salvaged for Rally 'round the flag. JDoorjam Talk 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki or Delete. This is a dictionary entry. The term satisfies (Wiktionary criterion) Idiomacity, but its Attestation is shaky. I think the citations give enough evidence of Attestation, but I can see how one could disagree.  Cdcon  19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a neologism used by a small group of people. I doubt that it would be of much interest to Wiktionary. Capitalistroadster 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

something used in 1999 is not a neologism. How large is the group using Facesitting? --Striver 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is a one-liner neologism dicdef, followed by an unencyclopedic mess of 9/11 conspiracy theory POV ranting. Another example of a recent rash of such articles. Weregerbil 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think most of these recent deletion attempts are bogus. They seem more about suppression of ideas than issues with notability or POV. SkeenaR 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crankcruft. Ashibaka tock 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crankcruft is a fair evaluation. Zora 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm kind of wondering why it takes this article so long to get a point across, whereas divide and rule conveys the same general type of information with less filler. Maybe it's because divide and rule doesn't mention every single use of the idea in an attempt to salvage a semblance of notability. The article needs a major rewrite, and I'm headed to tag it with copyedit right now. Isopropyl 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Alex Jones + David Icke != notable. Rhobite 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crankcruft --rogerd 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are deleting a article that gets 25 000 google hits and is a major term among a significant minority, only since it haves to much information? --Striver 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Smerge and redirect to Thesis, antithesis, synthesis or David Icke or else delete or transwiki to Wictionary as WP:WINAD. Schizombie 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Page is updated, votes regardin neologism and content must be re-evalutated. This still gives 25 000 google hits. --Striver 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undecided: It seems to be a real term for a real technique, but the application of it to the September 11 attacks is pure crankcruft. --Carnildo 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Still delete as crankcruft; this article does not improve by the citation of "the english David Icke" [sic] and the likes of him as an authority. Sandstein 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you are confusing notability and verifaiability with.... i dont know... The term is real, what it means or is used for is totaly irrelevant for the keeping or deleting of the article! --Striver 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Still delete as one-liner neologism dicdef followed by a couple of pages of non-encyclopedic 9/11 conspiracy theory cruft and a laundry list of individual peoples' opinions (now complete with Adolf!). An article that professes to talk about something, but in reality is an opinion pushing piece about something totally different. Updating the page by adding even more cruft doesn't make the it better because the cruft is the fatal flaw in the first place. Weregerbil 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this non notable, but Ass worship, Divide and rule, Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, is not? Give a answer to that! Your only propblem is with what the term is USED for, not notability, and that is censorship. Content with articles are dealt with, that called editing, problems are addred at talk page. You dont delet a perfectly verifiablen and notable word over conten issues! Why not delete Islamofascism (term)?--Striver 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you improve the article so that it is NPOV? So that nobody reading the article can guess that you have a POV agenda on 9/11, anti-SomeCountry, or anything else? I could cut the Example and Use sections but I fear fierce resistance and drawn-out rv wars to any POV-neutralizing edits. Weregerbil 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are meaning that the article is being delete since its being accused of being POV, without any atempts to NPOVing?`--Striver 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I vote delete as one-liner neologism dicdef (incidentally followed by a couple of pages of biased chatter). Is there a real article waiting to be born? A verifiable article about a notable term, not about 9/11 conspiracy theories and anti-SomeCountry propaganda? I don't see it happening due to circumstances, but will be happy to be proven wrong! Weregerbil 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is NOT a neologism if it was used in the 1990. It is notable, 25 000 google hits. It is used by the most prominent conspiracy theorist, again making it notable. and its greatly more notable, used and contentfull than Queening stool. You are obviously agendadriven.--Striver 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I got 61,500 hits on "red suspender viola". You can get multiple Google hits on the oddest things. Zora 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I got Zeor (0) hits [18] --Striver 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you used quote marks and I didn't. Zora 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I do have an agenda: make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. It is my opinion that this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being a positive contribution to the quality of Wikipedia. This is due to what I perceive to be fierce resistance to making it anything but a laundry list of anti-SomeCountry propaganda and 9/11 conspiracy theorizing. I will be happily surprised by being proven wrong! And I will now be waiting quietly for that to happen, because anything I say will just probably make the resistance dig in deeper in its trenches. Over and out. Weregerbil 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to inform the readers that Weregerbil has made zero (0) atempts of editing this article. As if it matered, POV issues, if they even existed, are to be solved by editing and talk page, not deleting the article. He is all talk. --Striver 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Weregerbil is under no obligation to attempt to edit an article before joining its AfD discussion. And WP:GD makes it clear that when an article's POV issues are considered extreme enough, an AfD is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "editing and talk": If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed. --Aaron 22:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a single quote from the article that is POV? I doubt it. --Striver 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. "Problem Reaction Solution" on Google gives 26,200 hits, while - quite interestingly - "Problem Reaction Solution" -Icke gives 20,900 hits, meaning that claims that this is purely some Icke's mumbo-jumbo neologism are simply not true. Conspiracy theorists' speak? Yes. And why not? From what I've seen in the comments above, it is as if some people think that keeping this article on Wikipedia would be tantamount to saying that Bush orchestrated 9/11. This is not so: understand that it is perfectly acceptable to create articles about viewpoints that we find unappealing and/or downright wrong. This article doesn't do it in the best of ways, but this only means it should be improved. Yes, one could rightly stick NPOV/copyedit/cleanup/whatever notices on this article. But I see no good reason why it should be deleted as a matter of principle. GregorB 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not appear to fall foul of the policy in a claer-cut manner at any point. Batmanand | Talk 14:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per GregorB. It is not a good article, but that is no reason to delete. David Sneek 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ... unfortunately. Basically like everyone else said. Yes, it's conspiracy-cruft, but it's referenced enough: the term is widely used enough that we should have an article on it. And we can't just redirect to Thesis, antithesis, synthesis because Hegel used TAS to mean many things, while PRS its really only used to mean "conspiracy"; the meaning is related, but not the same. However, I would be much in favor of shortening the article by quite a lot. It should be something like three paragraphs long: one paragraph defining the term, and referring to Hegel, one paragraph about the term's creationg by Icke, and one list of references, one line per reference, not one paragraph per reference. If the thing is kept, and no one else will do it, I can do that. GRuban 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Striver, please, you could at least try to make it a halfway decent article. As it stands, it's spectacularly bad. Personally, I think that we absolutely don't need it and should put all the "please improve me" templates we have on top of it. But unfortunately, I see no reason to delete it after the update. I'm tempted to abstain from my vote, but I guess that would be too much of a cop-out... Striver, I think you should cut the article in half at the very least, and try to layout it in a way that doesn't hurt my head. Please note that I don't have an agenda beyond keeping crappy articles out of Wikipedia as far as possible. I don't care about your conspiracy theories, as long as you clearly label them as such and keep them to a maximum of a few sentences here and there. That's about all consensus will give you, so don't fight it. You are entitled to an opinion, but NOT to valuable space in articles that should cover views that are way, way more subsantiated than yours.Mstroeck 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul_J_Moss

• Reason why the page should be deleted Bongos 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be vanity? Paul J Moss is not notable as far as I can tell. Googling turned up only a few bizarre hits: :http://www.astronomy.net.nz/frame19.htm (Scroll down that particular page!)

'Googling' turns up 6 million on some days and 12 million on others. The subject has been in #1 response for 5 out of 6 years, and many of the top 10 for many of those years. FACT. moza 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

removed my single vote. If discussion doesn't take place here then how can the voting be valid, almost nil discussion took place elsewhere, and the cut and pasters have ripped this page apart so many times, it doesn't make sense, it's not the truth, it has serious ommisions, and it certainly doesnt have any balance. The history of this page shows blatant ignorance of the facts, superficiality on a broad scale, meanspiritedness that I knew existed but found hard to believe every other time I encountered it. The philosphy here is said to be construction, so if the article doesn't fit the rules, why not alter it, build a new one, get the known facts, be vigilant against how things appear on the surface, be all that a wikipedian can be. I have witnessed crowd behaviour here, emotion and assumption, hardly any reality, its a good learning zone about ourselves, at least I contributed to exposing that aspect to the clear minded. moza moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - owning a few domain names, sticking your name in a huge font on a couple of websites to fool google and taking a few pictures of the sky isn't really a big mark of notability, however worthwhile the last occupation is. It's a vanity article too - if it weren't for a humungous amount of edits by the article's subject, the article wouldn't exist. That said, I'm loathe to enourage or endorse the proposer of the AfD since he's got some ulterior motives regarding the article subject --Aim Here 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

the subject owns many domain names and they have extremely useful content, and are linked to by many great worldwide institutions. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above: not notable; fails WP:BIO. Google rank in a few arcane sujects does not confer notability, especially when you put your name and list your websites (along with a number of keywords) everywhere you can. bcasterline^talk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

fabrication to support your POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Um, what? Xtra is the largest ISP in New Zealand! I'm on dial up so my IP is dynamic. Are you going to post every Xtra IP address as proof of a conspiracy? Anyhoo, I didn't mean to cause offense, it's just that your entry seems to violate the terms and spirit of Wiki. If you've done something notable, tell the world about it, and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Oh and gotta love Google Cache... here's that page as it was _before_ you hastily edited out all the questionable content (minus pics for speed): http://www.geocities.com/eastriverqueen/frame19.htm

its illegal to copy and hack other peoples websites, and bad taste to mis use the hacked version to promote your own POV. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages"
• Delete. Article does not establish notability as an astronomer. A Google search for "Paul Moss" astronomy comes up with 702 hits with few verifiable sources [19]. A similar search on Google books came up empty. A search for "Paul Moss" came up with a number of names but none that was immediately associated with this guy. A Google Scholar credit for "Paul Moss" astronomy came up with two entries [20]. In short, he doesn't seem notable enough as yet as an astronomer nor is there any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

this user used the previously unpublished search name.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
• Keep — please note that the nominator Bongos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a new user with a first contribution to delete this article (and the second to badly modify the Aurora summary page). --William Allen Simpson 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Obvious vanity; Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion; Self-created and maintained entry. Delete. 217.96.105.6 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Duplicate Page of Paul x Moss has just been created by User:Mozasaur, this should be included in the deleteion. or perhaps deleted earlier. - SimonLyall 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

the pages have either been deleted or put in process by the author.moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity, not noteable etc. Even if the nomination was in bad faith the article still doesn't appear to meet criteria. The guy who is vandalizing the astronomy stuff should see the quote on my user page btw. - SimonLyall 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Aim Here. -- Avenue 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)*Delete — Wouldn't even satisfy the average professor test. I think it's great what he's doing, but it's just not all that notable. Sorry. :) — RJH 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

how about writing an article to serve the same function? moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. 68.87.71.183 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: These articles are nothing but vanity, no matter how you look at it. 210.55.80.151 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Now back to adding stuff to Wikipedia... Ziggurat 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

EVERY web page promotes itself. moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldnt be, but when POV enters then it becomes one, moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Has done notable things in the field of astronomy. excuse me other people have URL's in this so why cant I? paul wrote the entire site Bongos linked, as well as many other related ones such as http://www.rakiuraimages.com/ . please dont edit my post again or things will get nasty 203.97.108.242 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

yes i wondered how that can be allowed as well, the rules are used when it suits, and ignored when it suits, crowd behaviour. (i'd prefer to not see the threats though.)moza 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

!!! KEEP !!! Paul has some amazing photo's that have been recognised internationally, and the sharing of pictures between sites is mutual. Paul also has some very valid and interesting views, and i think deletion would be a big mistake and a big loss of content. Get a clue Bongos.  (original by 219.89.179.18)

yes i brought this back and no its not mine, check the ip. it was deleted by user 72.242.25.5 in his grand anonymous cleanup. I try and sign my work, proudly and with ID. moza 11:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. -Splash^talk 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UHW Wrestling, UHW Universal Champion,UHW InterNational Championship, UHW X-Rated Championship, UHW Tag-Team Championship

The articles below do Does not appear to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion for websites. brenneman^{T}{L} 12:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Amended per Englishrose. - 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Important Note: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about this E-wrestling and using wikipedia as a web host.

• UHW Universal Champion
• UHW InterNational Championship
• UHW X-Rated Championship
• UHW Tag-Team Championship

Englishrose 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. Their Geocities website has no Alexa traffic rank. The forum has 66 registered members only. — TheKMan^talk 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. "As of 2006, the board has 55 Registered members from all across the globe" doesn't help its notability push. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. They are using this site as a web hosts. There geocities page links to two of their "sites", a forum and their "wiki site". Englishrose 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dsol 23:43, 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. However, it's been turned into a redirect which appears to have stuck, so I'll leave it. If the article gets repeatedly reverted, it can have its history deleted or be protected or something. 70.29.239.249's opion on admins is duly set aside. -Splash^talk 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gino Ruffolo

Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Gino Ruffolo is a political candidate, but does not hold at least a provincial office at the moment, and has not received significant press coverage. (Nothing in Google news, and only two or so related hits on Google.) Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. — TheKMan^talk 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The majority (if not all) Vaughan council members record no results on Google news. I don't believe TheKMan's vote should count as he is not familar with the city.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.249 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Incumbent mayors are permitted articles on Wikipedia; mayoral candidates are not. Delete. And by the by, I'm about three reverts away from proposing a permanent Wikipedia block on any IP that resolves to York Region. Bearcat 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 05:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The opinions of people have already accrued two "you're gonna get blocked if you keep that up" warnings, when their first-ever Wikipedia edit was less than 24 hours ago, kinda sorta tend not to be taken as seriously as the opinions of people who've been around here for a few years, and know how things work, and have established relatively trustworthy reputations. Especially when you're misreading them as actually meaning a comment that was obviously intended sarcastically. HTH, HAND. Bearcat 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My first edit was months ago. I choose not to sign up because I do not use this system very often. I am also doing nothing to get blocked. You told me to stop with the personal attacks and I have complied. I am allowed to question the rules. I feel, as an admin, you are far too personally invested in this discussion. 70.29.239.249 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging by Talk:Vaughan municipal election, 2006, you most certainly have not complied with my statement about personal attacks — your most recent personal attack was posted 25 minutes after you posted this comment. And if you'd care to point out how I'm personally invested in the discussion, I'm all ears — considering that I'm an NDP member in downtown Toronto who's never met anybody involved in this matter and has never been to Vaughan in my life apart from passing through it on the 400, I'd love to know where you think my purported "bias" on the subject lays. Bearcat 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above pm_shef 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is the ONE and ONLY challenger in a major GTA mayor race. My IP is not from York Region, so my vote should count for double. 70.29.239.249 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification No he's not, he's running against an incumbent, thus making him NOT the only candidate. pm_shef 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the above clarification remark was removed by 70.29.239.249 here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the text Cambridge. You appear to have ulterior motives when you post such things. I took off the clarification because it is not necessary anymore. Pm_shef's comment does not make any sense. Read it. I fixed my comment a few minutes after I posted and the clarification should be removed. Since the admins can do this, I hearby ask that you remove the irrelevant clarification. Thank you. 70.29.239.249 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mangojuice 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens. I vote Keep but if one is deleted then they all should be Deleted both incumbents and candidates. Also to clarify Ruffolo is in fact currently the ONLY challenger to the incumbent in the Mayors race.--Eyeonvaughan 06:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think it's that simple. The other candidates may have notability outside of the scope of this particular political race. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Being a candidate does ot amount to notablility. However, incumbant people do a lot of work, which if notable, should be documented. Stress is on the notability of the work done by them. Candidates can't do much with respect to notability in being a candidate unless they are engaged in some historic battle, which does require notability out of candidature. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that John Greer a candidate for councillor in Toronto posted his own article in Jan. (which he admitted in the talk page). Soon after he posted it someone put it up for deletion. Even though he posted it himself the article won the debate to stay an article since he is a current candidate for councillor in the 2006 municipal election. With all do respect to Greer he really has not accomplished enough in the past to be an article and is pretty non-notable. His won the debate to stay so shouldn’t Ruffolo’s also? --Eyeonvaughan 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't won any debate — there hasn't been one. Somebody suggested on the talk page that it should be listed on AFD, but as of today nobody's ever actually listed it for deletion. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that it would survive an AFD, but being here because nobody's nominated it for deletion in the first place is hardly the same thing as actually surviving an AFD. Bearcat 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't up for deletion? whats this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Greer&oldid=36682359 I looked through the history and found a "speedy deletion" then the speedy deletion message was taken down--Eyeonvaughan 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

More info: I have nominated John Greer for AfD. This should settle the debate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I added more information to make this candidate a bit more notable. 70.29.239.249 16:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SplOg

Delete as non-notable. (Google search yields only 3 results.) -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

• Delete. Non-notable blog. — TheKMan^talk 14:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blogcruft Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website / weblog. — Adrian Lamo ·· 23:26, 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, CSD G4. Chick Bowen 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best Friends... Different Personalities

Prodded under not a crystal ball. Prod tag removed, improperly restored (though probably with no ill intent). Moving here as contested. It's Disney Channel show for 2008. Delete as too far in the future to bother speculating about. 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) NickelShoe 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable (nothing on IMDB or Google), and per nominator. — TheKMan^talk 14:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I {{prod}}ded the page originally and I will assume good faith on behalf of the editor who removed the tag. I don't see how any edits to the page could prevent a television programme due to be transmitted in 2008 anything other than crystal ballism.  (aeropagitica)  16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball. Include one year after release if it turns out to e significant. Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Substantially the same article just went through AfD as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Best_Friends...Different_Personalities and was deleted earlier this week. The difference is that this time, the writer put an extra space in the article title. This show is a hoax. --Metropolitan90 19:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The writer didn't put the extra space in; another editor did. Anyway, this should be a speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. --Metropolitan90 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: G4 as recreation of deleted material. I see no major changes in this version. The original deleted page, Best_Friends...Different_Personalities, is now serving as a redirect to here; recommend a {{deletedpage}} on both to prevent threepeat creation. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:20, 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 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cycloball

Tagged as speedy, but not quite. Better to be examined with more eyeballs. Abstain. brenneman^{T}{L} 12:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Google doesn't really turn up anything for the term [21], and nothing at all for some of the terms mentioned in the article ("Cranbury Springs Tournament", "Crazy Eddie Five Hands", etc.). Probably a hoax. bcasterline^talk 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2,450 Google hits, most of them just mentions of the word without any context. --djrobgordon 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete insignificant. Have you come across unicycle hockey? That gets many more references, of which a far greater proportion are relevant, and we still dont justify a separate article. This looks like a case of WP:NFT to me. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JZG, WP:NFT. PJM 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete The sport exists, and is popular in Germany, where it's known as Radball. Players use special bikes with U-shaped bars which they hold like sticks. You guys should Google it, you get 200,000+ hits, which is significant. It's a surprisingly old sport as well. The article is poorly written though, and needs editing. I've just gotten an account BTW, I know very little of the techincal side of Wikipedia. BKmetic 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 11:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• delete Not a notable sport. Nigelthefish 13:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G$. -Doc ^ask? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cougar Mountain Software

Previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9#Cougar_Mountain_Software Speedy delete. Sleepyhead 13:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cougar Mountain Software

Not notable. Advertising. Not up to levels of WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even a hundred Google hits. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:CORP JzG 12:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Dawn

Rock band, doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. PROd tag removed by the author. Sandstein 13:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the article doesn't claim that they're anything more than a local band with no tours and no albums. --djrobgordon 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 17:32, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Brett

Advertisement for non-notable book, non-notable author. Claims to have invented ROTFL acronym too! -- Aim Here 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete whether or not the subject is notable., this article is (a) spam and (b) a Geogre's Law failure. If somebody feels motivated to fix it up in the next few days I'll change my vote, but we don't need the article as nominated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to Capitalistroadster for cleaning it up; I think it's still delete since (a) it's a "pocket-sized book" (i.e. very small) and (b) it does not seem to be widely available (I couldn't find it on Amazon or Barnes and Noble, for example). But at least if it gets kept it's no longer part of her relentless self-publicity campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Such original and brilliant book surely doesn't need promotion here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I liked the quote from the critic: this book is original and brilliant. Unfortunately, that which is original is not brilliant, and that which is brilliant is not original. I think we've seen a few articles herebaouts which fit that description :-)

Changed to No vote after rewrite. Whether someone with single book is notable enough is question I can't answer. Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Her website claims that she's written for "New Woman, Vogue, Vogue Girl, 9to5 Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Daily Telegraph" [22]. Some of the pages turned up by Google [23] seem to suggest that she's somewhat notable in Australia, although Amazon doesn't show anything [24]. (Maybe her next brilliant book?) But since WP:BIO only requires an audience of 5000 or more, I think she qualifies -- if just barely. The style of the current article ("dazzled", "catapulted", "positively effervescent", etc.) needs some NPOV and cleanup work though. If the consensus is delete, I'll change my vote. bcasterline^talk 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and strong cleanup. The article is positively saccharine in its descriptors of Ms Brett but it doesn't have a lot to say about her actual worth as a journalist. Book reviews? Citations? Awards for journalistic endeavour? The acronyms and text images mentioned in her book also appear to have existed prior to its publication, Google groups search example.  (aeropagitica)  18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and JzG. Probable WP:VANITY/WP:AUTO violation; this article is Rosewiki's only contribution to Wikipedia. I'd even argue it's worth a speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Aaron 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Brett has been featured in major Australian publications and websites. She is notable. Improve content. This is a stub. Remove critical review text since it reads like promotional material. Include information of how she has influenced Australian culture.  Cdcon  19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The book exists and was reasonably widely reviewed in Australia. A search of an Australian newspaper database for "Samantha Brett" came up with 16 hits all of which appear to be about her. Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article. No change of position from Keep. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
• keep as per above Jcuk 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Now the article has been rewritten it's no longer an advert, and I'm a bit happier with it now. Not sure about Ms Brett's notability still (It didn't exactly flood me with hits on a quick google search when I nommed the article), but I'll go with the flow. --Aim Here 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It may be rewritten but its still not notable. Mike _{(T C)} 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Capitalistroadster's version, Delete otherwise as advertising. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 11:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep she currently has a blog published at the Sydney Morning Herald website Sam and the city -- Paul foord 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beurre mixer

This article is a dictdef that has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Transwiki:Beurre mixer) James084 13:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete is there not a speedy category for that? Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - As I read the speedy category it involved the article being brought here first. The speedy category is pretty odd, actually. James084 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef and as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. PJM 17:17, 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 largely moot since it's already been portalfied which seems like an alright compromise. I'm going to remove the cross-namespace redirect though. For archival sake, the poralfied version is at Portal:Puerto Rico/Did you know. -Splash^talk 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did You Know - Puerto Rico

WP:NOT a collection of random information Delete -Doc ^ask? 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note for Closing Party This AfD was promoted on user talk pages, which an urge to vote keep. Esteffect 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• I saw it mentioned on talk pages of users I hang out with but didn't see any keep urging, do you have some diffs? And if so? so what? I mentioned it on Talk:Puerto Rico for that matter. Users with well established talk pages (evincing some history here) and a particular history of editing Puerto Rico pages seem naturals for notification, we're talking about contributions from the non-footwear community here, after all. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Puerto Rico or move to portal or something like that. No need for a separate article. --Tone 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge what is verifiable and significant to the appropriate articles (mainly Peurto Rico) and delete the rest as trivial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge much as I despise triva sections, that's probably the best place for a lot of this information --djrobgordon 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge' to Puerto Rico. --Terence Ong 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and keep Did You Know - Puerto Rico originally was a section in the Puerto Rico article but it was getting too long. It was decided here to create a template to emulate the wikipedia main page's did you know. This was done (and it's the section presently found in the Puerto Rico article) but since so many facts had been accumulated an article was created to list them all. Everyone of these facts is verifiable since the majority come from existing Wikipedia articles. The problem with merging would be that the section would get unmaneagable and long and would detract from other useful information. I forgot to add that it is not random information since it all pertains to a single subject, Puerto Rico and its people. Joelito 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)