Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronikill

non-notable rab group. This was tagged with {{prod}} but the tag was removed by an anon. No evidence of notability cited except a mention of "two albums", but no publishers are cited. If as i suspect these are self-pubs, then this woudl not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Delete unless reliabel sources are cited to establish notability. DES ^(talk) 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet the criteria. Google found the first album on homerecording.org which is self-explanatory and the other album is only available on their site. But at least it's cheap. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment They have some hits in google, but not many Search Avi 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Avi 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --M @th wiz 2020 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. I must say, though, "Krewe [sic] D'Etat" is a pretty clever name for an album. Why didn't I think of that?! *grumble* --Kinu 03:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not meet criteria at WP:Music VirtualSteve 09:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per {{db-band}} -- Krash (Talk) 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:52Z
Delete per all above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete --SammyTerry 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trợ giúp:Viết bài mới

Untranslated at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A sample of the intro text: Gần đây đại dịch cúm gà đang trở thành một mối đe dọa

I don't recognzie the language. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks Vietnamese. Kusma (討論) 02:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Vietnamese Wikipedia, vi:Trợ giúp:Viết bài mới is a redirect to vi:Wikipedia:Viết trang mới, which according to the "other languages" section is Help:Starting a new page. The text looks different to me, but I can't read the language. Michael Slone (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wrong Wiki Avi 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Per Michael Slone's research, this appears to be a misplaced text dump from the Project namespace on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. If this is true, delete (disregard my vote if this is debunked further down the discussion). (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm no expert at reading Vietnamese, but from the formatting (i.e., use of all caps every so often) and basic gist ("Q&A"), it's likely a copy-paste job from a newspaper or website, and thus would be a WP:Copyvio. --Kinu 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to... whatever the correct wiki is. --M @th wiz 2020 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Hello. I don't regard myself as being very good at Vietnamese (I didn't put a vn userbox on myself), but this is Vietnamese. The title says "Help/assistance: Writing a new piece". The first line which is boxed is a question which is directed towards a presumedly Vietnamese Buddhist monk and asks about the bird flu pandemic and how it is related to karma and cause and effect. The text below is the monk's answer to this. It is probably a text dump from a dharma talk somewhere.Blnguyen 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia entry if possible. Royboycrashfan 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. Send it back to meet its maker. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Based upon the above comments, this article wouldn't be useful for researchers even if it was translated in to English. (aeropagitica) 06:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Transwiki quickly - does not belong on here. VirtualSteve 09:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
'Delete and transwiki to Vietnamnese Wikipedia. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete It looks like a text dump from an existing Vietnamese Wiki page, so transwikiing wouldn't really be neccesary, but with the amount of odd diacratics I can't check that. Besides, this would still be an unacceptable Q&A no matter what wikipedia we're talking about. Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete By glancing through it - and looking at User:Blnguyen's comments, the quotes, the question marks, the exclamation marks due make it look like it is a short narrative or something along those lines. Not encyclopediac. AndyZ 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunny Mountain Media Group

A non-notable company article with 40 Googles; also somewhat like an advertisement. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete: nn, WP:VSCA. --Kinu 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Was speedied against policy, so I undeleted it. The voting will now continue... --M @th wiz 2020 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn advertising.Blnguyen 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated. User has also blanked the AfD discussion notices. I'm going to lock it down for now. - Lucky 6.9 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertisement. Creator tried to remvove AfD tag, I reverted the page. Bad ideas 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 02:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as quickly as possible - blatant advertising - get these free-loaders of our site! Camillus (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Advertising Avi 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Blatant adv. Gtabary 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement Treznor 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertisement Sandy 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:53Z
Delete Not notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep since article has been rewritten in English. Kusma (討論) 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Minister of Rajasthan

From Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, untranslated after two weeks. Discussion from there follows. It also looks like there was a text coding error. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hindi? Urdu? Anyway... short article which may or may not be notable... Deiz 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Relisting from wrong subsection. Kusma (討論) 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless it is translated before the close of the debate. Would vote to keep article in English. Keep as rewritten by MLA.Capitalistroadster 02:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Capitalistroadster. Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep shouldn't be too hard to get rid of what's there and turn it into an English stub. MLA 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have edited the page to turn it into a very short stub. Chief Minister of Rajasthan seems like a notable political position and so should have an article here. The previous version was not any good but hopefully it can be turned into something that does work. MLA 15:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Keep the new stub of course. Thanks for your research. Kusma (討論) 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the stub. Good work to MLA for the translation.--み使い Mitsukai 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Hopefully someone can expand. Treznor 21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep now after MLA's revision. --Lockley 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General stone

Delete. non-notable band without even a single record released. Rmhermen 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Not true, re-read the post. Band has several demos released and will be putting out first album shortly. May not be nn world-wide but is picking up steam in Canada.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cscarsbrook (talk • contribs) .

"Picking up steam" doesn't really cut it. See WP:NMG. PJM 12:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Demos are not albums. If the album is yet to be released, it fails WP:MUSIC and the crystal ball. --Kinu 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable band. Bad ideas 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kinu. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete "up and coming " are the operative words. Maybe in the future this band will gain notabilty. But then again can't the same be said of hundreds of bands out there? --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
delete per Kinu J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. what is considered notable then? these guys are big in this part of Canada. is that not notable in Winnipeg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cscarsbrook (talk • contribs) .

Again, see WP:NMG. PJM 12:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

delete What is notable in Winnipeg is not always notable in Wikipedia. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The minimum number of charting album/single releases that a band must release in order to qualify as notable is two. One demo release is insufficient. WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a common misconception. The two album thing is only one of the criteria by which band notability is rated. If they have meet multiple of the other guidelines at WP:NMG they can still be notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable band. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMG. Not even close. PJM 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Only the band members and maybe their mothers would look at this thing. --Thunder 21:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMG. The only criterion that looks like could be met is being covered in the national press... which when Googling I saw no indication of. Treznor 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMG. Essexmutant 10:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable band. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:54Z

Delete. Resubmit entry once this band has released an album. --Dogbreathcanada 02:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable band. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete consensus seems to be that this particular list's function can be performed by a category, such as the already populated Category:World War II books. W.marsh 20:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of books about World War II

pointless and potentially endless list. many of these are indeed famous books about WWII, but there seems no point to having such a list -- this would be much better done with a category, if at all. not an encyclopedic list. DES ^(talk) 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A category would be much better indeed -- this is the most documented war in history. Grandmasterka 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, users should be able to find examples of famous books about WWII, and those examples should be annotated to helps them choose which link to click on. Kappa 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you volunteering to annotate that list... --Agamemnon2 08:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Replace with category. Royboycrashfan 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Replace with cat. If kept, all books should have wiki-links. Red links can be stubbed or removed as non-notable. -- Karnesky 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Replace with a category. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Until such time as somebody links all the books and is able to form a category. This is a fairly extensive list, it would be a shame to lose all those books just because the list isn't encyclopedic. I'd say keep the list, form the category, link all the books, then delete the list. Batman2005 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete If this stays, I could go through the whole Dewey Decimal System and write a list Ruby 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- A list of books? Kappa 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there we go, how about a merge? Ruby 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Replace. with category. Nightmare to update. Keep the redlink info in various ways named above.Pschemp | ^Talk 06:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless and perpetually incomplete partial bibliography. No attempt at a critical appraisal of the titles or a grouping by subject/argument/theme, so of no use to a researcher attempting to determine which if any book they should select for further study. Even if it were possible to be comprehensive, the list would need a complete bibliographic record in order to be useful for a researcher - title, author, publisher, date & place of publication. See British Library and Library of Congress records for details. (aeropagitica) 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Use a category if need be. -R. fiend 07:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, use category for books which have articles. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Either clarify inclusion criteria (fiction/non-fiction? How much should the war be mentioned?) or categorize. Right now, there's too many possible books to enter, making it unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep AND create a category as they serve totally different purposes. Jcuk 12:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, until and unless it is changed to List of notable books about World War II and "notable" is quantified. The page itself made me shudder. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Categorize I generally like lists more than cats, but this is a text-book case of where a cat trumps a list. There should be multiple sub-cats, too. youngamerican (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Categorize I generally don't think that lists should be deleted based on potentially infinte numbers of members, but here a cat or several is better than the ambiguous list. Carlossuarez46 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. Scoo 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and categorize this list, although the category will eventually have to be split. It's so broadly defined it's meaningless. Does Diary of Anne Frank belong on this list, with no military action? Catch 22 or Naked and the Dead, all fictional? Mein Kampf, written well before the war? All arguable. More specific categories would ultimately be far more helpful. --Lockley 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft. Create a category. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Replace with category. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:55Z
keep & expand add authors for each book.Mike McGregor (Can) 01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete and replace with category. -- Pierremenard 08:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usus of ephinasia

Delete or verify. I assume "usus" is a mispelling of "uses". --Revolución (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Title and first sentence are misspelled from each other. First sentence term (with m) gives NO google hits; title ONLY returns the wiki article. Probable hoax, seemingly nonsense. Tagged as such Avi 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Hoax. Google hits all wiki mirrors. --Kerowyn 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wunderbars

delete It is a stub with little to no room for improvment and there is a NPOV issue. Jakken 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:VSCA. --Kinu 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Who wants to read that? Royboycrashfan 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as that delightful (yet hard to pronounce) portmanteau quoted by Kinu and Royboycrashfan. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Clearly nn and the last sentence reads like an ad. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Poorly-written advert. (aeropagitica) 07:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Concur with JIP -- delete as advertising. -- Simon Cursitor 08:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - remove these wiki-abusers forthwith! Camillus (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. That really looks like pure adv. Gtabary 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement. --Allen 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete An advert. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Cross

User 64.60.147.230 removed my {{prod}} tag without comment so I am moving into here for discussion. This article reads like spam. The article does provide information regarding the game, however, based on the non-NPOV of this aritcle I am questioning it's claims. James084 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DELETE Jakken 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

delete as spam. --Kerowyn 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bad ideas 01:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, blatant V, S, and C. Also somewhat A. Royboycrashfan 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, blatant non-notable software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:33Z
Delete per nom. Completly nn and spam --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable software app/game. WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax ("Gill Bates" anyone ???) -- Simon Cursitor 08:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete pn (shakes head) Avi 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blueprints and Borrowed Letters

Bullet point summary of a chapter in a bookwith no context or explanation Kerowyn 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Guns, Germs, and Steel.Bjones 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a place to work up a book report for English class Ruby 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Royboycrashfan 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, who would search for chapter titles instead of book titles? JIP | Talk 07:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JIP. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't see the use of a bulletpointed chapter summary when we've got a fine article on the book. Obsolete Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to AC/DC. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ac/Dc

The article claims to be about a future AC/DC album; it repeats old legends and combines them with new misinformation. ProhibitOnions 00:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I added the AfD to the 7 Feb page. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC. --Revolución (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC. -- Zwilson 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Now redirected to AC/DC (album) Alex 101 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, Alex, that's not what we meant! We meant: Delete this page entirely, as it is nonsense, and redirect Ac/Dc to AC/DC. There is no album called AC/DC. Otherwise we would have moved the page in the first place. ProhibitOnions 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Replied on User talk:ProhibitOnions. Alex 101 00:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete 2007 is a long way out for an album article to evade crystal ballity Ruby 02:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC. Seems like a plausible search term. Royboycrashfan 02:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)"
Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:32Z
Delete. Unverified crystal ballism Cnwb 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I haven't found anything on the web of a supposed album from AC/DC coming out in 2007. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC. (The oversight of not creating an ASCII character for a lightning bolt lives on today...) --Kinu 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Let's wait until something happens. AC/DC never said the new album was called "self-titled". So, this is completely false. Alex 101 04:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC and delete contents of this page as per crystal ball comments. WP:NOT refers. (aeropagitica) 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect -- to AC/DC. - Longhair 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC as alternative spelling. JIP | Talk 07:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect' or delete as Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to AC/DC as plausible search term. Delete speculation first if you want to. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect or delete — although I started this AfD page, and believe this article has no place on Wikipedia for much the same reasons as have been mentioned above, I also accept the suggestion that "Ac/Dc" is a plausible search term for "AC/DC" and a redirect would make sense. ProhibitOnions 12:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above Compu te r Jo e 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Mgm. youngamerican (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port-a-john tipping

This was tagged with {{prod}} as nonsense, which is not a valid reason to delete it, otherwise we would delete cow-tipping. I think it should be kept if references can be provided, and deleted if not. Kappa 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur with the admirable Kappa. I nominated this for deletion as nothing but a manifestation of petty vandalism. Delete unless references can be found. Pilatus 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete for obvious reasons. Unencyclopedic. --Revolución (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep You can't be sure this isn't a real thing. --Lenev 01:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Um that's not how it works - even if it actually exists, if we don't have verifiable evidence we can't write about it in this encylopedia. Kappa 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Otherwise I could start tipping the people at the McDonald's counter and write an article about that too. Ruby 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby: Tipping the guys at McDonald's is a waste of money, they're not even doing anything. Maybe I could see tipping the people at Sonic, since they actually bring it out to your car, but not McDonald's. ;) --Rory096 02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, entirely unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:39Z
Comment. Seems to be a relatively widespread phenomenon (at least in talk, if not in practice). This article talks about criminal potty tipping about a year ago. In an attempt to exclude that article and Wikipedia mirrors, this Google search yields nearly 1000 hits. However, no vote. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopædic Avi 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Until such time a scientific journal publishes a paper about it. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopaedic glorification of vandalism. (aeropagitica) 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This actually does happen, and I've seen it firsthand. - CorbinSimpson 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- As does setting skips on fire. As does throwing eggs against the bus. I've seen both. So what? Pilatus 09:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - glorification of hooliganism. Not fit for WP. Camillus (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fudd's First Law of Opposition states that "if you push something hard enough it will fall over." Instances of Fudd's Law aren't worthy of separate articles, and we don't need otherwise trivial images that might be used in court against somebody. Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment, it's not nonsense and it does happen with surprising frequency, but it doesn't seem to be WP:V for wikipedia purposes. Most of the reasons cited for deletion above are pretty weak though. Per most of the Delete comments Cow tipping and a whole slew of other articles should go too.--Isotope23 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Cow-tipping is a fairly major urban(?) legend; this is much less so. There comes a time when a line must be drawn; pointing out that one line is arbitrary does not make it less arbitrary to draw it elsewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Cow-tipping, as the article is written, was probably a bad example to use. My point is simply that many of the reasons given for deletion are rather silly and if the reasoning were extrapolated a whole slew of articles would be deleted from Wikipedia. If anyone has a real interest in keeping this information around it would probably be better served as part of an article on practical jokes or vandalism incorporting current articles on Toilet papering, etc. Provided of course someone can source Toilet Tipping information.--Isotope23 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, well-known practical joke. I see no problem with having articles on Egging Toilet papering or other practical jokes if there is sufficient information to make an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm unsure about this article, but I oppose the majority of reasons given for deletion. Scientific journal coverage certainly should not be a prerequsite for a wikipedia article. This prank has been used in a lot of TV shows and Movies, like Jackass and refered to Space Cowboys. Those examples are just off the top of my head. Savidan 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, perfectly reasonable topic for an article. A variety of sources visible online, e.g. this article talks about toilets being tipped (and also some set on fire). And apparently Dothan, Alabama has been the site of a toilet tipping epidemic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- When I was a student on a certain sink estate there was an outbreak of people throwing bricks at the bus. It was pretty bad, the incidents inevitably made the local news, several people were injured (none permanently, thankfully), soon the bus company refused to serve the area, which was fairly out of town. Verifiable, but to see nothing beyond random hooliganism. Pilatus 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a tough case. On the one hand, it's pretty obviously the product of an inside wiki joke, probably perpetrated by the gentlemen standing on the porta-potty in the photo. And yet, porta-john tipping is a real thing. I think this falls squarely under the (as-yet unwritten) principle WP:Ignore the obvious irony of making joke articles into encyclopedic content. With some non-snickering focus, this article -- which is in need of a good cleaning -- could, in fact, be a worthwhile article. Keep. JDoorj a m Talk 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete As soon as the opinion is removed, this article turns into summary of a non notable minor news article summary, best left for those sorts of newspapers. I'm tempted to list the endless list of similar non notable dicdefs that would get articles if this does, but it may inspires someone.Obina 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a real activity per precedent for other frivolous yet established concepts. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's not verified, but it is verifiable. --Allen 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A real, verifiable phenomenon. See any number of references given above. -- Scott e^iπ 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Christopher Parham. --bainer (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus. Unverifiable. Stifle 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Zoe & Christopher Parham. youngamerican (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I guess. Notable enough, even if I could see a whole slew of articles created on related behaviors. Sarge Baldy 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep but suggest a rename to Outhouse tipping which is a famous and ancient prank. Expand accordingly. Jonathunder 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep well known joke. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated above. Ew. aliceinlampyland 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green hat

Copied from self-help book? Definately unencyclopedic. Kerowyn 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Revolución (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I still don't know what it is. --Kinu 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --M @th wiz 2020 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete "The green hat is specifically concerned with ... new ways of looking at things" I'm thinking of looking at this as a redlink. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Six Thinking Hats. Tearlach 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Blnguyen 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete No green light on the green hat Ruby 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Royboycrashfan 03:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Possibly copyvio also. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense, no context to determine use of the article. Could be original research or copyvio. Delete in any case. (aeropagitica) 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic, possible copyvio. JIP | Talk 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Six Thinking Hats - this makes sense --~::Annie Chung::~ 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Six Thinking Hats. Are there arguments against redirecting? It would take care of any copyvio. --Allen 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Have any of the Delete voters actually bothered to check out the context? Google confirms that this clearly refers to one of the concepts in Edward De Bono's lateral thinking book Six Thinking Hats. Personally, I think the idea is utter utter bullshit. But as it relates to a book by a notable figure, and a page exists for the book, why not redirect to it? Since the content will be destroyed by redirection, as Allen says, copyvio won't be an issue. Tearlach 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No idea why should fairly generic green hat point to such a book. Green hat may happen to be actual historical term. Pavel Vozenilek 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete although this has already been userfied, so the content is not being "lost". W.marsh 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Ripple

Vanity page by SRipple, multimedia artist from Austin, TX. Has already been userfied. Please tell him if he is notable. -- RHaworth 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Kinu 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Self published, 60 copies, this march, that's three reasons to delete. Ruby 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ruby. Royboycrashfan 03:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Author on ARTICLE talk page resigned to its deletion; most data moved to USER talk page (G7) Avi 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- See here: [1]
Delete nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not yet notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete if now copied to user's own page, this can be deleted as WP:VANITY. Sixty vanity-imprint books to be published in March 2006 is not enough to qualify for notability, nor is writing for defunct websites or acting in one short film. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep if this really is the Sean Ripple from The American Analog Set (which was for some reason not wikilinked in this article) as the article contends. AmAnSet is a notable band and there are many Wikipedia bio pages of people whose only claim to fame is being in a band of lesser fame. I'm not sure how to verify the two people are one and the same. But, afd pages being what they are (same people... usually don't look at the afd after they've voted), I'm guessing that I'm beating my head against the wall here.--Hraefen 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've left a note on the user's talk page asking them to comment on this matter. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Essexmutant 10:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in fact the same SRipple from The American Analog Set. This whole issue came up (after having the page up for quite a few months) because I goofed around with a trail concept using the name Sean from my page. It was an art project not meant to cause any harm. As I mentioned on my talk page, I realized after thinking about it that it was very irresponsible of me to mess with the integrity of Wikipedia's function. I enjoy this site and agree with RHaworth when he states that Sean Trail was, "pure vandalism."

Regarding the issue with whether or not I am notable...I suspect that a great deal of the content you have on your site pertaining to people currently involved in the creative arts has been added by the publicists of the people being documented. I don't see this as any less vain. It's just a tad more removed. The few bits of self-promotion that I added recently (60 self-published books in March) were mentioned to try and gain some momentum as an artist. I suspect that publicists are doing the same sort of thing to promote the latest whatever.

I've learned that I should respect Wikipedia for its function. If you choose to keep this page, then I will be appreciative. If you do not, I understand.

Best,

SRipple

P.S. Right after this whole thing happened, I noticed someone editing a falsehood about me into my bio. I had to edit it out. I've left my response on the bio. It reads, "The bit about Fela Kuti was funny, but untrue."

Keep. Needs cleanup by neutral hands, but subject is genuinely notable for music. -Colin Kimbrell 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain - changed vote of nominator. -- RHaworth 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. The JPS 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion if the subject is notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete even without discounting the comments from users who have made almost no other contributions to WP but this AfD. W.marsh 18:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imao blog

Does not meet WP:WEB criteria. Delete. Fightindaman 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete. See Little Green Footballs, etc.-many other blogs are on Wikipedia. IMAO recieves thousands of hits daily, and certaily is worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.152.26 (talk • contribs)

Delete, not notable per WP:WEB. Bad ideas 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 102,649. --Kinu 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Alexa rank of only 102,649. Not very promising. Royboycrashfan 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and move to IMAO.us (which seems to be the more common name). Verifiable justification for possible notability has been provided in the article now. It may not be the most prestigious blog, but I'm now inclined to let it stay. If these assertions had been present from the outset, I would have voted to keep all along. As a note, on Google, "IMAO.us" turns up many, many more search results than "Imao blog" does, so that should be the article's title if it survives this AfD. -- TKD 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. "Thousands of hits" is not notable. -- TKD 03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:32Z
Delete per nom. Avi 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:WEB. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete hits do not determine notability.VirtualSteve 10:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:Web Compu te r Jo e

13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Double Plus Delete I don't want to be a part of your stupid doodie-head site. I once read an article on 802.11 ecryption here, and it was slightly inaccurate on one point. IMAO only associates itself with quality and 100% accuracy.--Frank J. Fleming 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non notable. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Resubmit it in Newspeak and perhaps the Minitrue will see fit to publish your prole literature. 2+2=5--Isotope23 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Multiple award nominations meets criteria for notability per WP:WEB. FlyingSpaceMonkey 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: WP:WEB states that the website must have won a well-known and independent award. This blog has not. Fightindaman 17:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: WP:WEB further states "Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability." This blog has. FlyingSpaceMonkey 17:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, shameless plug. - Mulder416 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not Delete Multiple award nominations meets criteria for notability per WP:WEB. IMAO has had numerous nominations for best humor blogs. ----Jfqueen 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This vote is Jfqueen's first post. Fightindaman 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete IMAO is a significant blog in Conservative circles, I use it by name in talking. Unless Wikipedia entry is only suitable for blogs dependending on which way they lean? No reason to delete a blog that has had multiple awards and links from many sites. User: ArcaneFury

Comment. The above vote is actually by 66.24.29.24. User: ArcaneFury does not have any edits. -- TKD 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete eh I say its a borderline case. Somewhat notable blog in my opinion. ScottM
Do not Delete. Somewhat notable, both in its readership and its effect on the conservative blogosphere. Viz. the term "Puppy Blender" for Glenn Reynolds was invented on IMAO, and is now widely used. Edgr 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable blog. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Shanel 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal umlaut

Non-encyclopedic trivia -- Zwilson 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep; this is a former featured article. --Craig Stuntz 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, featured article. Very odd for a featured article, but it's there. Grandmasterka 02:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, interesting modern culture topic, encyclopedic enough for three interwikis. Better even speedy keep as featured article. Kusma (討論) 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Obviously. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, featured article. Ashibaka tock 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manbean

Appears to be a nonnotable webcomic character. Only 1 google hit seems to be relevant to the subject. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete; one issue, Alexa infinity, fails WP:WEB, and I don't think anything else is going to be relevant. Melchoir 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:WEB. --Kinu 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delte per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:31Z
Delete per nom. Avi 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT Mr Frosty 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bios Data Analyzer

Article appears to be the computer software equivalent of band vanity, i.e. its not notable. The only google hits point back to WP. Furthermore, the software seems to implement Bios theory, a topic itself that is itself possibly pseudoscience or original research or something irrational: this accusation is right now being hotly debated at Talk:Bios theory and Talk:Chaos theory. WP is not the place for advertizing software, and even less for advertising pseudoscience software. linas 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, advertising. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Academia's version of advertising. I don't know how notable the journal in which this was published is, but it doesn't seem to pass WP:SOFTWARE anyway. --Kinu 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable software for pseudoscientific stuff. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:31Z
Delete advert Avi 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: whatever it is, its title is very misleading (for the computer's BIOS). Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete it is not notable and propagates erroneous notions. XaosBits 03:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting how none of you marked Chaos Data Analyzer for deletion. Lakinekaki
Delete, I just read WP:SOFTWARE (which is a proposal only, but a good one in my oppinion) provided by Kinu and agree that it is not notable. Lakinekaki
P.S.: linas, your categorization of Bios theory as protoscience is good, your categorization of Bios theory as pseudoscience or original research or something irrational is nothing more than your personal oppinion that by the way happens to be incorrect.Lakinekaki
delete (since Bios theory itself should die) William M. Connolley 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
William M. Connolley, no need for emotinal outbursts here! :o) Noone or nothing should die. That's such a strong, emotionally charged word. And you reasoning is false. Even if Bios theory turns out to be false, but there are million of users of Bios Data Analyzer, then the article should stay! One does not imply the existence or nonexistence of the other! Lakinekaki
Delete not notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Shanel - CSD A7 --light darkness 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dnk

Nonnotable band. Delete. Jogloran 02:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Judge Me

Delete NN webcomic. Google returned no related hits Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, reeks of WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:VSCA and indiscriminate collection of information about a non-notable and unverifiable topic. --Kinu 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable webcomic. It's not even obvious what the website (the name is too common). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:28Z
Delete They are as old as group of photos?! (Collage-aged). :) Regardless, non-notable. Avi 04:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable webcomic. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:VSCA, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. enochlau (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pajoolr

Incoherent nonsensical story (Pajoolr (Also known was "Lord Pajoolr" or "The Allmighty Pajoolr") is the name of the God and King of all things, according to Lord Aegis and Lord Draconis, the two eletust muvafukas dat ever wolkd d oif). Speedy tag removed, so I'm bringing it here for clarity (sorry). Delete or speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete: G1 as patent nonsense. Not even worthy of BJAODN's high standards. --Kinu 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- This user appears to be a pest, as per his talk page. Blockworthy? --Kinu 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, attack/nonsense. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 03:27Z

What's the difference between posting something such as this, as opposed to "SNK Boss Syndrome"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Merchant (talk • contribs)

This page was created by my best friend and I to shed some background light onto a character that we have created and written several stories about, a few of which are going to be published in 2007. We are a pair of British Humor writers from Oxford, England.

We don't mean to be pests, but we do feel that we have the freedom to place information on our characters here. Won't it be handy, once the stories are published, to have this page? Perhaps it seems like nonsense, but then again, I'm sure Harry Potter did too, at first. We would be very grateful if you were leave our page be. We don't mind perhaps editing it a bit, but we'd like to keep it as-is.

Cheers mates.

Also, please note, it was not "made up in school one day". We are both professional authors by trade.

Speedy delete. You do not have the freedom to place information here - everything here is by the grace and favour of the Wikipedia community, and I think you will see its opinions very clearly here. -- RHaworth 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This type of page is not why Wikipedia exists. There are guidelines for encyclopedic articles. It fails WP:WEB (ZERO Google results), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (as this is claimed to be "yet-to-be" released material). The comment above also tends toward WP:VSCA, as you have a vested interest in the article, and because you are effectively using it to advertise your "yet-to-be published" book. Further, you have also lowered your credibility by repeatedly ignoring requests to stop vandalizing and deleting AfD tags. I'm not trying to bite, but let's be honest with each other here. --Kinu 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While I do understand and respect the Wikipedia community, and the content and quality guidelines therein, I do not see any real harm in allowing our article to persist. And even if, as you say, we use this page as a means of promotion, what harm is there? We won't be generating any financial benefits from this, as the stories are being published in a local Oxford humor magazine free of royalty, as we also have not copyrighted or syndicated our characters or stories. If anything, the only consequence of allowing the article to persist, would be more traffic to the website, and I hardly deem that to be an undesirable side-effect. Furthermore, it is a negligible possibility that anyone apart from my partner and I will view the page for well over a year, so, I say again, what harm is there?

the only consequence of allowing the article to persist, would be more traffic to the website... Again, advertising is not the purpose of Wikipedia. As the author, your purpose on AfD should not be asking "Why not keep this article?" but answering "Why keep this article?" --Kinu 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather elementary question. "Why?" "Why not?" We're not children anymore, my friend, but that particular argument could render us as such, and go on for an indeterminable amount of time. I simply fail to see why you cannot just allow us our one article. It's not bothering, intruding, or linking to anyone elses. You've probobly allready wasted more than a fair share of your time. As to the purpose of Wikipedia.. I was always under the impression that it was a community-driven encyclopedia or articles posted by users on topic which they find interesting, and have a knowledge of. If there can be a Wikipedia page for a novel, there can be one for our as-of-yet unreleased stories, there is absolutely no real difference there. And like I said, it has the possibility of generating traffic for the rest of the website, which is hardly a detrimental attribute. To be honest, I'm starting to think of the restriction on our article as, dare I say it, a tad fascistic. While I can certainly appreciate a certain amount of zeal for upholding the site's 'regulations', I hardly see it as being neccesary, or even particularly fair, to be so prejudiced against something you term 'nonsense'. I term some of those guidelines 'nonsense', does that give me the right to change or remove them? I hardly think so.

This is a pretty common argument here on AfD, so let me warn you that you are unlikely to gain traction with it. In any case, WP is an encyclopedia, not a repository for everything in the world, and therefore it is restricted to topics that are encyclopedic: that is, well known, reasonably important, verifiable, and objectively written. When your work is well known, we will be happy to have an article describing it. The key phrase in your paragraph above is "as-of-yet unreleased." See in particular what wikipedia is not, including "wikipedia is not a crystal ball." thanks. bikeable (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I simply fail to see why you cannot just allow us our one article: Because that would set a precedent. Wikipedia would have to allow anything and everything, and AfD would cease to exist. ... It's not bothering, intruding, or linking to anyone elses: Orphaned articles are frowned upon. If an article is relevant, it's safe to say that at least one other one would link to it. ... If there can be a Wikipedia page for a novel, there can be one for our as-of-yet unreleased stories, there is absolutely no real difference there: Yes there is. One has been released, one has not and with no verifiability of release beyond your own claim. As has been said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... I'm starting to think of the restriction on our article as, dare I say it, a tad fascistic: Other users and I have cited reasons. We don't know each other. We don't always agree. But we do here. Doesn't sound fascist to me. ... I term some of those guidelines 'nonsense', does that give me the right to change or remove them? I hardly think so.: Apples and oranges. Feel free to read the talk pages for the guidelines. They've been discussed, rediscussed, and discussed again. They're not about 100% agreement, and some people downright hate them. But they're about consensus, just like AfD. Sometimes I interpret the guidelines differently and I lose to the majority on some AfDs. That's life. So is this. If the consensus here is to delete, within those guidelines, then that's what it is. --Kinu 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, not G1...but G3. It shows blatant disregard for Wiki-policy, IMO. PJM 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If being well known is a pre-requisite for an article to stay on Wikipedia, I could nominate a rather large number of articles for deletion on that exact same basis. Hypocrisy is a terrible habit. If that is such a common argument, perhaps you should take a step back, be 'objective' yourself, and consider as to why that it is so common? I'm sure your first remark on that will be something derisive or involving a degradation of the maturity of those who use the argument. However, if many people use it, could it be, oh my stars, that it is a valid and sound argument? And, if such is the case, a sound and valid argument generating no 'traction', as you put it, is hardly a positive light to have yourself viewed in. Furthermore, what 'consensus' has been achieved? The way I see it, two people wish the article to be deleted, and two do not.

The argument would be relevant if it didn't go against the core of wikipedia, which is, again, an encyclopedia. See WP:N and WP:V for rough guidelines on articles that belong in wikipedia. Certainly, if you think that there are articles that don't belong, you are welcome to put them up for deletion (although we hold very strongly to WP:POINT). We're not singling you out; yours is one of many that someone (in this case me) thought wasn't appropriate. As far as "something derisive", you don't give us enough credit; we try to assume good faith. I'd encourage you to learn more about what wikipedia is here for and stick around and contribute to that process. bikeable (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete nonsense; just look at the ninjas /shakes head. Toss this drivel, PLEASE! Avi 04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What, May I ask, is your problem with Ninjas? Are you racially disinclined to idols of Asian folklore? Racially intolerant? That poses an interesting question, as to the fairness of your..Opinion.

Fair enough, I think you've all made your points. We imposed something on your premises which you clearly don't want to have here; so go for it. I'm not opposed to the deletion of this article anymore. - A.M.

I am, however, opposed to the existence of Avi. - A.M.

I'm inclined to agree. I would, however, like to thank you for your maturity and patience in this matter. We very much appreciate you taking the time to make us understand why our article cannot stay, and we apologise for using up so much of your time. Which was our goal. -LD

Likewise. Racist. -LD

Comment: Motion to withhold responses and counterattacks per WP:TROLL and WP:CIV. --Kinu 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pajoolr Bless You All.

Speedy delete per Kinu Ruby 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Tourette Syndrome. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of famous people with Tourette Syndrome

content cut-and-pasted from Tourette Syndrome, would serve no purpose even as a redirect-- Babajobu 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as per my nom Babajobu 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ditto - no usefulness as a redirect - cut and paste Sandy 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per above. PJM 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, completely useless. Royboycrashfan 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft, information already exists in Tourette Syndrome article. (aeropagitica) 07:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as useless list. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Tourette Syndrome. Based on naming conventions this is a plausible search term. Just no need for a separate article yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Mgm to discourage recreation. Stifle 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to recreation of a well-sourced article that isn't just a copy job from the main article. youngamerican (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panscope

Advertisement Ruby 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Kinu 03:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Maybe one day when this revolutionizes medicine but nn as of yet. Reads like an ad. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete blatant advertisement Avi 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. People have no shame. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Great, another story about a ~~third party~~ group's beginning...that hasn't even ended. Royboycrashfan 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Appallingly-written advert. Woeful. (aeropagitica) 07:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisment. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertisement- straight copy from cited website. copyvio. not yet notable. Camillus (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Another ad. --SammyTerry 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete an advert. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. enochlau (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Guhl

nn bio, self-promotion Ruby 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy a7. Also falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography. Rory096 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: A7 per Rory096. Having an Equity card doesn't instantly make you notable, nor does making a movie that turns up next to nothing on Google. --Kinu 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. There are claims of notability in the article, so A7 should not apply. PJM 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable as of yet Avi 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradycubia

A poorly attested neologism for the practice commonly known as karezza or coitus reservatus. 195 unique Google hits, on Wikipedia mirrors and swinger sites. Pilatus 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Shows up on The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices Ruby 03:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Snickers

No vote at the moment. Would it be proper to merge and redirect to coitus reservatus? I'm no expert on this topic (*insert snickers here*), but if someone who knows more about this agrees that these are rather similar and linked topics, then I'd vote for that. --Kinu 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do, let's not rush, so to speak. Ruby 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- ... *grins sheepishly* :P --Kinu 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-encyclopædic Avi 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge or keep, per Ruby. Kappa 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If sheep are involved, definitely delete -- Simon Cursitor 08:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect but very very very slowly ;-) Carlossuarez46 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Ruby. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candaulism

A poorly attested neologism with 144 unique Google hits found on Wikipedia mirrors, swinger sites and porno sites. Not used in the scientific literature, Google Scholar and Google Books don't have hits for the term. That includes the German and French versions Candaulismus and candaulisme. Pilatus 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep About as many hits as you would expect for a niche "hobby" like this Ruby 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I thought swingers call it cuckoldry or cuckolding. My complaint isn't that it isn't common, it is that it isn't called by this name. Pilatus 03:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  - But you already told us that swinger sites and porno sites call it by that name. Kappa 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia isn't for things made up in school one day. Porno and swinging is popular; only 144 hits for a sexual practice is poor. Cambridge City Football Club has 2090 Google hits, and they play only Nationwide South! Pilatus 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Why are we comparing the unique hits of an unusual sexual practice with the full hits for a football club? Kappa 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's picked as an example for something that is not very popular or of regional interest only. Cambridge City are a regional club playing 6th league. I'd expect something genuinely popular to clock up more Google hits than that club. Pilatus 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge Kappa 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Ruby. What will people think of next? --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Cuckoldry is when the wife actually has some form of sexual activity with someone not her husband; this is just exposure. Avi 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with cuckoldry which is the much more common name for this. Capitalistroadster 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe cuckoldry requires actual sexual contact (intercourse etc.); this article describes a completely non-tactile phenomenon. -- Avi 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Avi is correct; cuckoldry is different from this. If a woman has sexual relations with someone other than her husband, her husband has been cuckolded. If a man shows people revealing pictures of his wife, no cuckoldry has occured, and only husbands can be cuckolded at any rate. Ergot 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I am not sure if the name is the proper one, but deleting the contents on that basis seems wrong. If there is a more appropriate title, rename it. Reading the article also brought to mind the story of Queen Vashti in the Book of Esther, chap. 1, verses 9-12. The practice, whatever its name, is certainly not cuckoldry as no sex was to occur there and I don't think that the King was feeling as a cuckold in putting his wife's "beauty" to the eyes of the voyeurs... Carlossuarez46 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep The term is taken from the german book "Lexicon von Liebe" (1984) by Ernest Borneman. The term is older than cuckoldry, was applied to nudism and did not implied necessarily sexual contact,

as cuckoldry. Candaulism was considered a mix of exhibitionism, voyeurism and masochism-sadism. Cuckoldry was unthinkable.--Giancarlo Rossi 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleo

WP is not a crystal ball Ruby 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Melchoir 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now that it's found references. Melchoir 09:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (Without prejudice, so if it actually gets unveiled tomorrow and a famous manufacturer preoders >100,000 of them, come back then. :P) --Kinu 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not enough background. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It was just announced, and a number of articles just came out about this thing. --NeuronExMachina 04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. One google hit. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing my vote to strong delete. To add to what Ruby has said below, it's pure crystal ball, not because the date of unveiling is today, but because presently it has next to no notability; what's crystal ball is its future notability, which is the standard for keep, and not whether it is a real product that's on store shelves today or tomorrow. Under that standard, specifically, Wikipedia's guidelines for brand name products, it is patently non-notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, doing a google search for "pleo" and "ugobe" will get 429 hits. --NeuronExMachina 08:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, at least until tomorrow (when it's unveiled), so we know if it's actually worth an article. Rory096 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. "The toy is to be [unveiled] on February 7th 2006." And that's crystal ball how? Royboycrashfan 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much keying on when it's unveiled as when it's released (Fall 2006), because that's when we will see if it is notably popular. Ruby 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- The company is in California. It's still February 6 there. :P --Kinu 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it's tomorrow for them. It's still not crystal ball if it happens the next day. Royboycrashfan 05:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Think of the unveiling tomorrow as the ground-breaking ceremony for a store, and Autumn is when it opens. Ruby 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Well-referenced, and if we got rid of "to be released products" we'd get rid of PlayStation 3, right? RealMontrealer 06:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Exactly. One might say that the PS3 should be kept because it's from a notable company and the previous releases were notable, but this is created by the same person as the Furby, so one could say that this will, by that logic, be notable, since the Furby was. Rory096 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep well-referenced. Crystal ball isn't valid when said information is encyclopedic and verifiable right now. Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to try one more time - The crystal ball aspect of this nomination refers to the notability of the product that is being advertised in this article. The product exists, assuredly, but it may flop when it is retailed this fall. Ruby 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete as advertising. Come back when the toy is internationally well-known. Zunaid 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertising, crystal ball per Ruby. MLA 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Advertising? I'm probably the person responsible for the majority of the article's content, and I assure you that I have no affiliation whatsoever with the company making the thing. I just think it's an interesting device, and as worthy of an article as the Playstation 3 or QRIO. Also, in response to the comment below. --NeuronExMachina 22:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, item does not exist. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll respond here, at the latest delete vote: the item may not be sold, but it is already generating press coverage. The San Jose Mercury News alone has an estimated daily readership of a million. Melchoir 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, has now been announced, has been covered in mainstream media. Jaco plane 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Disclaimer: Bias (creator), at the risk of fisking; google hits aren't that accurate without good keywords, one hit maybe, but several references, not enough background? Add some..., and the playstation 3 point again. - Alec.N 12:04 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is an interesting robotic toy which people will want to read about + featured in PC-Magazine. --Heida Maria 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
KeepI've checked this page twice in the last 3 days for information about this, if I'm interested other people are as well. Wikipedia is very useful to me as a tool to research random words/posts on the internet. I would like to be able to find what a pleo is and why it is important without having to sift through google.-pKD
Strong Keep as Heida. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 07:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epagoge

Delete: Accidental creation Ted 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete If ted is the original author, he should use a {{db-author}} on it. Avi 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Author nominated. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to what it was originally a redirect to (Syllogism). Ted is not the author, Twrigley is (well, an anonymous editor was the original author back in 02, but Twrigley is the one who made it into an article rather than a redirect). Rory096 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Put your pointer over "Ted" it links to Twrigley, the way my "Avi" links to "Avraham" :) Avi 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert per Rory. Stifle 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Rory. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] National Kidney Foundation Singapore/Sources of public comments

Delete or provide context. "Article" is a collection of links, all to different pages on the same site. No other content is provided. No information about the organization being objected to, no context. Csari 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Creative way to avoid a copyvio Ruby 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of links. Also a subpage in Main, which is a *tsk tsk*. --Kinu 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete i believe this was used to collect information when event was unfolding, it is not needed now. --Vsion (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not even to cite text in National Kidney Foundation Singapore? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because the article was overhauled recently. --Vsion (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not needed now, maybe in the future. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Notable roller coasters. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fastest roller coasters

Information is duplicated on Notable roller coasters page SpikeJones 04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete coaster cruft Ruby 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge or keep. Kappa 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kappa, he said the info was duplicated, meaning it's the same. Rory096 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No redirect or merge necessary. --Kinu 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dedupe, as per nom. (aeropagitica) 07:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:43Z
Redirect, 'fastest' is quite a likely search term. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
redirect per naming conventions this is a likely search term, so redirect is useful. Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per Squiddy.--み使い Mitsukai 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per common sense. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Its cheap and might be a search term. youngamerican (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Notable roller coasters. Mailer Diablo 09:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest roller coasters

Information duplicated on Notable roller coasters page SpikeJones 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ruby 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge or keep, duplication isn't a reason for deletion. Kappa 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Pschemp | ^Talk 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dedupe, as per nom. (aeropagitica) 07:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Why can't "tallest roller coasters" just point to the appropriate subsection of the more extensive article? Tomyumgoong 07:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:43Z
Redirect, 'tallest' is quite a likely search term. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per naming conventions this is a likely search term, so redirect is useful. Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per Squiddy.--み使い Mitsukai 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per common sense. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. Stifle 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Its cheap and it might be a search term. youngamerican (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Notable roller coasters, but not at that name. Per convention, such a list should include only notable entries. Jonathunder 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted Thryduulf 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JCN

tagged for "importance" but seems subnotable. Not worth merging into its parent college either. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable organization. 142 Google hits, not all related. Rory096 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable IT-education club. Tagged as {{nn-club}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:42Z
Delete. Non notable; --Abu Badali 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MC Encyclopedia Bear

Tried PROD, author removed tag, this is an article about a nickname Ruby 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity/twaddle. Google search returns one hit to site which, appropriately enough, bills itself as "all the mediocre crap you've come to accept." --Fuhghettaboutit 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh... sorry, I'm a bit new to the wikipedia article creation thing. I didn't mean to delete the prod comment, I thought that a friend of mine was editing it. Anyway, thanks for making fun of my site Fuhghettaboutit...Elsaturnino 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Guess I sort of violated "don't bite the newbies". Sorry. Articles about yourself are not really well received here. I'm not encyclopedic, neither are you. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - seems like a vanity page. --Walter Görlitz 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I feel like this is an appropriate article. It is verifiable (you could try contacting the WKDU people and asking about mike drift and me) and we had a fair amount of listeners who were sad to see us break up the show so quickly.Elsaturnino 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, it didn't occur to me that this was an autobiography too. Ruby 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Kinu 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As nn as it gets. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable bio, WP:BIO refers. Userfy if author is a newbie, as per WP:BITE. (aeropagitica) 07:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable rapper, vanity article. JIP | Talk 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, autobiographical, etc Snurks ^{T C} 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:40Z
Delete Non-notable Avi 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compunicate

Neologism; ~700 google hits Amcfreely 04:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kinu 05:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Why, WHY do these keep on popping up?! Avi 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete but create a neopedia wiki to transwiki these to as they crop up. Has anyone ever reviewed deleted neo/protologisms to see how many eventually made it into (I really love this phrase) common parlance? Adrian Lamo ·· 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus even with strict sock/meatpuppet consideration. W.marsh 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Not Guaranteed

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

Non-notable spoof advert that circulates about the web. Is this what they call a meme? -- RHaworth 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, It's a valid internet fad and phenomenon that deserves to stay. Ernzoa 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The user of that name has 3 total edits. Statement actually made under anon IP 68.39.180.180, which has six edits.

Keep, It is a real internet meme and should stay Orbframe 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it's informative and part of a major internet meme. RegBarc 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it's informative like any other page. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have funny contents? Exel 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 7 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, it's not a JUST YTMND thing. It appeared in a newspaper, for god's sake. --roflzlz 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.165.57 (talk • contribs)

No such user, see attribution above. -Colin Kimbrell 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Keep, it's a valid ytmnd fad and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgbduck (talk • contribs)

User has 2 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep!!! Don't delete it! Wikipedia must guarantee this article's safety! --risingpower 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 11 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Maybe this is an attempt to create a meme from scratch. No vote. Ruby 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete... or merge, if popularity is asserted, with list on List of YTMND fads per the standard procedure. --Kinu 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC
Keep or merge with List of YTMND fads but if it's being kept it needs to be rewritten so as not to sound like a joke. Cactuarenigma 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 5 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If verified, merge into List of YTMND fads, with a re-direct there (hope this terminology is correct -- this is the first time I've suggested such a thing), as it will then provide later researchers with a cross-reference from the "Safety Not Guranteed" tag. If not verified, delete -- Simon Cursitor 08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This comment was edited by User:Stilanas [2]. I have restored it. -Colin Kimbrell 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also vote for merge with List of YTMND fads as long as the entry includes a pic of the mullet guy. This fad has gotten too mainstream to delete altogether. --Shorty Longstrokin 10:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note: AFD is a discussion, not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 1 total edit. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep or merge with the List of YTMND fads. This article must be kept to take wikipedia to the LIMIT! -- Ben Sullivan 7:34, 8 February 2006

Please note: AFD is a discussion, not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 3 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'Keep". A bit too much content to be done justice on "List of YTMND Fads". SA9097

Keep, it's good. Bill Bisco

User has 2 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, nn meme, too many sockpuppets pushing an agenda on this discussion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This comment was edited by User:Vsf3000 [3]. I have restored it. -Colin Kimbrell 22:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, i don't see why this has to be deleted (Guest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.60.85 (talk • contribs)
Merge, I agree with the others here. It should be merged into the List of YTMND fads—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.133.200.237 (talk • contribs)
Merge as mentioned above, otherwise delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge - although amusing, I don't think this is any more noteworthy than any other YTMND fad. LupusCanis 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 25 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - An internet meme which has it's own origins outside of YTMND. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with List of YTMND fads, although the ad may come from an outside source, it's meme status is only because of YTMND. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 07:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Colonel Cow 01:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. Also, the anon/sockpuppet votes are irritating. --Alan Au 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Polite query :: by what criteria are you identifying the "sockpuppets" ? I ask, because the term seems to be thrown around on AfD like afrisbee without any hint as to how s-ps are identified or why, if they can be identified, someone doesn't just erase their entries. -- Simon Cursitor 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[[4]] (see the header about Meatpuppets, as well) User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I can't confirm that any of the above are actually sockpuppets by the official definition, but that's because the votes here are the only recorded edits listed for some of the users. This implies that the accounts were created for the sole purpose of voting for this article. As much as I would love to delete those votes, removing votes is bad form. --Alan Au 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge This page is virtually impossible to find. It either needs to be linked from the YTMND fad page, or given a section there. Penis Gourd 09:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 6 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. --Casiotone 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 19 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Its growing into a big trend --Stilanas 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Smerge with List of YTMND fads. I'd be OK with a Delete as well; this doesn't seem to have much traction outside of YTMND. -Colin Kimbrell 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Redirect to List of YTMND fads, since it's already been smerged. -Colin Kimbrell 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete All-your-base this thing ain't, funny on borderline it may be but sure as heck not funny enough for its own friggin' article... and looks like meatpuppets got us again, too. Can someone show them some broom? And what was the magic code that summoned the handy red-bordered, huge-exclamation-mark-sign boxie again? I forgot, never used it myself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Read some more. If included in List of YTMND fads, this probably would need a complete rewrite anyway (as in "cut down with a chainsaw until a sentence or two remains"), so I think it's safe to stay on delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Given the sockpuppet allegations, I've appended a note under the name of each user with 25 or fewer edits (regardless of their opinion on the article). -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Sort of informative; too much information for List of YTMND fads --Evil Vin 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User has 14 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep The safety of this page was never guaranteed in the first place... but the meme extends beyond YTMND and adding it to multiple articles seems pointless. Bah ~~--147.126.46.147 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)~~ I claim ownership of the previous vote --Nick Catalano (Talk) 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note: AFD is not a vote.-Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's spawning plenty of popular "me too" YTMND articles. Merge to List of YTMND fads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catkins (talk • contribs)

User has 1 total edit. -Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep: It should be linked to from the various pages that have been vandalised by YTMND addicts. Whether at the top like disambiguation or at the bottom in some section. -- J Darnley 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Let's not be hypocrites. O rly was allowe to stay around, why shouldn't this? Excuse me if the Wikipedia cultural elite thinks this is should be deleted, but I'm not buying it. --Tykell 23:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep: If Numa Numa guy gets an entry there's nothing stopping this. Noclip 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Google results for ("numa numa" -newgrounds): 798,000. Google results for ("o rly" -4chan): 492,000. Google results for ("safety not guaranteed" -ytmnd): 427. The difference should be pretty obvious, no? -Colin Kimbrell 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know, but it's clearly been enough to create a massive vandal attack on Wikipedia just for the humour of it. --Tykell 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Those results are of now. Obviously when numa numa was started, it had little or no results. Just as this may have right now. --Zeno McDohl 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment: There are lots of things that may become notable, the vast majority of which never do. Assuming future notability for things which are not currently notable is crystal ball-ism. If/when it does, we can make a new article on it then. -Colin Kimbrell 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment: Yes but considering it's new, you cannot say it's not notable, because search engines do not crawl sites instantaneously. --Zeno McDohl 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment: A direct quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." The burden of proof is on the one claiming notability, and if we can't verify this yet, we don't want it yet. After it becomes a verifiably notable meme, we can re-create a standalone article, if people think one is warranted. -Colin Kimbrell 14:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment: Last I heard, notability is not an official policy here. --Zeno McDohl 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment: You're right about notability not being a policy or guideline, but many people here see it as a logical application of WP:NOT and/or WP:VAIN, which are. Furthermore, a claim of notability made within the context of the article needs to be just as verifiable as any other fact. The article states "this internet phenomenon has found many homes", and if that's not verifiably the case, it doesn't belong in the article.-Colin Kimbrell 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment: I should probably mention that if this survives as a standalone article, it's probably going to need to be cut way back to meet with policies and guidelines. The whole "Investigation" section violates WP:OR, and the copyright status of the first image (Timetravel.jpg) is bogus, just to name two examples. -Colin Kimbrell 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: This "meme" is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. 151.199.12.41 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Notable internet meme. --Zeno McDohl 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: It's a fad; fads are not encyclopedic. Jolb 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, are you certain about that? --Zeno McDohl 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, a list of fads is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, in-depth coverage of just one particularly lame fad is indeed NOT encyclopedic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs)

Lame eh? That would be your own opinion. Here's in-depth coverage of a fad, so I think your point is invalid. --Zeno McDohl 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have pretty extensive coverage of fads in general[5]; the more germane question is whether this particular fad is notable among fads. We have lots of articles about sculptures, too[6], but that doesn't mean that all sculptures are inherently worthy of an article. You have to judge each case on its own merits (or lack thereof). -Colin Kimbrell 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge: To list of YTMND fads, as the safety of that page is guaranteed. The writer probably only did this once before, and didn't bring his own weapons. FireballX301 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: It's well detailed, gives insight into the fad. If we're going to delete every YTMND fad, why not delete every Beatles song and put them all under "List of Beatles songs." Okay, that's a stretch, but still. Several Wikipedia users seem to have a bias against YTMND. After all, Brian Peppers is definitely notable, and his article keeps being deleted. Also, Colin Kimbrell, stop being a dick. And go ahead and check, you'll see I've made plenty of edits.--Josh 08:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Just for the record, I had never even heard of YTMND until Wikipedia. -Colin Kimbrell 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of Brian Peppers either, but he's apparently been deleted three times, for reasons ranging from "attack page" to "copyvio".[7]. -Colin Kimbrell 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't realize that there was copyvio going on in that article.--Josh 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a really complicated situation; he's actually on deletion review right now. [8] -Colin Kimbrell 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, it's a meme. the iBook of the Revolution 05:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
delete.Geni 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a vote. --Zeno McDohl 22:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your discusion is going on above.Geni 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does Colin Kimbrell keep listing the number of edits each commenter has made? Do you need to edit 100 pages to get into the Secret Wiki Adventure Club?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.56.11 (talk • contribs)

generaly the exact number is undefined.Geni 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the people who advocate deletion want to make sure that the administrators ignore people who came to edit a particular article. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we just have to live with it. I had to deal with this once. Thankfully, my work was saved. Crazyswordsman 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because several people upthread had made allegations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and given that, I thought it'd be best if everybody's cards were out in the open. It also makes things simpler for the closing admin. Of course, I'd already mentioned this upthread here (down at the bottom), so if you really wanted to know, you could've just read the rest of the thread. -Colin Kimbrell 14:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep or Merge/Redirect. The fad is growing, and it is an original one, too. Crazyswordsman 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right on both counts, though it's certainly not growing very fast. In the two days since I last checked, '"safety not guaranteed" -ytmnd' has increased to 472 hits on google, an increase of 45. The people pushing this had better hope it's a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. -Colin Kimbrell 15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- It has 11 pages on YTMND, which means it is growing fast enough. Crazyswordsman 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but notability within YTMND isn't enough in-and-of itself; that's exactly why we have List of YTMND fads in the first place. We need outside sources of crossover to general popular culture if we want a standalone article on the subject. -Colin Kimbrell 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable nonsense. This isn't a real fad. This is completely pointless, original research, and makes a joke out of the encyclopedia. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep.It was an ad in a newspaper, and completely genuine. Yes, YTMND has picked it up, but it was a real event, and therefore a legitmate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.47.120 (talk • contribs)
Incredibly Strong Delete So Powerful It Overrides All Keep Votes On All Articles For Deletion For Every Wikipedia Site Existing In All Parallel Dimensions For All Eternity. "Safety Not Guaranteed" was not a true Internet fad beyond YTMND, and it didn't originate from YTMND.com either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.151.144 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to List of YTMND fads - This meme is not internet wide, but is only on YTMND and is thus not notible enough for its own article. VegaDark 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - notability has not been established. -- Pierremenard 08:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Kuralyov 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep User: Dr. R.K.Z Define "not a true internet fad", YTMND in itself is one of the most profilic internet meme sources on the 'net and has generated attention on other sites and forum communities. Peanut Butter Jelly started somewhere did'nt it? Keep, its' slowly becoming a fad on its' own merits
Keep A valid article. Xizer 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep How else is the world going to know about internet fads. Wikipedia is supposed to be about knowledge of everything right? --68.83.243.92 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. There are many things that have been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia, and others who's questionability is unnecessary. This is one of those gray areas. Personally, I think this is fine (it was in a newspaper), but there are others who disagree and think more references are needed. Also, Wikipedia can't be the first place something is published. That would be "original research," which is illegal here. Sorry.Crazyswordsman 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolute Delete - Looking at the Google results, this is obviously not a popular meme, which is why they have tried using Wikipedia to spread the thing. I can't believe all the new users just spamming this keep for this. - Hahnchen 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete only socres a couple of hundred Googles - it's a minor YTMND fad, not even an Internet meme. Wikipedia is not the YTMND FAQ. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If this is either redirected or deleted outright, it should probably be protected. -Colin Kimbrell 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chonga

Slang definition purporting to trace the evolution of an ethnic stereotype. If the term is widely used it is possible that there is an article to be written, but this one is trivial, POV, and probably offensive. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all that is holy. --Kinu 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I will never be convinced that this is encyclopedic. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Let's make this a paleologism at least as far as WP goes. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 7, 2006, 07:23 (UTC)
Do Not Delete This is a realistic term that thousands of people know. The information is absolutely true. And although it is a stereotype, it is one that is extremely common in South Florida. Please do not delete the article. No one here is from South Florida. They have no knowledge of the term - Unsigned comment by 168.221.143.68 at 05:36, February 7, 2006
Comment : What is notable in south Floridia may not be notable for Wikipedia. Truth has little to do with this debate. Pschemp | ^Talk 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Extremely Unencyclopædic. Avi 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete This article was very useful for my thesis on ethnic stereotypes in Miami. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia/dictionary which was able to accompany my research. This page was excellent, and should be kept for future research on ethnic stereotypes. - George H.

Unlikely — Same IP as last Do Not Delete comment. Can this 'discussion' be ended soon?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 8, 2006, 16:28 (UTC)

mmm hmm -- the article has been in existence for about 36 hours. how useful could it have been for your "thesis"? bikeable (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and apparent sockpuppetry. Stifle 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Just because you might not like the use of a term doesn't mean that it should be deleted from dictionaries (that's directed at you Orwellian 1984 delete crazy psychos). If we're going to delete this entry then the entry for the "n" word and bitch should have to go as well. This term is as much part of american encyclopedic history as any other coloquial term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.76.7 (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete The previous "Do Not Delete" edit has an excellent point. If the stereotype wigger is on Wikipedia, then there is no reason why this Chonga stereotype article cannot be on it. All this article needs is a little more editing and it will be acceptable. I see no reason why it should be deleted. - Simon H.
Do Not Delete This should not be deleted for the same reasons mentioned above. the use of the "n" word, or even the term wigger, this is indeed a stereotype but is not to be deleted because someone does not like it.
Do Not Delete!! In reference to the 1984 Orwellion bikeable. The fact that you counted the hours which this page had been in existence shows yours distatste for this entry, and your distant location in Boston probably adds to the distate which you dislpay towards this article. It just so happens that I researched wikipedia while this page was still under construction. If the terms "wigger" and the "n" word can be used as research items, than so should the term "chonga." -George H.

Note the excellent use of references in Wigger. If you can provide real, verifiable references to use of the word, and its importance beyond being a slang definition (since wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if the article could be rewritten as an encyclopedic discussion of a cultural phenomenon and not in the current mocking tone, then it might possibly be worth an article. I'd recommend starting with references. Just my two cents as a "1984 Orwellion"! bikeable (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW — Urbandictionary.com does recognize this definition. My vote remains delete as above, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But I thought this fact should be noted. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 9, 2006, 02:24 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE- this article has been very useful to numerous friends of mine here in south florida who are not familiar with the term "chonga", those of you that dont agree, dont know the term and have nothing to do it, but as for the youth of south florida this word has become very popular and has grown extensively. i plead that this article SHOULD NOT be deleted.--168.221.143.68 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Gabriel F.

This article should not be deleted. It is, for all intensive purposes, similar to a stub. If anything, this article should not be considered for deletion: it should be considered for extension. References to the word chonga are difficult to find (in print, the internet, etc.) because it is not a word that has garnered world-wide usage. If you'd like references that you MIGHT be able to find, listen to radio station El Zol 95, a local station here in Miami. It's not easy to find references for a rather new term. Also, this is not a definitionesque article. If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. The way it stands now, everyone in Miami that I know that has seen the article (and in the past 24 hours, word has spread FAST) agrees that it is truthful and not in any way just a slang term with no relevance. This article contains the history, the evolution of said chonga, and is, in no way, offensive. If a girl is dressed like one, she knows what she's doing, and she knows what she's attempting to look like. If I wear a gold chain around my neck, 3 inches thick, with a spinner on the end, a thick Ecko sweater, and my pants around my ankles, you'd immediately say I'm trying to be "gangster" or "gangster-like". This is because I AM. You do not look a certain way without being able to be labeled. This is just a new label for a certain female demographic, primarily found in South Florida which has not found national usage yet. --Gmasterluis 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment — All these people who want to see this article become encyclopedic (and therefore acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia) should focus their attentions on improving the article. Is is acceptable, encouraged in fact, for the article to be edited, expanded, and improved during the deletion discussion. The criticisms levelled above by the delete voters are common here. Many new articles suffer these same faults. Occasionally an article can be improved enough during the deletion process to cause people to change their votes. The faults noted above are somewhat subjective, but based on objective observations. Gmasterluis says If you'd like for it to be less "mockery-toned", by all means, go ahead and edit it. Articles should only be edited by people who understand the subject matter, the keep voters here claim to understand the subject, the delete voters clearly do not (from your POV). So the delete voters need to put their heads together and re-write the article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. And they need to do it quickly before a deletion decision is made.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 10, 2006, 01:39 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE!!! This article is extremely helpful to people new to South Florida who do not understand the term.
DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE IS VERY TRUE OF SOUTHERN FLORIDIANS AND IS NOT IN THE SAME LEVEL AS THE OFFENSIVE N WORD USED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS. CHONGA'S ARE PROUND OF WHAT THEY ARE, SOME OF THEM EVEN PURCHASE APPAREL WITH THIS WORD WRITTEN ON IT. PEOPLE FROM OTHER STATES AND EVEN OTHER CITIES HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD, BUT TO US IN SOUTH FLORIDA IT IS VERY REAL. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BECUASE IT CALL HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND SOUTH FLORIDA'S CULUTRE AND PEOPLE.----HOTTEETS.COM
- Comment — You're still missing the point. No one is claiming that this is not a real word. The issue here is the article in question, and it's appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Try reading the comments and suggestions that I (and others) have posted here. Take these ideas to heart, and work to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. Coming here and bitching (you) HAVE NOT YET HEARD THIS WORD THERFORE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT A REAL WORD is not productive. And it won't do any good. The administrator that decides the final outcome of this discussion will not be swayed by TYPING IN ALL CAPS and moaning about how you don't understand us. The only issue here is the quality of the article. If you approach the phenomenon of "Chonga" from a sociological and cultural perspective, write an article from that POV, and write it at a level of quality commensurate with other articles, you will find that the word is kept, and you will win this fight. Read the comments by bikeable above and use those articles as a guide to improving this one. Bringing in a bunch of your friends to scream DO NOT DELTE is not going to help. (And, by the way, the term we usually use here is Keep. Not "do not delete")
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 10, 2006, 03:12 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete 10000 sockpuppets an intro paragraph that mainly argues (unsuccessfully) for keeping the page... (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment This article just needs to be worked on. It has not been here for very long, and requires INTELLIGENT people to work on it. I've been working on it a bit, even though it isn't originally my work, and I am not someone with all the background info, though I can ensure everyone that it's all true and valid information. The people complaining, I don't agree with them, because they aren't making valid arguments. However, this topic should not be for deletion, as I stated before. We (people who are well aware of the term) are trying our best to improve the article and continue make it grow into a more encyclopedic source of information.
do not delete this article. it is hilarious and is very useful to people who do not know what a Chonga is. Everything in this article is true, i should know because i am a teen living in S. FLorida. But people who do not know what Chonga means can learn from this article. p.s. if you are intersted in seeing Chongas for yourself, go to International Mall or Santa's Enchanted Forest.
- "Hilarity" is not appropriate in an NPOV encyclopedia article.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 11, 2006, 21:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourettes Guy

Non-notable website, doesn't meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). --Commander Keane 05:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable website. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. I'd say to speedy this as an attack page, but alas, it's not the entry attacking the person, but the website to which it refers. --Kinu 05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep If Tucker Max has his own wikipedia page, I think tourettes guy should have his own page as well.
- Comment - Tucker Max is a biography whereas Tourettes Guy is about a website.--Commander Keane 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ~500 Google hits and a negligible Alexa rank. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete poor Google showing and Alexa rank indicate that this site has made no real impact. No references either besides the website link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above, ex Tucker Max. Negligible Google hits and Alexa rank noted. Sandy 18:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G3, silly vandalism). howch e ng {chat} 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beastron 3000, Beastron

We really need to BJAODN this. It's fricken funny (and an interesting foreshadowing of the future?) But it doesn't belong here. Grandmasterka 05:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not quite sure it's worthy of BJAODN... I guess my sense of humor differes from Grandmasterka's. ;) Hbackman 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Might be a BJAODN, but will abstain on that part of the vote. :) --Kinu 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)See below.
Keep. It is a legitimate explanation of a piece of history. This is not just a joke. It really did happen. A lot of people still talk about this character and event across Canada. Please reconsider. --Beastron 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and strong BJAODN after that comment! --Kinu 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete... not really chuckle-inducing enough for BJAODN. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the net quota of humor in the world went down when this article was written. --Agamemnon2 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, joke article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:39Z
Delete makey-uppy. not funny enough for BJAODN. in fact, not funny at all. Camillus (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Toasters, bananas, longjohns? This is Patent nonsense and has been tagged accordingly. Avi 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy would only be BJAODN if there were a picture...--Isotope23 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Zuckerman

While, this has been AfD'd before; looking at the google results for "Jay Zuckerman" sports; I can hardly find a mention of him. He may be the Jay Zuckerman mentioned as the author of a (highly non-notable) article, but that's only on the 2nd page, after about 10 or 15 other people doing a vast variety of different things. Unless a clear reference for this person can be found this should be deleted. And even if such a ref is found, importance still needs to be shown. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From the actual Jay himself: JesseW and other Wikipedians, please remove the page. I've been trying to get it off here for some time now. I have no idea why it was voted on as "keep," despite my message I placed in both Editing Talk and the Vote itself saying to please remove it. Once I found out it's been up there around August, I've tried to monitor it and manipulate it from a couple of vandals (esp. one in regards to an untrue pejorative statement about leaving Texas Christian University. I am by no means a notable person and once guested locally (NOT NATIONALLY) on an NPR affiliate, not NPR itself. Thanks for bringing this to light and your consideration. I brought it to attention by asking for a speedy deletion just yesterday and it was immediately reverted by an admin to the previous update. I hope that you all will speedily remove the Wikipedia entry. JZ

Delete unless any other reasons are found to keep it.--み使い Mitsukai 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, but note that a notable subject would not have standing to request deletion of an article about them. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Adrian, and agree what Adrian said that you don't own articles and don't have a right not to be written about if you don't want to. Stifle 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean O'Bryan

Non-noteworthy, hoax article. IMDB "link" is a fake. Delete Cyde Weys 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete hoax Ruby 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete ditto. --KJPurscell 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Kinu 05:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:37Z
Speedy Delete - one semi-literate line, false link. Zap it! Camillus (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{db-bio}} and tagged as such Avi 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tan Rui Xiang

I don't think this article on an athlete passes the notability requirements --Martyman-(talk) 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Also see Erzalmaniq Fawy Rawi and Yasin Sulaiman. Similar contributions by same user. --Kinu 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment:: I was going to list them as well but they have both competed in the South East Asia games. I am not sure if that is enough notability or not. --Martyman-(talk) 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:; I think theres no problem with that.165.21.154.112
Comment: I myself a Singaporean didn't know who is he. He's not notable enough at the time being, no major achievement. Only participating in local sports events. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. School athlete with no record of participating in international events such as the Olympics, Asian Games etc needed as a minimum to establish notability as an athlete. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, should have been speedied as it fails to establish notability. Also, delete the Sulaiman article, but keep the Rawi article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as he's just a school athelete. Non-notable sportsman. Please see my comments above. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

*Comment now copy/pasted to Alfred Sim by Cortt. I've flagged that for speedy as a straight copy of this one. Tonywalton | Talk 11:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cortt has now replaced that article with the bio of yet another apparently nn Singaporean athlete (who, it seems, is a lover of slow, romantic numbers when it comes to singing). That's up for AfD; Delete this one as well. Tonywalton | Talk 12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, not notable enough. Come back when winning international medals. Punkmorten 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Please also delete Rui Xiang, Tan as user made another page to prevent AFD. Thanks. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity bio article. *drew 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a very short article containing insufficient context, also informally WP:SNOW and WP:NFT. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G & T night

Wikipedia is not a place for things you just made up at school one day. Also a "tradition" that is at most a month old is not really a tradition. Reyk 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Kinu 06:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No Google hits excepting the AFC page. NatusRoma 06:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. not verifiable in the remotest way. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete No context provided, no reason for notability asserted, no sources or citations provided for verification. (aeropagitica) 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Neither notable nor verifiable. Snurks ^{T C} 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Tagging as {{db-empty}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:36Z
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people associated with World War II

This is the sort of thing lists do very badly, and categories do quite well. As far as ridiculously wide scope goes, "associated" with WWII is just about everyone living in one of the involved coutries in the 1940s (how many millions is that? At least 500? Mayeb closer to a billion?). Yes, I know, this should theoretically have only those notable enough for an article, but that's still shitloads (and I see redlinks and non-linkd people listed too). If we want a list of leaders and military commanders and the like we might have something, but any such list that includes the likes of Patrick Clancy has really bitten off more than it can chew. The only argument I've heard for why lists augment categories in cases like this is that lists can show who's missing. If there are important people closely associated with WWII who don't have articles, they are far better served with other articles and more specific lists. Not something that's so general it might as well be List of people with some sort of connection to water. -R. fiend 07:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete, I completely agree. Most people alive during the war (and some born after it) would qualify indirectly. Grandmasterka 08:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete' per nom and above. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep but purge. List should include only the most prominent people (Hitler, Churchill, the most prominent generals et al). Others could be divided to categories according to organiztion they belonged to (SOE, SS, OSS, French Resistance, etc.) - Skysmith 11:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment While the page itself may be poorly organized, which in that case would require a simple clean up, a deletion for this reason alone would require the deletion of all the "List of people associtated with" lists. Has this been mentioned at the Military history wikiproject ? MadMax 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Rename, it could be useful, but it needs to have clear inclusion criteria and a better name. I'm drawing a blank with regard to suggestions, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename as per Skysmith and MacGyver Jcuk 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete or possibly rename. As the nom said, a category seems more appropriate. JPD (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not listcruft by any means, but certainly something that categories can do far better and with less maintenance issues. Zunaid 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as open ended listcruft ::Supergolden:: 16:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete If necessary, create a category and categorize notable people. Having an association with the war does not make one notable per se Avi 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should tie this together with List of pointless articles associated with the recommendation of Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
At the moment this list's name is all but open-ended and could/should include a very large proportion of those alive in the middle of the last century. Delete and replace with a category/categories. (If it's retained please rename to be more specific.) Sliggy 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment & no vote the list as currently structured is unwieldy and will forever remain so, we should have subordinate lists, of notable subdivisions, e.g., List of members of the French Resistance, List of people awarded the Iron Cross during World War II, List of people who have written books on World War II cringe...or categorize? Carlossuarez46 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Delete Good debate, we should also delete List of people associated with World War I, List of people associated with the American Civil War, and List of people associated with the French Revolution for the same reason(s). Carlossuarez46 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: we'd run out of space before nearing completion. Propose renaming to List of notable people associated with World War II unless this duplicates an existing list. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No chance to maintain it in a reasonable form as some suggest. Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a list with no possible end and apparently created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Would it be possible perhaps to reorganize the page to bring it into line with List of people associated with World War I or even List of people associated with the American Civil War ? MadMax 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
keep this seems like a good collecting point of biographical articles of WWII personalities.Mike McGregor (Can) 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename to something like "List of World War II leaders." This list organizes people by country, includes birth and death dates, and summarizes their role in the war. That is exactly the sort of information lists can summarize but categories cannot. Durova 03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 17:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 2006 Hot Wheels

Advertisment and listcruft. I don't see why Wikikpedia needs such a list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colelction of information. Delete Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No vote right now, but is this copied from somewhere? The vast majority of this thing was made in one edit. Grandmasterka 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a perfectly fine list, plenty of precedent exists for lists of things with "limited" interest. I think it's fine. Grandmasterka 11:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete A list is not an article. VirtualSteve 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hot Wheels has a list of notable models with more information. This one will never be wikified or expanded upon and is basically some sort of source information. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:NOT. PJM 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't see this list violating any of things it says on WP:NOT. This list is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" as mentioned on WP:NOT. It is closely associated with the main topic of Hot Wheels. I see this list as being no different than each of the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG Booster Packs which lists every single card in each booster. This list just states the entire lineup of cars for one year. - Ultrabasurero
Keep At the very least, this is of interest to toy collectors and auto enthusiasts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopaedic. Just becuase there are unencyclopaedic Yu gi oh articles doesnt mean more is a good idea. ::Supergolden:: 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- Can someone please explain why this would be considered "unencyclopedic"? Ultrabasurero

- I've read "What Wikipedia is Not" around 3-4 times now, and still find nothing that would allow its deletion. Ultrabasurero

Strong Keep but rename to List of 2006 Hot Wheels die cast cars as better use of the trademarked term "Hot Wheels". This list does not violate the "What Wikipedia is Not". Just because such high-brow items such as List of Hitchcock cameo appearances and the various List of people on stamps of fill in the blank are considered encyclopedic does not make lists of items of interest to the toy collector/hobbyist as opposed to the movie buff or philatelist unencyclopedic. This list is not indiscrimate per the nom. It is pretty definite and defined. The criticism that it will never be 'wikified' or expanded upon is a prediction of the future that given the debate here seems unlikely; if I'm wrong nominate it again after a period, but remember that not every list is dynamic: some lists are all that will ever occur about the subject (e.g., List of Hitchcock cameo appearances and there won't be any more of them). The concern about all the data coming in at one fell swoop is not surprising and doesn't sugges copyvio; collectors of Hot Wheels (or nearly anything else these days) maintain lists of the available items that may be added to their collections and check (British: tick) them off once acquired. And last, this is not advertising any more than Hitchcock's movies or the Post Office is being advertised by the other approved lists. I have a remaining concern which may show that this will be a maintained list: are these the planned hot wheels cars, or have all these been issued. If that's so, this list might be better to be made into a table, with the planned cars and a check box on whether their appearance has been verified. And to anticipate those critics who complain that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", as you cast your stones on that account, please first delete all references to the expected return of Comet Halley, etc. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for strongly explaining my plight. Ultrabasurero 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a list of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 18:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is not of any interest to you, does not mean it is of interest to very few people. There's a reason why Hot Wheels are consistently the #1 selling toy by volume. Ultrabasurero 22:00, 8 February

Comment, interest to very few people? what about List of Alfalfa Club members, List of Airwolf episodes, List of Airbus A320 operators, List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli, List of Ainu terms, etc. just a quick perusal of the early section of 'A' lists... c'mon, the threshhold is pretty low and Hot Wheels cars seem to have a notable following. 4,700,000 google hits for "Hot Wheels" and somewhere north of 50,000 items on ebay [[9]]. Not necessarily high-brow, but either is a list of airlines by which planes they fly or a club, regardless of how distinguished its members may be, whose only function is a birthday party for a dead confederate general. Lists of basically trivia are the norm here and singling out one set of collectors or hobbyists over another is unfair. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 88.9 Lancer Radio - Pasadena Campus Sounds

Delete. This is a class project. It is not a licensed FM broadcast station. The article name is in violation of WP:NC#Broadcasting. It is a vanity page with little hope of becomming more. I would hope that once they become an internet radio station or a licensed FM station a new page is created, but until then I don't think that this belongs on wikipedia. The fate of this page has been talked about both on the article's talk page and here. I would encourage all editors to read what has been posted at both locations. —A 08:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A 0.1 watt station with no call letters is not yet notable. I could shout the news from a tall building and virtually as many people would hear me. Grandmasterka 09:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Slight merge to Pasadena City College. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:34Z
Delete as non-notable radio station. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable Avi 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. When the FCC licenses you, give us a call. --Kinu 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge per Quarl. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'd vote delete, but am concerned about setting precedent affecting other, notable unlicensed stations. While this station is probably nn, lack of licensing is not a bar to notability. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that being unlicenced alone is not enough to have an article deleted. However it is a good metric that should be combined with others. —A 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Slight Merge into Pasadena City College, minus most of the content as it is promotional fluff. I would think the station's staff's time would be more productively spent getting their own website up instead of editing Wikipedia. DHowell 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- unlicensed microbroadcaster, dead link, not even a notable pirate station like Radio Caroline or Free Radio Santa Cruz. Try www.part15.us. Haikupoet 03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Pasadena City College. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 18:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

comment Lancer Radio is a 24 hour Broadcasted Radio Station. it is officially recognized by the Inter-Collegiate Broadcast Society it is also Registered with Sound Exchange. The Radio Station was officially recognized by the Tornament of Roses as an Official MEDIA/PRESS. The Lancer Radio was official recognized by the 2005 BET Awards and broadcasts Live the Pasadena City Council meetings. It was invited OFFICIALLY to the Inaugeration of LA Mayor Villagaroisa. Lancer Radio was recognized officially and was allowed to broadcast Live during a presentation by CA Gov Schwatzenegger. Lancer radio presents LIVE News coverage of National, Political, Sports, Gay and lesbian, and College News. Lancer radio also uses remote broadcast which many commercial radio stations do not have. lancer radio is not a class project. it is an independent chartered club which is student run. the website is up and running with in the next 3 weeks at www.lancerradio889.pasadena.edu. To consider Lancer radio as any less the Free radio Santa Cruz or Radio Caroline is idiotic. Lancer Radio is a well regulated radio station operated in accordance with FCC guidlines. Lancer Radio WAS formerly known as KPCS 88.9 Lancer radio has been broadcast for 20 plus years. it is has been officially recognized by the City of Pasadena, and the Pasadena Area Community College District. it has been invited by Schwatzenegger and Villagairosa to cover their event... and is an OFFICIAL MEMBER in good standing of the INTER-COLLIGIATE BROADCAST SOCIETY.. even many Licensed college radios do not have membership. Lancer radio has a fixed Location in a radio station with two fixed phone numbers one an official Contact Number (626)585-9285 and an Official request line at 626-792-6867.....it has talk showes and Music Programs with official recognition to air licensed music through sound exchange
- Comment -- the FCC license is what counts, and the official standards for broadcast notability don't even consider that a given. WTBU would be an example of a case where I would say keep (though I'm biased, I wrote the article) -- major university, World Wide Web presence, perhaps most importantly Howard Stern's first radio gig. WVBC, across town at Boston College, wouldn't rate -- I went to BC and nobody on campus even knew it existed (not to be confused with WZBC, which is a major alt-rock station in the Boston market). And Radio Caroline and FRSC are notable for their own reasons -- Caroline for its years of influence on northern European listening habits, and FRSC for their stand against the FCC. Flea power stations are great. I want to run one myself. But there are other websites (such as the one I mentioned above, www.part15.us), where this information belongs. (BTW, my advice as someone with a passing interest in microbroadcasting: you'll get much better range on AM without the legal hassles of FM operation, which is really way too strict for its own good.) Haikupoet 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it hardly ever helps to show up on AfD and assert that anyone that doesn't appreciate your pet project is "idiotic" ... Adrian Lamo ·· 06:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for deleting, but those who expressed an interest in merging might consider following up on that. W.marsh 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durham Center, Connecticut

Huh? Are we going to have a range of articles on places that dont exist now? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Possibly created since Middlesex County, Connecticut links here, perhaps by a bemused resident? In any case, a Google search for "durham center" connecticut -wikipedia returns a pretty good number of results, so I don't want to discount this entirely. Snurks ^{T C} 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as this place does not exist. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Durham, Connecticut. Whether or not this really is a distinct place from Durham, the fact that it is used as a map label, and listed separately in places like this Connecticut govt site, means its worth at least a mention and a redirect. JPD (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as per JPD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per JPD. --bainer (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Z0l

An "abbreviation" of a three-letter internet slang term is not notable (although that term is notable.) Delete. Grandmasterka 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge into LOL (Internet slang) if it's verifiable, which I somehow doubt, having never run across it. Otherwise delete. Snurks ^{T C} 09:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. No evidence in article or that I could find via Google that Z0l == LOL. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:32Z
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (Or in nn-IM conversations) --light darkness 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete We are NOT supposed to be a collection of every single inanity that pops into someones head on any given morning. Avi 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Even stronger delete. This is so non-notable it isn't even funny. JIP | Talk 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not WP:V, which it should be easily so if it were truely gamer/chat slang.--Isotope23 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
do not delete this slang word no body has heard of it because its a new word and is very popularly used, in the uk any way. And what are people on bout it doesnt say nething bout being for gamers, boontards
- If you are trying to think of ways to convince others and have them reconsider their votes, you really can't go wrong with personal insults. JIP | Talk 12:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zerbohevzwatz

Subjective music style definition. Seems to be made up. No articles link to this. 46 google hits Drat (Talk) 09:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable neologism. Snurks ^{T C} 09:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable/original research/non-notable. All of those Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:31Z
Delete per all above. PJM 12:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete All google links link back to this article (through answers.com or whatever) . This is most probably a hoax, as well as nonsense. Wikipedia is NOT for the creation of new ideas. Avi 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable neologism. I'd advocate renaming it "List of Bands that Kick Ass", but that's just me POV pushing good music and it would be listcruft anyway.--Isotope23 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is complete nonsense. :bloodofox: 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miami University Plantation House

Same as Plantation house and equally unnotable. One single hit on Google for Westoberfest. Appears unverifiable.

I've removed the prod tag and bringed the article here for discussion.Melaen 09:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears unverifiable at this time - Delete VirtualSteve 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete: per nom. Notability assertion is that it's a great frat party house. Doesn't every frat house assert that? Nothing to back it up anywhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Individual off-campus homes used as university student housing are decidedly not notable. - EurekaLott 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eva Z. Genthe

This essay should probably be deleted. As to whether the person is a notable enough artist, I'm not sure based on the Google results, but I'm guessing not. Grandmasterka 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's the transcription of an opening speech to the exhibition: E.Z.Genthe. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 09:52Z
Delete currently reads as first person essay - unnotable - not appropriate wiki material. VirtualSteve 09:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Running! This Person probably related to German Photographer Arnold Genthe. If anyone knows anything further, please note in here for discussion.
Delete as unencyclopedic. Essexmutant 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Cannot see any problem. User:Bibibibi 17:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Howcheng as a nn-band. - Bobet 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Atticus

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:Music Guideline VirtualSteve 09:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. [10]. PJM 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable vanity band. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{db-band}} Avi 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 17:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars for 9/11 Truth

This article was created after attempts to place this information in the article Collapse of the World Trade Center was met with much opposition. After the creation of this article, the creator then tried to merge the article into Collapse of the World Trade Center, placing merge tags on each one [11], [12]. The article is a bad faith attempt to supercede concensus and may be a partial copyvio from sections of [13]--MONGO 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No actually, this article was a long time coming. It is relevant and meets criteria for Wikipedia Policy. It is a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Whatever MONGO might think is another matter. I'm sure most will agree that the article stands fine on its own. If anyone is interested in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article controversy, I urge them to read this. Talk: Collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no basis for delition at all. It meets every criteria for a Wikipedia article. Please do consult Talk: Collapse of the World Trade Center --EyesAllMine 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) And I will add, this is a political organisation, with people like Morgan Reynolds, Steven E. Jones, Robert Bowman and Andreas von Bülow among their members, who even though it is a "newborn" group, has already had the following articles written about it: "BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11" Deseret News, January 28, 2006, "Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax" Yahoo News, January 30, 2006, "9/11 ATTACKS, Avoiding the hard questions" Miami Herald, February 1, 2006, "Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says" Daily Herald, February 2, 2006, "Who wil save america" Counterpunch, February 6, 2006. --EyesAllMine 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would also agree that it should be NPOV'ed and I just want to point that POV is never a reason to delete an article --EyesAllMine 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Pilatus 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking over the amount of material published on these events, and the number of theories presented, this is not a notable subject, and does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not spelling it out and bolding it, because this isn't a vote and my opinion is clear.
Wow. This is a narsty POV fork if I ever saw one. It has no place in Wikipedia, either. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm still bolding it and spelling it out, 'cause I know it's not a vote, but old habits die hard. :P
Delete Jcuk 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete bad faith attempts like this.Gator (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --rogerd 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Bad faith attempt to circumvent WP policies. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fallback mechanism for preventing the circumvention of WP policies (see WP:NPOV) Kevin Baas^talk 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a bad faith fork. You can't create another article to put your own spin on a topic. Well, back to work on the NoSeptember reveals the truth about the JFK assassination article ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as bad faifth article. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Much of this duplicates material already in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: The article is badly POV, and would need to be rewritten if it is to be kept (which I doubt, given the number of deletes above). However, we can verify the group exists (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), it has gained some notability by being in the news (9 hits on Google news [14]), and a number of the members (as noted above) are notable in their own right. For the record, I think the claims by this group are absurd. I don't think that should influence my thought on whether to keep or delete this article. If we can have articles on obscure Pokemon characters, certainly there's room for a controversial group that's been in the news and has notable people in it. Just clean it up, stick to facts, and remove the badly POV elements. --Durin 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Move Merge any extra information into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 and then redirect Avi 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. Already covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth Movement, Steven E. Jones, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, and many other articles. Rhobite 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV conspiracy theorism at its finest.--Isotope23 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete; I disagree that POV is reason to delete; edit it. However, after being edited to make it NPOV it is no longer notable, so let's not bother. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There are articles on other, fringe, political lobby groups. This should be rewritten into being NPOV. It is note-worthy, as they are challenging the norms of society in many respects. --GeLuxe 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything NPOV/useful and Redirect to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 as per Avi's suggestion. I don't see a lot there of use though. -- Mithent 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, doesn't seem to be redeemable from POV mania. Stifle 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I personally disagree with their opinions, interpretation, engineering, etc. However, no reason for WP to act like there aren't people out there who believe those things. Notable things can be consensus wrong, and still deserving of WP articles. NPOV improvements sounds like a good idea, though. Georgewilliamherbert 02:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not sure I understand the grounds for deletion. If anything deleting it sounds like POV censorship. Sarge Baldy 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Info about this organisation deserve its own article. They have done significant scientific research that one day will complete our knowledge of what happened. A human 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
keep: Deletion attempts of this sort have certain parallels with Animal Farm, wherein Napoleon and Squealer are portrayed as pigs bent, among other things, on thwarting Snowball's attempt to teach others to read; this particular attempt is pure hogwash. Ombudsman 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Endorse "Keepers" above - esp. re POV censorship The Invisible Anon 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep 81.129.89.243 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is this contributor's third edit:[15]--MONGO 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Those who say that what's in the article is already covered elsewhere don't actually understand the relevance of the group or what is now going on because of this group. I have my own issues around it, but the information is not, and will not be, redundant. Bov 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This editor was solicited to vote on this:[16]--MONGO 03:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete again and protect the page. -- RHaworth 14:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tirakh

This is seems to be some sort of fantasy alter-ego for the author; Google search only shows this name as user names on message boards. This has been tagged as speedy, but the author removed the tag, and recreated the article once it had been speedied. Reyk 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous hotel bars

List of non-links SilkTork 10:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete- red link farm. Reyk 10:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - definitely! VirtualSteve 12:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. PJM 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Reyk. The few bluelinks around point to the wrong place. Also, the first line, is a prime example of a bad definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Sleepyhead 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft ::Supergolden:: 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. & lack of objective criteria. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as encouragement to create several more articles on nn bars, and a list created apparently for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurooptimism

Non-notable neologism. One (1) google hit. We already have Europeanist, Europatriotism, and Europhile. Along with Eurocentrism and European miracle, I think we're sufficiently covered! Halidecyphon 10:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If the term were more widley used, I might even be able to tell what the article was trying to say. JPD (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kinu 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Europeanist or one of the others that Halidecyphon mentioned. —Caesura^(t) 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also not quite sure how you get one Google hit. I get over 600. —Caesura ^(t) 15:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete userfication is not exactly called for, this is not a biography or user profile. W.marsh 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webgm

Does not provide evidence that is statisfies WP:WEB. Unable to locate any evidence via cursory web search. Always happy to have further information demonstrating notability. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I nominate a related page; copy of article:

WebGM

Weregerbil 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete can't find anything with google either. Weregerbil 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, article says it's not up yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball... --Sar e kOfVulcan 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Following a question regarding changing the focus from the website to the parent organisation, I'd suggest user-if-ication rather than deletion. I'm tempted to do it myself and speedy-close this, but am treading lightly for the last thirty hours of my rfa! If/when it is done I'll work with the author to see if a encyclopedic article is possible. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. Don't want to cause any problems here (I added the entry). Do what you need to do. I'm happy to change the entry (or have it moved to my userspace).

Cheers Waverley73 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CEMA Engineering LTD

tagged as speedy, but not really a speedy candidate. Much as I might want to support the British engineering industry (being a British engineering graduate) I find it hard to trace any claim to notability for this firm. No URL, Applegate listing is trivial and does not establish importance. Article as written is spam. CEMA usually means the Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers' Association, which is what most of the Googles return. Please prove me wrong or don the cape and tights and rescue it with some elusive proof of significance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete I nominated this article as a speedy delete due to lack of context. I'll vote for delete unless, as the above says, somebody can rescue the article. James084 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable company. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beta-Psi Chapter of Kappa Sigma

An entry on a local fraternity chapter. Describes the current and previous frathouses in some detail but gives no indication that this particular chapter is notable in any way. Pilatus 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As learned from a previous discussion on this topic, local chapters of national fraternities don't get their own pages. --Kinu 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Decent article that should be reduced and used as the basis for a general article on the greek system at the University of Washington. -- JJay 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all fraternity articles unless they're nationally known and exceptional. Stifle 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable --SammyTerry 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syedna Burhanuddin

This page should be deleted since the title Syedna is currently synonymous with Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. A page for the same already exists. This page Syedna Burhanuddin is a duplication and hence should be deleted Sbohra 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Seems like legitimate disambiguation. Am I missing something? Peace. Metta Bubble 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep — I agree with Metta Bubble. The page could use some expansion. — RJH 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep If this is a title that all leaders get (eg. if the new leader was named Ismael, and he would be called Syedna Ismael Burhanuddin) than this is a legitamate entry. If it only refers to the current 52nd holder of the title, it should be merged into that article. Avi 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice@Wonderland

No evidence of notability that I understand. Amazon doesn't have the author or the book, Google isn't helping me but perhaps someone polyglot will do better. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. [17]. PJM 12:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Found it here for what that's worth. Still voting delete as vanity or promotion. AndyJones 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per PJM. Stifle 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable. Thatcher131 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
delete per norm. 3H 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 17:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AceProject

Not notable Sleepyhead 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider expanding on your nominations in future. These days, all "not notable" tells us is that you think it should be deleted (everything on AfD, kept or deleted, is "not notable", apparently). Instead, consider explaining why an article ought to be deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. Website has alexa rank 30,000. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 14:36Z
Weak delete per Quarl. Yes, I know Quarl voted to keep, but my interpretation (and the previous detail on WP:WEB was that an Alexa rank of 10000 or better was generally required for website notability. Since the software is entirely web-based, I feel comfortable invoking that. Stifle 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not enough votes for consensus, relisting. JIP | Talk 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep, roughly 10K google hits in a fairly restrictive search for +AceProject +"bug tracking". No compelling reason not to keep. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Google and Alexa rankings. Turnstep 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mighty MJD

blog -Doc ^ask? 12:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Alexa 325k, some inbound links but most appear to be from other blogs. Article is written in excessively glowing terms, if kept needs cleanup. I call blogcruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable blog. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
delete I added the initial prod tag, which was later removed. It'd be nice if when this happens and the article is nominated for deletion, the prod listing automatically counts as a vote for deletion. Brighterorange 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A1, no context). howch e ng {chat} 19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyakuyu, Ruslano

Apparently non-notable song by apparently non-notable singer (whose Wikipedia article I have put up for speedy deletion as a NN bio). Appears to be vanity; creator's only edits have been to create these articles. Google returns only two results for the song and two for the singer. -- TKD 12:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete NN Avi 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ampland

Does not assert notability, does not appear to pass WP:WEB. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Appears to be hugely popular porn site. Over 2 million google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit

13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this falls under 3rd party source guideline. Huge numbers in and of themselves assert notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:WEB unless external 3rd party sources are cited verifying its notability. Zunaid 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn website. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete... I guess. Aaron's link shows no hits on Google NEWS, but I get 3 million on Google web search. But looking at them, it looks like a lot of them are linkfarms. So there's some serious SEO action going on and it's hard to tell what the real deal is. So, as Zunaid says, without some 3rd party sources to verify it's hard to trust only google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodii (talk • contribs) .

(Whoops, sorry! —rodii 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Delete per nom, unless notability can be proven Mushin ^talk 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Alexa rank 4,125. Kappa 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa. --bainer (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable (per Kappa) and verifiable. Ifnord 03:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia Import Company

Non notable company, spam, probably self-promotion. Delete abakharev 12:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

delete per nominator. --Ghirla | talk 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable company. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. W.marsh 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Franklin Mayer

An astrophysicist who on December 27, 2005 ... released a complete model of the physics of the universe in which we live. Assuming that the author David Ashley is not a sock puppet, this is not vanity. But the only link is to AFM's own article and it is probably too soon for it to have received peer review. So I propose that the model of the universe discussed can be dismissed as original research and that until the research is accepted by the scientific community, the named subject of this article is non-notable. I await comments with interest. -- RHaworth 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wow, he would be very notable indeed if his model were accepted. But that appears to not have happened yet, per only 7 google hits. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable bio. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Alexander is listed as an academic visitor at Stanford yet has no papers at arXiv. This is – strange. Pilatus 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

David Ashley 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) here. I'm a different guy, not a sock puppet. www.xdr.com/dash and you can see my own separate page. I never heard of AFM until I saw the slashdot article. I spent the time and read through the lectures. This is informed-layman level stuff. I'm still reeling with the implications. However I modified the page to tone down the claims, using words like "purported," and "If this theory is correct". My main reason for adding the page is because it didn't exist. I think there needs to be one. My opinion is there is a good chance the theory is going to prove out. Wikipedia can be an early source for information about this fellow. And if the article here is deleted, I think someone else will come right along and recreate it. At least let my effort be a jumping off point. Modify the article, don't wipe it out of existence.

But that's crystalballism--if you feel strongly, go to article--->edit, copy text, and save it in your computer in word/notepad etc. When he is properly notable per WP:BIO, repost the article with appropriate changes. --Fuhghettaboutit

Delete Non-notable until theory proven. Otherwise every physicist with an idea would flood wikipedia. Avi 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete for now as crystalballism. I knew it sounded familiar when I saw the name. Slashdot linked this a few days ago. Apparently the lectures/papers have just been submitted for peer review, so I think it is a bit premature to assert notability at this time. If his theories bear out and are widely accepted it would be wholly appropriate to add an article for Mayer, and indeed an expanded one at that. But for now, this fails WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for adding my sig Pilatus.--Isotope23 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

David Ashley 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Fine then, there seems to be a standard policy at work here. Let it be deleted.

In that case, I would suggest you copy this information to User:David Ashley/Alexander Franklin Mayer and then as the author of the article, you may use {{db-author}} to have the delete speedied. Should Dr. Mayer's theories be proven and have significant impact on the field, you will have all the data on your local user page to repost the article -- Avi 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olesya Rulin

Not notable enough abakharev 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A nobody. KNewman 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{db-bio}} and tagged as such Avi 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Of course if she could shoot clay pigeons WHILE dancing ballet, I'd reconsider.--Isotope23 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youngsonism

Looks like original research or sheer neologism. Zero Google hits, no references, very vague. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as neologism, and as per no original research. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete And how is this different from Deism? Avi 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Lockley 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism that rips off Deism as Avi has pointed out.--Isotope23 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fastminute

It's the little story of a non-notable personal website. Delete.. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. --Sleepyhead 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete' per nom.--Isotope23 17:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There should be a speedy criterion for articles written in first-person voice. JIP | Talk 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment it's too bad that this article didn't include a link to the website in question. If it's the Dutch travel site fastminute.nl or the Italian airline-reservation site fastminute.it it might actually be notable. I don't think that it's supposed to be either of those, though. Ergot 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Sandwich Association

This was marked for speedy deletion as a non-notable club. The website claims it is an industry body though, which to me is notable enough for an AfD hearing at least. Thryduulf 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep ~~if it proves verifiable.~~ Thryduulf 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- It has been proven verifiable, so my keep vote is unqualified. Thryduulf 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unless verifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I've seen sandwiches with BSA accreditation notices (even in Switzerland). Google seems to have enough third party references to say it's verifiable. JPD (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the website looks pretty legit to me. If it's some kind of hoax, somebody sure put a lot of effort into it. The BBC has quoted their spokesman, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Verifiable? Yes, unless it's an elaborate hoax. Notable? Only to the extent of explaining why such an organization would exist to begin with. --Lockley 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Lockley, the answer is easy. It's so the British can keep up with sandwich techology, since they've been surpassed by the American Sandwich Federation. In any case, delete unless we can find verification.--み使い Mitsukai 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a legitimate organisation. The article quotes the website (BSA) which isn't hoaxed. The article should have more content as it is a bit weak as it stands but it is verifiable in principle. (aeropagitica) 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as an industry body representing, according to its website, "the UK's £3.3 billion commercial sandwich industry." --bainer (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Huh, yet another thing I'd never heard about before coming to Wikipedia. Verifiable and reasonably notable. -Colin Kimbrell 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and echo the statement above. Turnstep 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I too had never heard of this before seeing up for speedy deletion. I don't think I will ever cease to be amazed at what is on Wikipedia - Category:Fictional interdimensional travelers being a recent one. Thryduulf 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  - The most amazing part of that category is the fact that it has the distinction "Fictional" as part of it. :) Turnstep 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OurCampaigns

Non-notable site. 788 google hits for OurCampaigns, and not all of those are relating to the site. Compu te r Jo e 14:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delelte. As per nom. Advertising. --Sleepyhead 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Get a brain, morans. Our Campaigns is a valuable political resource that is mentioned in several other "legitimate" articles. User:James Crews 10:46, 7 February 2006 (EST)
Delete 1000 members according to article, No Alexa rank at all, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My God you are all nerds with no time on your hands Starblind, Sleepyhead81 and ComputerJoe's comments should be ignored because iliveinmymomsbasement.com doesn't rank them among the l33test Everquest players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Crews (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2006.
- Comment I would like to remind James Crews of Wikipedia:No personal attacks Compu te r Jo e 18:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope you will consider keeping this entry. OC has more useful information for researchers than Fark.com, which also has a Wikipedia entry. Several other Wikipedia.com entries reference the election returns at OC. Unfortunately, psephologists do not have an organization to rate websites - the only competition to OC would be politics1.com. I realize you need to use objective criteria in making your decisions, and if you decide to remove the entry I will understand. Chronicler3 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
Delete, interesting site... but ultimately it fails WP:WEB. Hopefully Chronicler3 is more indicative of the user base than Crews. --Isotope23 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: An article should not be kept because other sites have articles, even though they are smaller or less notable. Bjelleklang - talk 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as alexa, although not extremely reliable does not have any statistics for the site, the article does not give any sources for the facts, according to Google only 13 sites links to OurCampaigns [18], and as the article stands right now it does not pass WP:WEB. Bjelleklang - talk 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I am a proud member of this website, and registered merely to get across to you the point that OurCampaigns is a legitimate website. A valuable political resource with no real peer in its category. Like I said, several other "legitimate" Wikipedia articles point towards the site, so having this entry merely makes Wikipedia more complete. I've often thought of personally making the OC entry, but it seems users like those above spend far too much time finding information to delete. If anything, your wisdom should be put to use in other entries where there is inaccurate information, or entires that are considered "stubs" should be expanded. This would be of far better use to the "Wikipedia community" than trying to delete all incoming information that doesn't meet some rediculous criteria. If the arguments you all were using to delete it were true, why should we have an article on artist Van Gogh? Surely, selling only one painting in his lifetime doesn't make him a notable artist, does it? I should say right now that I do not represent the bulk of the OC community, I've always been known as the "iconoclast" and "troll" of the website because I use humor in a way to get a point across. Of course, I am reminded of some "no personal attack policy" above. If you feel that you are being attacked with the phrase "GET A BRAIN MORANS" you obviously are uncultured in the political realm, nor do you have a sense of humor. User:James Crews
- Your vote may be discounted if you only registered to vote. Also, the manner in which you've composed yourself really hasn't done your POV any good. Compu te r Jo e 08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep As long as Wikipedia links OurCampaigns pages as data sources, it should dignify the site with a page. Anyone who takes the time to inspect the exhaustive database at OC will realize that it is the single most comprehensive and accurate election database on the web. The number of users is irrelevant; any election that happened in the United States in the past century is covered. User:NyBob85
Delete non-notable website. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, my nerdy, невоспитанный self feels this is non-notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
comment. can you verify your statement that "As long as Wikipedia links OurCampaigns pages as data sources, it should dignify the site with a page"? What pages? And, be polite, it will do wonders for your argument. --GeLuxe 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I am not sure of the best way to find links at Wikipedia but here is one reference to OC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gingrey . 141.151.92.228 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Sorry - that last one was me again - forgot to sign in. Here is another Wikipedia link to OC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_presidential_election%2C_2004 . Chronicler3 23:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
Comment. Hi, this is the creator of the site. Sorry about some of the comments from a couple of our less politic users. I also didn't put my users up to this, they decided it on their own. I undertand that my site does not quite meet your policies for inclusion, and completely understand if you determine not to include it. I thought it would be helpful to provide some information to come to your decision. I'm not looking for advertising or a huge burst in traffic right now, because our server could not support it. We rely on the slow growth method. We are an extremely data intensive site, in some ways similar to Wikipedia by being a collaborative user effort. Because of this, we have a million or so virtual pages driven by a database. Many of the sites like Alexia and Google have limited information on us because I instruct them in the robots.txt file to not crawl the site. When several search engines try to crawl a million dynamically driven pages every few days it can bring the server to its knees. I am working on something to address this issue, but it will probably not be available for six months to a year. You can see the site statistics directly at http://www.ourcampaigns.com/stats if you wish, that show us getting between 1,500 and 4,500 unique visitors a day, 17,000 pageviews and around 40,000 hits. Those numbers increase sharply around election dates. We have gotten some press, some minor exposure on television news, but those are a bit out of date. We are a different enough site that we don't quite fit into categories for site competitions like best of blog contests as we are not a blog. We may not be a media sensation, but we are a very good data resource for people. Again, thanks for your consideration and if we are not accepted we will try again once we meet your criteria. Entropist 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the polite manner in which you've composed yourself. I hope you consider editing more pages on the Wikipedia, I'm sure you'd make a great editor. Compu te r Jo e 08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
LISTEN Why are you Wikipedia regulars so hard headed? Listen. This was not a move for advertising. As Parker said, the last thing the site needs is a tremendous influx of users. Several articles point towards OurCampaigns. Why is the only criteria for entry into Wikipedia popularity? Are you seriously telling me something must be "popular" to warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia? How popular is the field of quantum physics? Not very, but it seems to have an entry. OurCampaigns doesn't deserve an entry because it is "popular" and listed on nerdy statistical websites, but rather because it is an expansive collection of political data maintained by every day people, much like this place. The only thing is, we are far more open minded towards data entry. You won't see anyone on OC complaining that the Slovakian presidential election wasn't "popular" enough to warrant inclusion. Excuse the "personal attack" but take your heads out of wherever they may be and look at the site before you actually judge in favor of deletion. This is supposed to be a community of intellectuals, not bickering teenagers concerned with popularity. user:James Crews

Entry to the encyclopedia is on the basis of notability. For websites guidelines for this are listed here. Regarding your personal attack, wikipedia has policies covering civility and personal attacks. Neither add any strength to your arguments, and arguably undermine them. --pgk^(talk) 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. Stifle 18:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:WEB, quite badly. I guarantee there are more people interested in quantum physics than this site. Turnstep 19:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I am ready for one of the Wikipedia regulars to remove the entry. This has been frustrating for a lot of people, and I don't see any reason to let it continue. The last comment by Turnstep was rather discouraging - on the list of topics not found interesting by a lot of people are anti-heroes and Goat Head Soup. There is a difference between popularity and significance. The chronicling of USA's election returns in one place is not popular but is significant. Goat's Head Soup is neither. Chronicler3 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Comment to above: AFD procedure is to list an article for 5 days. Also, popularity is not the only issue, as you state yourself, but I believe that if something is significant enough, it is usually also reknown by quite alot of people. The site might be famous sometime in the future, but as of right now, alexa doesn't even have a rating for it [19]; google returns 51 pages when I searched for "A collaborative political resource" [20], and 881 when I searched for ourcampaigns [21], with most of the hits going to various collections of links. Bjelleklang - talk 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable per google hits and alexa. -- Pierremenard 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JavaScript Client Communication

Unable to verify. Never heard of this. No google hits. Newly coined term trying to get acceptance by using wikipedia i guess. Sleepyhead 14:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sleepyhead please note Template:AfD_in_3_steps: Please include the word AfD in the edit summary and please do not mark the edit as minor --Craig Stuntz 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 18:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NIC International

Article about non-notable company (only around 670 Google hits for "NIC International", most of them refering to other, unrelated uses; 16 hits for "NIC International Ltd."). Reads like self-promotion, very POV and includes unnotable information (Quotes section, etc.). Delete. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete advert. Stifle 18:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 merge discussion seems to be underway. W.marsh 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-linear exploration

Delete, as non-linear exploration is a non-existent neologistic game genre (it can be a feature of several genres including adventure and RPG however) and its description closely resembles Action-adventure game Arru 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete neologism and unmaintanable list. —This user has left wikipedia 01:26 2006-02-02
Keep, but do something about it, such as rename to something like "exploration (video game genre)". I'll admit that the term "non-linear exploration" was badly-conceived, but I think that this type of game is definitely a distinct sub-genre. The gameplay is definitely significantly different from other action-adventure games like Super Mario World and Super Mario Land 2--mainly, gameplay is continuous and features exploration. Some of these exploration games might not be very non-linear in overall their sequence of events--Metroid Fusion and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon come to mind, where path C must be taken before path D can be pursued, and so on--but the gameplay is nevertheless not subdivided into stages/levels, nor is it linearly arranged--you fall, climb, go right, go left, this way, that way so that you can find your way through the game. ~GMH talk to me 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: "exploration" is part of many game genres, particularly the adventure-derivatives mentioned. Genres described in Wikipedia should exist (being recognized by more people than just yourself) before, check out WP:NOR. Also, if you are proposing a new genre, it helps if you can give more examples since your original article circles all around the Metroid and Castlevania series. Those two game series are especially mentioned as action-adventure games! Their gameplay is different from the early Mario games because those are platform games, not action-adventure. Arru 14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, I have a distinct sense of deja vu here like this article, or a similar one has been to AfD before... This is basically a neologistic term for the Morrowind style videogames. Even if it renamed to List of games that allow non-linear exploration, it still is in my opinion an unnecessary list.--Isotope23 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge into Computer_role-playing_game. Adrian Lamo ·· 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge this and Linear gameplay to Linearity (computer and video games). I don't think non-linear exploration is a defining genre of video games, but describing gameplay as non-linear or linear is a mainstay of game terminology. It is not a neologism, but a different term used when talking about linear or non-linear gamplay. We should have all these articles talking about the same thing redirect people to one article instead of a bunch of stubs. The demiurge 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree about the term "non-linear exploration", problem is the contents of this page is an attempt to define a genre based on two game series (Castlevania and Metroid) and this term. I guess some part could go into the linearity article though. Arru 22:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DataArt

Non-notable Russian outsourcing company with 160 employees. Advert. Biography articles have also been created for various employees, which should all also be deleted on the grounds of non-notability. Tempshill 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Am inclined to agree, although mail.ru seems to have been notable in Russia (15 million users?). James Kendall 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, advert. Probably a good idea to nominate the execs for deletion if this goes. Stifle 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete no clear evidence of notability.--Isotope23 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising for non-notable company. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete Small company but well-known and notable for achievements, useful entry. Executive biographies non-notable, their insertion may be grounds for removal of entire entry?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saphin

delete, vanity. Melaen 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, if people are buying Google ads tied to your name, you're probably notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, 2 CDs... one self-released and unavailable... one on a minor indie label. Does not meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Artist was signed to a major label (warner Bros.), has won awards from such notables as Bowienet for his website SaphinScape. His website has received as many as 20,000 hits a month. Jeff Saphin has fans in many countries (Germany, Japan, France, and of course America). has been featured on "Radio America" (a 1/2 hour national broadcast hosted by Buddy Hackett's son Sandy), received rave reviews in The Village Voice (notable enough?), 1st release is STILL AVAILABLE, His Self released CD is also available and should not factor into WikipediA criteria, especially given the current climate of the music business. These, and I agree with the first * Keep : if people are buying Google ads tied to your name, you're probably notable. they are, and Saphin is. 24 pages on a QUOTED "Jeff Saphin" Google search, and that's not a common name. (Telecon)
Keep, per my earlier reasoning. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep as barely meeting notability standards. But yikes! That article needs a cleanup, badly. At least I managed to shrink the giant image... Turnstep 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 04:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judge (anime)

Delete article does not assert notability of this anime Ruby 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, a verifiable anime. Nifboy 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Verifiability does not automatically get a Wikipedia article - there is no article on Stifle's right thumb, although I can certainly verify that it exists. Stifle 12:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No you can't. No published work exists on the topic of "Stifle's right thumb". Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep It has an IMDB entry here. Also on Amazon with numerous customer reviews. Seems to be real and verifiable as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, released anime. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's not by any means the greatest anime out there, but it does exist.--み使い Mitsukai 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Busse

Non-notable blogger. Vanity. So called publications are actually blog entries. Ezeu 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have known Mark and the crew at IBC for many years...they are truly some of the best designers in Canada and well deserving of a listing here. Leonard Brody—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.95.89 (talk • contribs)
Delete for the moment per WP:BLP. I can be persuaded otherwise. Stifle 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Disguising blog entries under the heading "Publications" is pretty sneaky. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Seems like a decent fellow, but I don't see this meeting WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete Busse was a professor of mine last year. His "publications" seem to have been updated to "articles" on the entry, though that issues really depends on your definition of "published" as his writings have been featured on ihaveanidea.org, tompeters.com, if.psfk.com, coudal.com and his blog site is considered a significant voice in the design field, named best in category by Applied Arts Magazine. That's uh, notable I'd say. And he's currently the VP of the GDC and nominamted to succeed Yves Rouselle as President of the GDC/BC this spring.Charlie111 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable blogger. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete

Mark Busse’s qualifications have been questioned by means of the authenticity of his “Publications,” he is in fact in accordance with three of the stated criterion:

1. "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Mark’s design firm is top notch on a worldwide scale, his clients blanket the globe and stand by his product. Not only is he an internationally known Communication Designer (with awards to back him in print, interface design, and the current highly acclaimed blog.industrialbrand.com), he is also a valued member of the Vancouver art scene, having sold paintings locally and been recognized as a legitimate critic in regards to his degree in Fine Art.

2. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Mark has been actively involved in Canstruction Vancouver in support of the Food Bank since its inaugural year, he is a credited script editor on at least three indie/student films (A Beginning, Eating Crow, and Mega-force), and devotes innumerable amounts of time to the success of the non-profit Canadian Society of Graphic Designers.

3. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." A collaborative effort from Mark and Ben from IBC Published Fall 2005 in Graphic Exchange “Why should you have a blog?” in circulation throughout Canada to a lot more than 5 000 individuals. Mark’s interviews of Santa Monica’s Mike Goedecke of “Belief” and Toronto’s “Ze Frank” appear as padding on the IBC blog, but are anything but blog entries. These articles are for the betterment of the creative mind; they dive deeply into strategy, philosophy, and process, where these individuals’ mantras are made accessible to the general public. It is true that some of his articles appear on sites such as if.pfsk and blog.industrialbrand.com, but the fact that they may fall into the category of blog entry is only remotely valid, since the traffic and dedicated readers of these sites far surpass that of most published writers, as does the quality and content of the articles Mark writes.

In accompaniment to the above stated, Mark is on the forefront of Canadian Communication Design; he is a mentor to up and coming designers, he is an instructor at Vancouver Film School, and he is a keystone in the city of Vancouver though charitable contributions and the network of greatness he represents. I can see how some find it reasonable to consider Mark for deletion; however, he represents a new breed of writer/artist. His contributions may seem miniscule to those who are not active enthusiasts of digital culture, branding, design; this is his legacy and an understanding how influential he is may not surface until more people gain insight into his life.

Mark Busse’s Wikipedia page sits in a very infantile stage, it only shows crumbs of his story and appears quite vain. Revisions are needed, but it should definitely not be discarded.

toddsmithdesign 13:20, 9 February 2006

Comment. Good on you mate, but I personally fulfill half of that stuff, and my non-notable teacher fulfills the other half.--Ezeu 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tytania

I don't believe this meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. A fairly new band formed in 2004 with one disc released by "Independent" and another one that is TBA. --D e ath phoenix 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep In response to Deathphoenix's note, the band were formed in 2003, not 2004. Their first EP was however produced in 2004. I'd like to draw to the user's attention that the Wikipedia page has recently been updated with details of an upcoming European tour. This covers the WP:MUSIC requirement under point three of 'international concert tour'. --User:itsmeltc 19:46, 2 February 2006 (GMT)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete They are playing in Germany and while technically playing in another country would satisfy WP:MUSIC in letter, I don't think it does in spirit. Playing in one other EU country just doesn't really cut it for me. I live near the Canadian border in the U.S. and I know quite a few American bands who play in Toronto, Windsor, etc. Technically that could be considered an international tour but in reality they are no more notable for having played several shows accross the border than they were before those shows. I need to see a stronger case for inclusion.--Isotope23 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per itsmeltc. An American band going over the boarder to Canada would be something like an English band going to Scotland. Technically a different country, but not really international. Going from England to France, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Denmark (for example) most definately would be international. We haven't quite got to the "United States of Europe" just yet. Jcuk 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete as per Isotope. By your standard, Jcuk, going from American Samoa (a US territory) to Western Samoa (30 miles west and similar to a passage between England and France via the channel) would be international. While the EU may not be the "US of Europe" just yet, in geographic terms it's no different than a band going on an eight-state tour (and two of those states are Canadian provinces). I agree they meet WP:MUSIC in letter, but I'm not convinced that it's strong enough to keep.--み使い Mitsukai 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this band have two self-produced CDs "at the production stage", and the proposed show(s) in Germany. Whilst I wish them the best for the future — and look forward to an article when they have made it — they're not there yet. Sliggy 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolkata neighbourhoods

Delete. The article reads: Kolkata city has many densely populated outskirts region. Period. That's a bit too short, and not really useful information. Robert Weemeyer 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

~~As it stands I think this is an A1 speedy delete. Tagged. --Malthusian (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)~~

Keep, now a decent stub. I removed the speedy tag. I was aware of Dwaipayanc's good history, but as the article had been like that for a month and a half I thought perhaps it had been abandoned and forgotten. --Malthusian (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait before speedy deleting. Article created by Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), who has 1481 edits. Maybe he's going to expand it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 14:07Z
Comment. Have left a message for Dwaipayanc. It might be too late as it has been nominated for speedy. In any case, it should be expanded so that it has some context. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It has been expanded to stub status. Capitalistroadster 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, now that it's no longer empty. It needs some copy-editing though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 12:15Z
Delete. Category:Kolkata neighbourhoods already does all the job. The article contains little content, which can be added as description of the category. Besides, no other articles link to this page. utcursch | talk 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Categories don't serve the same purposes as articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, seems like an encyclopedic article, and why do I always read these in my mind in an Apu Nahaseemapetilon accent? JIP | Talk 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep articles, lists and categories all have different uses, as Zoe said. Jcuk 20:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand --Gurubrahma 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damjana Mraovic

Delete. Non-notable academic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Edrigu 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete No clear evidence of notability in the article and searching around I find reference to several essays and some speaking engagements, but nothing that really meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Just because someone has lectured in public, does not make them notable. Avi 19:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. She's not even faculty, so doesn't even come close to passing the professor test... her title is Teaching Assistant, and the school's directory confirms she's a (graduate, I'd assume) student. --Kinu 07:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Island School Staff

Very sparse list of non-notable faculty for a private school in Hong Kong. - Pureblade | ^Θ 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, too much detail for an encylopedia. Kappa 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kappa. Kusma (討論) 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Not something that could be turned into one. They couldn't even be bothered to capitalise the names. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete sufficent information on Island School in main article; no need for an extraneous list of staff.--Isotope23 17:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I routinely delete lists of staff from school articles, we certainly don't need separate articles! User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Oh please. ListSpam at its worst. I'm thinking about listing the Dallas TX, phonebook, BTW. Care to join me? Avi 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Toss in the Washington DC one and I'm in. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic list-cruft. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A-B-C-Delete per all of the above. --Kinu 07:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft, unencyclopedic. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Arvunescu

Sounds like a fascinating person if this is anything but a non-notable biography, but my disbelief that anyone could have done all that before the age of 21 is backed up by the fact that the only google hits for this guy appear to be a blog and the same entry mirrored in several languages. Francs 2000 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article mostly not about subject, who is a NN student. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and apparently not WP:V.--Isotope23 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as bald vanity. Author is "Arvunescu". Author's only pages are Adrian Arvunescu and Arvunescu, which redirects to Adrian Arvunescu. --Lockley 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete candidate for {{db-bio}} Avi 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AFD is not for proposed merges. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sepulveda Blvd. (Unsigned Freeway)

redundant; should be deleted and any unique contents murged with Sepulveda Boulevard Carlossuarez46 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC) sorry "merged" not "murged". Carlossuarez46 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Who considers it to be an unsigned freeway - someone at Caltrans got bored?--み使い Mitsukai 20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoskinson Tizenski Data Compression Algorithm

A carefully prepared nihilartikel, ie. an hoax. Claiming 1000-fold compression was the giveaway. No related Google hits except a Wikipedia user talk page which lead me to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Hoskinson. See also Talk:Charles Hoskinson. -- RHaworth 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a hoax! I use the damn algorithm every single day for my work with Oracle. It has serious problems in form as well as mathematical syntax. The 1,000 fold compression is only the result of billions of calculations per megabyte; totally impractical for any application, but tempting enough to consider research. I decided to post its existence on Wikipedia because of its limited exposure on the web. Thanks Wikipedia, in your hunt for perfection you are attacking a mathematical marvel.

Dr. William Mossberg Senior Theoretical Mathematical consultant Oracle Corporation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmossberg (talk • contribs)

Bona fides, please. "Dr. William Mossberg" gives 0 google results [22]

So does "William Mossberg" and Oracle [23] -- Avi 01:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete You beat me to it with the further debunking of the endorser. Amateur... Tearlach 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thousand-fold compression, huh? Delete until this can actually fit my entire porn collection on one floppy disk. --Kinu 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. I've seen much better hoax attempts. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - as hoax --Haham hanuka 12:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thescrapbookproject

Delete: Lacks Notability. Current traffic rank on Alexa is 4,426,941 Mdiamond 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, not currently notable, abominable alexa rating, 33 Google hits. Adrian Lamo ·· 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why do people still consider an alexa rating at all relevent? Alexa only claimed to have 10 million total downloads (IE ONLY), most of those are probably uninstalled or removed by now. Alexa has not been a popular search engine for years.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most wanted in Birmingham, England

Reason why the page should be deleted

Delete This entry is mainly about local graffiti artists and gangs (most of which don't even sound real). Maybe, someone having a laugh?

These are real graffiti artists in Birmingham. I know this because I live in Birmingham and have seen these tags on walls.

Delete we have graffiti artists in California too, but most of them aren't notable or encyclopedic. delete unless article cites sources and shows notability. Adrian Lamo ·· 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is only useful for p33p0l 0n dA 1ns1deeeee. To the ones of us with real lives (as if I could talk) this is completely unencyclopedic cruft. JIP | Talk 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Vanity, unverifiable, possible hoax, and COMPLETELY unencyclopædic. Oh yeah, and just plain st00p1d. Avi 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per JIP. Camillus (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as attack page. (It's possible it was created by the vandals themselves, but it's still masquerading as an attack page.) --Allen 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Garfinkel

NN. A partner at a design studio. It is questionable if the design studio itself is notable. Ezeu 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 19:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 20:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environment and sexual orientation

A schoolboy agonising over his own sexual orientation by the sound of it. I would condemn it as original research but there is no research in it. -- RHaworth 18:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as an essay, among other things. --Kinu 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete essay. Suggest the author get a blog.--Isotope23 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I edited to remove people's contact information & email addresses (Isn't there a policy prohibiting inclusion of that data?). Can this be speedied so that some unfortunate teacher whose email remains in the article's history pages doesn't get deluged with spam or hate-messages. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Isotope23. Camillus (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure if it's speediable, but it's pure speculation. --Allen 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. How did it get here? Pavel Vozenilek 01:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. It's rather sweet though, looks like the kid's trying to make a good article. Still, delete, obviously. -- ConDem 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FITFO

Neologism with very few relevant Google hits. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary.--Adam ^(talk) 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was moot, favoring delete. I speedy-deleted this patently nonsensical template (incorrectly listed here). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wal*Mart Employee

Heh, someone's idea of a joke. I don't think there are enough notable Walmart droids to warrant a Wikipedia template -- Aim Here 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not worth a BJAODN. --Kinu 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esquire limo

Advertising Jcbarr 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete Blatant Advertising Avi 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. --Kinu 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advert. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete — per nom.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supraluxe

Non-notable vanity... appears to be written by the band's lead singer. --Gun Metal 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not notable yet. Avi 19:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Street

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}}

Hoax. No relevant Google hits - and the author had the bare-faced cheek to ask me why I deleted it! Just to cover myself, I will say: or nn-bio. -- RHaworth 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, really not a hoax. I'm sorry if it looks like one but it really isn't. Delete it if you must but it is real.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr34 (talk • contribs)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability to see how you can prove this is not a hoax, if it isn't. Thryduulf 19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless proved to be not a hoax. I have to say in its favour though that it is a hell of a lot more NPOV than the version I deleted earlier today. Thryduulf 19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time, I don't think i'll be able to find any information in reputable articles or anything so you may delete it - sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr 34 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 February 2006
Delete Unverifiable Avi 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. (I tagged it for speedy deletion originally.) --Phronima 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:V. --Kinu 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
keep you must keep this article. i will come back with truth.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.22.39 (talk • contribs)
Delete. No evidence of notability nor verifiability; supported by anon who has made attack and dubious edits. -- Infrogmation 13:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Not much comprimise is there? Come on I'm not lying —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr34 (talk • contribs)
- One of the core principles of Wikipedia is Verifiability. If something cannot be independently verified then it will be deleted, regardless of whether it is true or a hoax. Follow the link to learn more. Thryduulf 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for at least accepting it might not be a hoax - you should get rid of it as the article can't be varified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr34 (talk • contribs)

The west-midlands transexual alliance asks Wikipedia to keep the Amy Street article!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovy Chorizó (talk • contribs) (user's third edit)

I know this information is true, please keep this article

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.22.39 (talk • contribs) (a dynamic IP address)

I dont care wether its deleted or not but it seems like theres alot of people who want it to stay What losers would go that far just to offend someone =\ just my opinion *Shrugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.208.242 (talk • contribs) , (IP's first edit).

Good point! But that still doesn't count for making the article true, as we can't find any complete evidence to back up the article. I give up! Just delete it guys, theres nothing that we can do. Its local intrest anyway - not like anyone outside Birmingham cares!

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cullen Hightower

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jdcooper as nn-bio, but there's a claim of notability, so bringing it to AfD instead. I found a number of sites with his quotes ([24] [25] but not Wikiquote), however. howch e ng {chat} 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I would like clarification. Is this article about Cullen Hightower or Cullen Tower The article is entitled Cullen Hightower; however, within the text the article refers to Cullen Tower. James084 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Appears to be a bad rewrite of this: [26]. I'm leaning delete as not WP:V as I don't really consider an uncited bio on conservativeforum.org to be worth the bandwidth it takes up. Searching around the web the only other biographical info I can find is blog replicants of the conservativeforum.org spiel. Unless someone can point me to a better cited page...--Isotope23 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Quotes are notable, but there just isn't any WP:V info on Mr. Hightower himself. Quotes sould be in wikiquote though.--Isotope23 20:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Isotope23. James084 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrivia

The article already exists on Wiktionary in almost the exact form. Moving to Wiktionary is therefore unneeded - delete. haz (user talk) 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Already on Wiktionary --light darkness 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Dolan

Delete, vanity page. I have to confess, I do like the wolves vandalism thing. KJPurscell 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete even removing the wolves stuff you get a HS band teacher Ruby 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and is much less interesting once the vandalism is removed.--Isotope23 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax (Wolfenese?!), not notable, vanity, and the misspellings to boot (North Shore Youth Symphony Orchestra should be contracted NSYSO, not NYSO). So, just toss this. Avi 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Murphy, Murphyism

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Ltbarcly as "obvious hoax" but hoaxes aren't speediable. Ltbarcly reports no Google hits outside of Wikimirrors. howch e ng {chat} 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover there are no google hits for any of the unique names of people, institutions, or unique terms such as "murphyism". Ltbarcly 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete both as not WP:V and probable hoaxes.--Isotope23 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete obviously.. Ltbarcly 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Probable Hoax Avi 20:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Jablokov

nn vanity bio Jcbarr 19:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete totally not notable Ruby 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn Avi 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Recent media coverage[27] and roughly 1000[28] Google hits for "Igor Jablokov" +ibm. Putatively notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no suggestion of notability in article. Being mentioned in media doesn't ensure long term encyclopedical notability. (I have objection against media being used as such arbitration tool.) Pavel Vozenilek 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redir to Demographics of Bulgaria. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minorities of Bulgaria

I believe that this article has no reason to exist. The factual information that exists in the first paragraph is already covered accurately in Demographics of Bulgaria. The second paragraph appears openly POV and xenophobic, without adding any valuable information in my opinion. It also has no pages linking to it. Therefore, I believe it should be deleted. --Mathwizard1232 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Further note: Past discussion has been here, on the article's talk page. --Mathwizard1232 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Isotope23 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ per the consensus on the talk page. It's a potentially valid topic, but since none of the persons who've expressed their concerns on the talk page seems to have been willing to do a proper rewrite since last October, I think deleting is best for now. Of course, as it now stands it's entirely unacceptable. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Change to redirect as per Mitsukai below. Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Demographics of Bulgaria, as minorities is a search term.--み使い Mitsukai 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, redirect might be good too, but the function would be the same, as it's unlikely the second paragraph would be saved. --Mathwizard1232 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Entwistle, Lillian Entwistle

Both were tagged for speedy deletion by User:Rmhermen as nn-bio but talk page claims this is story is being covered by news agencies. Bringing it to AfD instead. My personal feeling is that murder victims are not necessarily notable. howch e ng {chat} 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, tragic... but not notable. This has garned local media attention in the Boston area but has not been nationally reported in the U.S. Unless someone can demonstrate that this has been widely reported in the U.K. I lean towards deletion--Isotope23 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This story has been covered unrelentingly on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. Saying that it has not been nationally reported in the US is grossly inaccurate. Monicasdude 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think "unrelentingly" is a case of hyperbole. I've seen a passing story about it on CNN. I've seen nothing on MSNBC. I don't watch FOXNews because it's not really news. I don't spend 24 hours a day watching the news, but this is not something that has been reported on the level of Natalee Holloway. Again, I hope they catch the bastard that did this, but it's just not any more notable than the dozens of murders that happen every week in my home town.--Isotope23 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was working at home (sick) yesterday with TV news in the background, and it was covered by CNN Headline every 30 minutes. I switched to MSNBC later in the day, and they ran virtually identical, relatively lengthy segments three times in three hours. I wish the comment was hyperbole, but it got about 100 times as Bush's much-needed program to increase the costs of college education in the US. Monicasdude 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just what we need. Bush increasing the cost of education... :)--Isotope23 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Yes, tragic, but not more notable than the plethora of other crimes. Avi 20:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As above, not every murder is notable. Rmhermen 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is actually quite the major story. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Isotope 23s request for evidence this case has been widely reported in the UK.

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

Jcuk 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete because unlike the Shipman case or Hindley case, no one will remember these people this time next year. The case has already dropped from the radar screen. Pilatus 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the case will re-emerge undoubtedly when a suspect is arrested and tried. If we've forgotten it a year from now, then nominate again. Carlossuarez46 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete As Pilatus says, is this going to be an iconic crime in a year's time, or even a few months' time? No. Non-notable. If it becomes iconic later, it can always be recreated. Tearlach 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- perhaps not the most notable story, but notable at least in New England and the UK, not to mention a very weird case with some interesting twists and turns in the investigation. Haikupoet 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus and Tearlach. Ral315 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, tragic but not encyclopaedic. Wikinews is three doors down. Stifle 18:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - its on the BBC News front page right now given that charges have been levelled, and I've been hearing about it on UK radio, and I suspect that if I were to watch the news, it would get on there too. Notable. --New Progressive 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep There has just been a 2 minute item on BBC national radio news. Bhoeble 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Tragic but not notable. Djegan 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- An international news story that got major play on MSNBC's Nancy Grace show isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Where does it say that I voted for the deletion (or said was not notable) of "an international news story"? The question here is two people, not the international news, redirect to Neil Entwistle would be adiquate for both. Djegan 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    - One of the wonderful things about wikinews is that it can cover these types of cases - which are undoubtly prominant at the moment; this prominance is not in question. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia and until the full facts are known and come out (as which they will undoubtly) I think it is best, as has often has being on wikipedia, not to write articles based purely on headlines and halfacts. Djegan 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Both articles must stay. The suspect is very important, but the victims are the most important part of the whole thing. The articles give a little bit more info about the victims, I think. Fanficgurl 3:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Particle Higgs

There already is an article on the higgs boson, to which this article adds nothing. The article is a composite of several forum articles from the reference in the articles. The article also does not make much sense. Salsb 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article doesn't offer sufficient explanation for the non-expert to grasp the essentials of the concepts under discussion. An article on the Higgs Boson already exists, so there is no need to replicate the information in an opaque manner. (aeropagitica) 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court Bauer

No real indication of why this chap should have a Wikipedia article File Éireann 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete {{db-bio}} Avi 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Brand Creative

Both starting members are on the AfD list as not notable. Their company needs to defend its notability as well. Avi 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom--Adam ^(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLite

Delete marginal software product. Mind matrix 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable Avi 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral about this, as I don't think the tool is popular enough to have an article here saying more that can be found on its own homepage. OTOH, I don't see any particular reason to remove it either. Is it seen as advertising? What I can say is that it is gaining more and more popularity as Microsoft progressively increases the number of "hard-coded" programs bundled with its OSes. Probably most users find nLite when searching the Internet for a way to remove Internet Explorer. In any case nLite is already cited among external links in many Windows related or installation-related articles on Wikipedia such as Slipstream (computing), Removal of Internet Explorer and even Windows XP. In the end it's not a totally marginal software product, though nothing as popular as, say, Winzip either. --Gennaro Prota 01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between iTap and T9

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Walter Görlitz as being a repost of deleted content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between iTap and T9) but it's different than the earlier version. Bringing it to AfD instead. howch e ng {chat} 20:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete And this is encyclopædic because…? Avi 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It is not encyclopedic. It is more of an instruction manual than anything else.--Adam ^(talk) 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. iCouldCareLess about T9 or iTap.--み使い Mitsukai 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. iTap and T9 are probably the two most deployed phone entry systems. A side by side reference comparison can be a useful tool for choosing between them (proof is, there are other good side-by-side product comparisons in Wikipedia). I'd say merge with predictive text or expand with comparisons to the other existing systems - maybe with a table format. Diego Moya 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Avi. Stifle 18:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge I actually think this article, iTap and T9 should be merged into one article, perhaps something like 'mobile phone input methods'. This way the two stubs and this offshoot could actually be a useful and robust article instead of little blurbs.Pdurland 19:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Producerism

Delete. Not professional and another page exists for Conspiracy Theory in addition to the following points. Northmeister 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

HI, my name is Northmeister and I tagged the page for deletion.

Conspiracism seems also to be alike in its nature so I tagged that for deletion as well.

(The following are my reasons, they were also addressed in the talk page for this so the style reflects this as I pasted them here as well.)

First, the sources listed for 'producerism' are questionable including a personal advocacy page set up by someone.
Second, (GUILT BY ASSOCIATION) Most of the people or groups listed as 'producerites' or whatever you call them are people, groups, party's who associate themselves with the traditional economic views of: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt; or their party's: Federalist, Whig, Republican (whose philosophy from 1861-1930's is mostly like Buchanan's today with a few exceptions) or the New Deal Democratic Party; called the American System by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky.
Third, the 'producerism' article is an attack on that above mentioned system of economics and its proponents, grouping them as one and the same on all issues which is dubious to the extreme. For example, Buchanan is a Conservative on social policy, but believes in a mild form of the old American System of Hamilton and Lincoln, whereas, Perot's ideas and those in the Reform Party are in line with the American System of economics mostly but he and the Reform Party are neutral or progressive (in some circumstances) on social policy. These men and party's and their philosophy overall are not interchangeable and conflict on social policy and therefore do not hold to a unified system such as 'producerism' at all.
Fourth, the personal attacks made on Lyndon Larouche (alluded to on his page here at Wikipedia) and others like H. Ross Perot (also in the conspiracism (another dubious term) page and your personal page) are obvious to your intentions and beliefs. You have a right to oppose the traditional economic system of men like Lincoln but not to defame someones character in the process! You can also label anything as an 'ism...like anti-American Systemism, if you will, as these pages are doing. These personal attacks are defamation of character and obvious bias attacks. LaRouche is an economist who embraces the American System of economics. He is also a Democrat, and advocate for certain progressive causes including being against Alito on the court. Perot is a successful businessman who desired to help the country and offered solutions that people did not vote for in the end, but he does not deserve personal attack or lumping him with the likes of Nazis, Fascists, or other tyrannical regimes. Neither does Buchanan who is no different from other Republicans except he does not toe the line on foreign policy (he holds to the traditional policy of neutrality expressed by Washington in his Farewell Address mostly) or economics (he holds to the American System (Philadelphia School) of Economics of Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Carey, Lincoln, President McKinley and so forth.
Fifth, I am an educated man holding a degree in Political Science and History with particular concentration on American History. I have never heard of the word 'producerism' either in my field or in sociology before, except here and on a website linked from here that is quite odd and does not contain a DEFINITION of PRODUCERISM that fits the men and the philosophies already mentioned making this article even more suspicious! The 'producerism' page wishes to give a negative impression to anyone who believes not in laissez faire Adam Smith economics (Austrian School) or Planned Economy Communist economics (Marxist School) but in Traditional Capitalism or American System (Philadelphia School) of economics as practiced by our nation prior to the 1970's, by associating it with such things as Nazis, Fascists, Communists and other negative groups whose sin was Tyranny (see below).
Sixth, and this is a problem on the Fascism links as well...Fascism's main point is rule by an elite or single man combined with private ownership of corporations (sometimes less so as in Fascist Italy that was more Socialistic in nature). Like Communism, it is a TYRANNY, not because it attempts to regulate the economy in this way or that (as many philosophies share the same traits depending on belief see Association fallacy on Wikipedia) but because of its restriction on individual LIBERTY (the freedom to do all you wish to do so long as no physical harm is done to others) or invasions into ones private life. Not understanding this causes confusion and allows attackers of any belief system to try to lump different political philosophies through a GUILT BY ASSOCIATION technique trying to discredit them.
Seventh, an article in Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, simply description with true example etc. It should not be made up stuff, (any 'ISM could be proposed then!) in order to attack people like Mr. Larouche (your personal page states your crusade against another 'ism Larouchism? Everything isn't an 'ism!) or Perot or Buchanan or by association some of America's Founder's like 1st U.S. Treasury Secretary Hamilton or America's Father's like President Lincoln who believed the same way as the before mentioned men on economic matters. READ Report on Manufactures, Harmony of Interest for historic examples of the American System or traditional capitalism practiced in the USA to see primary sources. You may also check out the Wikipedia link to American System) which I've also been editing to make it accurate and up to date on facts, though it still needs improvement so as to be neutral in points and to add links to the historic examples and primary sources available on the web from credible sources like Universities.

"""It does not follow the FIVE PILLARS. Guilt by Association is not Truth nor Fact. Lumping different people or groups together no matter the fancy word used for a purpose to discredit what someone does not believe is as wrong as the Nazis blaming the Jews for all of Germany's evils or for controlling the banks through Guilt by Association techniques!"""

Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Northmeister, next time you might want to try brevity in explaining things here, as this is somewhat overwhelming, IMHO. In any case, I do agree that the page does violate all that you've mentioned, and it would take a valiant and lengthy effort to rewrite this into something NPOV. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is this for the deletion of Producerism, Conspiracism, or both? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is for both (if that is how it works). --Northmeister 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Both. The articles are well-referenced and supported by citations. Both terms are clearly defined and enjoy academic use, with conspiracism somewhat more common than producerism. I don't follow the logic connecting the two pages, or urging their deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you see who created both pages the connection is obvious that both are self promotions of his theories and who he connects them to and not objective in the least.--Northmeister 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Both. --Cberlet 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Producerism. I did not create the page on producerism, contrary to the false claim by Northmeister. The term is used in political science, history, and sociology, not as a guilt by association canard, contrary to the false and hyperbolic claims by Northmeister. Academic cites are listed on the page. Conspiracism. A term used in academia, and popularized by Mintz, an academic. This is another attempt by a fan of convicted criminal and crackpot Lyndon LaRouche to delete material that is critical of the type of conspiracy theories and dubious right-wing populist economic theories promoted by the LaRouchites; such as their idiosyncratic analysis of the "American System" political tradition. Academic cites are listed on the page.--Cberlet 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Tom Harrison. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Both pages have cites to known marxist oriented (see their links for proof) and left wing political sites. I am NOT an advocate for Lyndone LaRouche except as to prevent character assassination from Cbert and synarchists like him, where does that come from? and personal attacks like that with no proof is not right for a forum like this? If you see the so-called "academic" links on the producerism and conspiracism page they are from the same site "The Public Eye" an advocacy site, not an academic site or credible source, and other authors listed write for that site. Some articles listed have nothing to do with the topic but talk of 'Populism', yet are listed as if they speak of Producerism in word. I do not make links to political sites or advocacy and neither should those links be listed as credible, they have an axe to grind just look at his diatribes against people he calls 'Right Wing'. Calling me right wing is like calling Marx a Capitalist, give me a break. Guilt By Association folks is not Facts and he does it again towards me, trying to link me to LaRouche. Check the site of his out you will see its marxist sentiment. --Northmeister 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please make sure that you have fully read and fully understood Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While the articles in question may be biased towards a particular point of view, it is not correct to attempt to remove information quoted from verifiable sources, no matter how much you believe that those sources are in error and unfair. Wikipedia's neutrality does not mean that controversial topics cannot be addressed, or that controversial opinions and point of views cannot be presented (if they are notable); it means that such views must be attributed to those who hold them, and presented fairly, without asserting that any particular view is right. - If you hold an opinion that conflicts with the text, and you can come up with your own sources that back up this different opinion, by all means, go ahead and add this dissenting viewpoint to the article. If you believe that the article is biased and favors a particular viewpoint, go ahead and remove the bias; please read the NPOV tutorial on how to do that. However, you should not try to prevent significant viewpoints from being presented, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. 62.245.80.251 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I am the creator of the Producerism article, not Chip Berlet. Politically yes I admit I am left-wing but I consider myself sympathetic to Producerism. I don't think the article is biased against it. For some reason it has been targeted by the LaRouche people... I have no idea why. Who has any idea why they do anything? Probably they have some feud with Berlet. Mjk2357 03:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No sufficient reasons for deletion have been provided. -Will Beback 04:53, 10 February 2006
Keep As above no good reason to delete. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete either article, I fond them both well written, sourced and informative on a particular aspect that is not widely known today but nonetheless important in socio-politics. Piecraft 12:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment See the talk page on Producerism for more info on my objections. So far people wish to keep, and I am willing to keep that one if it is fixed or explained better. On the Conspiracism I have this to offer for your consideration:

As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so-called "experts" are not to cite themselves and avoid neologisms.
The Conspiracism article was created by User:Cberlet, aka Chip Berlet, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&diff=38669244&oldid=9289545 Berlet cites himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&diff=25614686&oldid=25614043 and an external link from the Chip Berlet article, "Finding Our Way Out of Oklahoma", by Adam Parfrey, Alternative Press Review, Winter 1996 http://www.altpr.org/apr7/oklahoma.html attributes this neologism to Chip Berlet, in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms Other sources available on the internet also corroborate Chip Berlet is the author of this neologism.--Northmeister 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emz

Googling for emz "back on wall street" gives no hits. "Back on Wall Street" also does not appear in an IMDB search. This seems like a hoax. Note that an anon, perhaps the author, has also placed a {prod} tag on the legitimate article Wire rope. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete reads like complete nonsense.... probable hoax and not WP:V.--Isotope23 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. (Also, if the author did indeed put a {{prod}} on it, can this be speedied as author's desire to delete?) --Kinu 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- No... I'll clarify. I was observing that an anon (who I assume is the original author logged out) removed {{prod}} from here, and then added {{prod}} to a totally unrelated article. It struck me as retaliation, but I won't assume that. I asked about it and his response was "my bad". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Ah, gotcha... thanks for the clear-up. --Kinu 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Hoax: Check IMDB for title or person Avi 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Searching it on IMDB DOES return results, provided you only search "Wall Street"

No it doesn't. Show us an actual link or stop hoaxing us. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smith, Clark H

Unverifiable vanity autobiography. I've tried the (not verified) tag, but the author just keeps deleting it. No evidence of published works or independent coverage; Googling Clark+Smith+xenocentrism turns up only 1) this article and 2) a website of neologisms that doesn't even trace the word to him. Delete as WP:BIO. Melchoir 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete db-bio. So he has a few ideas. So do the other 1000 people in the office complex where I work. And neologism? Amateur neologism is the last refuge of the terminally absent-minded and lexicographically-challenged >:) Avi 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and non-notable, unverified bio. Also recommend the terms he supposedly coined be transwikied to wiktionary and deleted.--Isotope23 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
SD/Transwiki per Isotope.--み使い Mitsukai 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete No claims as to notability are asserted in the article. Neologisims are neither here nor there. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cgz

Blatant advert, offering little notable content OscarTheCat^talk 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete Blatant Advertising Avi 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advert.--Isotope23 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. But wait, "It is home to some of the most talented gamers in the UK, including the likes of 1.6 pro Tomor." OMG!!! No, wait, no. That means nothing. --Kinu 07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete --SammyTerry 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 43p dossier

Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki/Delete as per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki/Delete per nom --Isotope23 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki/Delete per nom. Avi 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - 1) article is meant to be *about* the dossier, not just a repository and 2) isn't there an issue with fair use material on wikisource? (unsigned - was Thparkth)
Transwiki/Delete per nom. --Maitch 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - In order for fair use to apply, it seems as if the scans of work need to be used in a specific way. Summarziation, English translation, and description of a newsworthy item seem like fair use (and appropriate for Wikipedia content). -- Vanitas 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Translation of a copyrighted text is not fair use, it is a copyright violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Translation is not fair use in itself. However, translation as part of an activity to educate, report the news, or pursue research, can certainly be fair use. I believe this is what we have in this case. -- Vanitas 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki/Delete per nom. Wikisource is the right place. --Angelo 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep/Transwiki Keep article about the dossier then link to wiki source with full content 130.226.173.20 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - at least for now. When the scans have been translated, they will be summarized and probably be fed back into the parent article, so as not to run afoul any copyright. After this has happened, there's time enough to consider removal/moving of the page. I object to the fact that this page has been nominated for removal after only a couple of minutes of its creation. Azate 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki/Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
keep for now, wikisource doesn't take fair use content. Consider transwiki to wikinews. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki/Delete per nom ora 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't transwiki to Wikisource which doesn't take fair use, or to Wikinews which is creative commons, so keep per Azate. Stifle 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
keep this is of significant interest and very difficult to find elsewhere on the web and throws considerable light on a subject of major international interest. What are the arguments for deleting???? GregLondon 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
keep for now. It is better to allow people to see the actual images rather than spreading tell-tale stories about them. The images should not stay indefinitely, but they are relevant at the moment. --Valentinian 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
keep per Azate. - Nortonew 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
keep The dossier and the tour is central for the developement MX44 05:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
keep Absolutely keep! These documents are probably going to prove very telling in light of recent developments concerning publication of the caricatures in question in Egypt as early as Oct. of last year. Netscott 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is OK for us to use such a large chunk of the fair-use info and not OK for the source, I vote keep. If it is possible to transwiki - lets transwiki, if it is a copyright violation for us, then delete of course. abakharev 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource It is info that will help understand how disinformation original got spread. A human 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Netscott. The dossier may turn out to be as noteworthy as the cartoons. (The article has way too many images. Those should be transwikied to wikisource.) --PeR 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Netscott as well. Kyaa the Catlord 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
keep for now. Consider transwiki to wikinews. Wikisource not suitable for fair use documents . --Donar Reiskoffer 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now per Azate. -- Avenue 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Keep" Very important & Very difficult to find anywhere else -- Milo 86.139.124.242 08:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

frivolous (this nom -- when good work is being done, don't obstruct it for no good reason) Lotsofissues 09:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
KeepProvides commentary on source, will provide more. Babajobu 10:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is an important historical document. It is often blamed as the most important igniter of the crisis. It is a unique place for people to judge its content Claush66 11:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep but move out of the article space. It can't be moved to wikisource because of copyright reasons. However it's a work in progress and is being used to help translate from the arabic. The images may be on dodgy ground - but I expect a strong article on the dossier to come out of the work User:Azate and others are doing. Once the article is done I suggest we delete most of the images. Secretlondon 12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep It may prove to be an essential part, at least until a full translation is made.DanielDemaret 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article is quite possibly historically significant, considering continuing revelations as to the purposes for which it was printed and the questionable origins of three cartoons associated with it. At the least, until the article has been fully translated and is better understood, it should not be deleted, and Transwiki to another medium is apparently problematic. Richard 129.244.23.13 13:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep As per previous arguments. An extremely relevant piece of information: I shall try and update some analytical/explanatory content using the BBC Special report on this matter due to be broadcast on Radio 4 tonight. --KharBevNor 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article is quite possibly historically significant--Sheherazahde 14:13, 9 February 2006
Keep -- possibly historically significant, also the dossier is important in unraveling of events. -Mardus 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This could be a reference for any debate on the topic. --Yobaranut 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now. Its pages like this that make wikipedia so valuable. (unsigned comment by Greasysteve13)
Keep. This elements are central in the crisis.Oe kintaro 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This document is essential for the case. Angelbo 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep incredibly important to the ongoing events Thparkth 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Sijo Ripa 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep very important sub-article to give proper information about important world event. Johntex\^talk 17:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki belongs on wikisource, wikipedia is not a host of source material. ALKIVAR™ 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep very important sub-article to give proper information about important world event. WAS 4.250 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Transwiki to wikisource. What is Copyright situation? Rich Farmbrough. 13:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Current version does not even resemble the page submitted for deletion: [48]. Should be at least renominated for deletion before deleted. --KimvdLinde 16:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Falcone
Keep - Per normal AFD rules a article on the dossier itself is not only approprate but I think required. The rest is content dispute which belongs on the talk page then if it can't be resolved on WP:RFC. Dalf | Talk 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DISfreaks

Blatant advert OscarTheCat^talk 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable term for members of a non-notable forum.--Isotope23 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete non-notable, no context, unencyclopædic, etc. Avi 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Very notable - provides a free resource for students of the Danube International School Vienna (http://www.danubeschool.at) to share educational resources, news and ideas. DISfreak 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Isotope23, and Avi. 2000 total posts since last year? There are forums that reach that level in an hour. Despite no set forum standards, this seems hardly notable. --Kinu 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: article currently has no text whatsoever, previous versions appear completely nonnotable. -- BinaryTed 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy-deleted. Non-sensical biography article with no coherent claim to notability. - Haukur 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas p kling

Page is just a joke - probably about a professor the writer has. No potential here for a real article. --Spout 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete not WP:V, apparent hoax.--Isotope23 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete nonsense, and tagged as such Avi 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete this exactly... either nominate List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs or send this to redirects for deletion. W.marsh 20:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fantastic Four 1 cover spoofs

Nothing links to this page; it is merely a redirect that is not being used. Control 21:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment it redirects to List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs which IMO should be AfD'd as pointless listcruft.--Isotope23 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirects for deletion is just upstairs, turn the corner. Stifle 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahmen

Delete: Neologism. From article "I have created this word with my meaning" Cje 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as neologism...--Isotope23 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Too bad it isn't nonsense, then it could be speedied. But not every guru-in-his-mind-only can neologize on wikipedia. Yahman! (Which means to bring clarity, to accept and extend proper wiki entries to all those in need, to send strength to all wiki editors and to all admins, to accept the sysop that is in us all, all things deletionist.) Yahman! >:) Avi 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism Treznor 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra-humane

A hoax involving the humane keeping of livestock. The suggestion to keep "gentle roosters" with the chickens gives it away.

Was tagged {{prod}} until an anon removed the tag. Pilatus 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I was the one who originally {{prod}}ed this. Article has slightly changed in tone and context since then, but basic rationale still holds, which was: "Ultra-humane in this context may be a neologism for this concept. Google cannot verify this usage. Article may also be based on original research and have an anti-meat industry bias. (NOTE: Same user crosslinked article from Chicken.)" Have to agree with sentiment that this is a hoax as well. --Kinu 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not necessarily a hoax, but certainly a neologism that is not WP:V. All this talk about chicken makes me want some KFC.--Isotope23 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Mechanically recovered meat? That's the exact opposite of "ultra-humane". Spot on, mate! Pilatus 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, etc. etc. etc. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion Watch

Blog advert. Blog not notable. Thunder 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, etc. etc. etc. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete blogcruft.--Isotope23 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope23 Avi 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising and soapbox. --Kinu 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Diane Reitz

Borderline on claiming notability, but looks like vanity

Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Borderline notability claim per nom, so this can't be speedied. Reeks of vanity; non-notable regardless. --Kinu 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This article is part of the WikiProject Webcomics. While this article is borderline on notability, I do not see it as a vanity article. While the trivia section is a substantial portion of the article at this time, I think the article has potential. Andrea Parton 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not yet prepared register an opinion one way or the other about this article, but I would like to point out that being tagged by webcomics wikiproject isn't a notability statement. Mainly it just means the article is webcomics-related.–Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Not vanity. Examine the history to see. Notability is established by list of works. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, appears to be non-notable, unverifiable. Regarding WikiProject Webcomics, EVERY webcomic article is part of this project. -- Dragonfiend 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Since this article was nominated for deletion, it has been improved. And clearly, Jennifer Diane Reitz has created two webcomics worthy of Wikipedia articles, so that is another factor to consider. Reitz is also well known among the transsexual community, giving her another area of notability. I think there are plenty of other people with Wikipedia articles who are no more notable than Reitz, so I think that with some improvement, this may be a very good article. Andrea Parton 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genie Group

Delete. nn company, advertisment. Originaly was proded by tag was removed. Jan Smolik 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete Advertising. Avi 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. More than likely advertising. Alexa rank for this page: none; for the page linked from there: 345,563. --Kinu 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete ad. Rhobite 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - one of a series of vanity articles by Philip Wilkinson - who is currentlyu blocked for spamming and self advertising. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Talk!) 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense and attack). --Nlu (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown People

I'm not even sure what this is, but it may or may not be nonsensical enough for a speedy... (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

keep for the fact that "brown people" have brown or light or dark brown skin and being famous like r kelly or chris brown or someone like that. MaoJin 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC) no racist battle i want again.
Delete. Might as well call it: "everyone who isn't caucasian" list. — TheKMan^talk 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Oh yeah, this is speedy-material. And to choose as examples people who are reknown for their fight to destroy the color barrier between races adds insult to injury Avi 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorilla Killa

nn series of short films. Zero Google hits for '"gorilla killa" "Erik Hohenberger"', '"gorilla killa" "Aaron Marine"' or '"gorilla killa" "White Crow"'. A grand total of 175 hits for all iterations of "Gorilla Killa" by itself, and I can't find any that refer to these films. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. — TheKMan^talk 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Muchness 23:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kinu 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable Avi 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 adding merge tag. W.marsh 20:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The grapevine

Critique of a 2-minute segment of a news show. I considered suggesting that it be merged with Brit Hume (where The Grapevine is briefly mentioned) but there's not much here that doesn't read like a point-of-view critique. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this page should be merged with the Special Report with Brit Hume page. Perhaps we should create a section of that page about The Grapevine. Thanks for pointing that out! 70.108.76.242 23:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge any NPOV information to Special Report with Brit Hume and redirect there, or back to the disambig page Grapevine. --Kinu 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very neutral to me. 70.108.76.242 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge as described by Kinu. Choess 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roberte sworde

A hoax about a 5th century explorer from North Woodham. Originally tagged {{prod}}, but an anon removed the tag. Now it's here. Pilatus 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete makey-uppy, dull rubbish. Camillus (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Oh, it's not even even a good or amusing hoax. Tearlach 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverified, possible hoax Avi 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not even funny, so not worth a BJAODN. --Kinu 07:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Efird

non-notable in any sense of the word. Jcbarr 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - wikipedia is not a repository for resumes of everybody in the world. per nom Camillus (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable per nom and WP:NOT Monster.com per Camillus. --Kinu 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete db-bio and tagged as such. Avi 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --W.marsh 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubby

I used Proposed Deletion on that but the creator removed the tag without discussion so I guess it comes here. This is another neologism from some web forum, as far as I can tell, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Would need some evidence that this has been formally defined and used in reputable publications, and could be more than a simple dictionary definition. W.marsh 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been deleted. --Kinu 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Skaggs Family

Though I hate to see the author's hard work go to waste, the page is a breach of WP:NOR. Evidence from firsthand conversations is irreparably ingrained into the article, and cleanup issues are clearly not going to be solved. Deltabeignet 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete for now per nom. Is there anything of worth (i.e., cited and relevant) that can be easily merged into the supermarkets' respective articles? If so, I might consider going for that. --Kinu 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete This kind of family history cruft makes me reach for my revolver. As Deltabeignet says, the source citation is inextricably mixed with original research and online genealogical scrapbooks of doubtful reputability by Wikipedia standards. Tearlach 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witches in modern culture

A great article could be written on the subject, but this is not it. It isn't wiki-formatted, and it looks like it was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. Finally, the "Books by Sybil Leek" section is clearly some sort of advertising-related abuse of the wiki. -Seth Mahoney 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, It looks very like copyvio from somewhere, but the many Google hits on it are all various ebcyclopædic sites. Not a bad article at all, apart from the silly list of Sybil Leek publications. I vote weak keep though it needs a good deal of cleanup and verification that it's not a cut 'n' shut job promoting Silver Ravenwolf or somebody similar.Tonywalton | Talk 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't agree that it is well-written, but I'm also not the final authority on that. At the very least, if it is kept, it needs to be edited for NPOV, heavily sourced (with sources other than Sybil Leek), and a section needs to be added commenting on fundamentalist Christian witchcraft mythology. -Seth Mahoney 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. What happened here is that James P Sullivan (talk · contribs) cut a terribly-written section from Witchcraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), created this article and pasted the cut material into it. I notice that authorship history was lost in this. If this AfD results in a keep vote, GFDL history compliance needs to be sorted out. One day someone will write a Sybil Leek article and the bibliography might be handy, but most of the text here is very low-value. Jkelly 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, seems like it can be improved, but Jkelly brings up an interesting point: what happens when articles are cannibalized, broken into smaller parts, Frankensteined vis-a-vis the GFDL? Happens on WP all the time... Carlossuarez46 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Delete the others have convinced me, particularly this adds little to Witchcraft. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Questions that it may be worth asking are, will this article ever be cleaned up? Are there people currently interested in doing the work? If no to either, it may be better to just delete and leave a red link for that time when we have someone who is interested. -Seth Mahoney 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. In theory, one should link to the diff / history of the article that one is forking in the very first edit summary of the new one. Jkelly 03:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks, JKelly. Carlossuarez46 21:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to say "merge to Witchcraft," but since it's already in the edit history of that article ([49]), there's no need. The people working on that article can use it or not as they wish. If it doesn't even merit a section in Witchcraft, it certainly doesn't merit its own article - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete consensus was that article in this essay form was not acceptable --W.marsh 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weimar Economics, German Inter-war Economy

Essay, see WP:NOR --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. Ardenn 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Delete both. Ardenn

Comment I added German Inter-war Economy because it is an exact copy of the first article. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment ===Weimar Economics===

Reason Julian Malt 00:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)I feel that the first essay, having been innapropriately titled, has every right to be re-submitted to the archive with a more suitable name. If you would like to provide a more justifiable reason for why it should be deleted please do so. However, i fell that this will be in vain as it is a very good essay. Please note that this is a serious point!

Comment here here
- No original research. WP:V Ardenn 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. Succinct. --Kinu 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep it looks reference ready. -- Marvin147 06:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as written, delete as original research. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep assuming it is factual, with a few citations and cleanup of prose, wouldn't this be the kernel of a proper article? If it isn't factual, someone should *edit* it rather than delete it. The NOR command is not a substitute for just adding citations. If someone(s) have the idea to do it, they should. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strudel Haus

Advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete business promotion gidonb 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete quote:"Strudel Haus now employs over 1,500 people and has net gains of over 1.3 billion dollars annually." - doubt it somehow, but if true why are these cheapskates using WP for free advertising? Camillus (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Tentative delete. Seems like self-promotion at this point, and I can't seem to verify any of information contained within, which seems like it should be verifiable if true. I am, however, against deleting this - or any business' page - if it's written in a neutral and verifiable manner. -- Matty j 00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Zero Google hits for "strudel haus" "jeff strauss". Probably doesn't meet WP:CORP, likely V and A. ("Strudel Haus by Jeff Strauss is not a restaurant"... then why are there pictures of restaurants? *scratches head*) --Kinu 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless the claims from article are verified. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete non-notable, reeks of advertising Avi 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds delicious. Delete as unremarkable. Make sure the pictures get deleted too. -- Krash (Talk) 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:BALLS. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement. --Dogbreathcanada 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax advertisement DVD+ R/W 21:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fortiergate

This is a POV rant with a title that appears to be the writer's own creation. Whatever relevant information there is in here is already in other locations. Delete. Matty j 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. No one has described this as a scandal and I've never heard Fortiergate before seeing this page. Wikipedia isn't a forum for partisan rants. Delete --SFont 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable scandal. Besides that -gate isn't original anymore. We've been doing that since 1972. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Likely a POV fork. Is this even a widely accepted term? --Kinu 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedi is not a soapbox. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Exactly 0 Google hitz. -- Krash (Talk) 02:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Liberal biased. Jacky man Toronto
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Awful neologism. The supposed 'scandal' is entirely the author's invention. Suitable commentary on the appointment already exists under appropriate articles. Peter Grey 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete someone can revive this once the term actually has been seen in a publication. In the meantime post information on Fortier's entry. Kelvinc 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Article is blantantly slanted, describing a supposed "scandal" that has not been referenced in a single media source. Tettyan 13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Article uses POV and has a name that has never been used in the news. Pbfurlong 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Just a useless rant with a derrivative name.Habsfannova 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV. And can I just say I've had quite enough with people suffixing -gate to random words to denote a scandal? Bearcat 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete For all the reasons above --M vopni 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As much as I think the Conservatives are about as accountable as an other party (i.e. not) and that this Fortier move of theirs is dirty pool, this particular article is simply a POV rant and the term Fortiergate hasn't been used by the media I've been watching. --Dogbreathcanada 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete by the way, references to "Fortiergate" show up in various articles about the new Canadian Cabinet, PM, election, etc... (pardon me if my terminology is off) someone who knows should edit such references out. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henri Buttress

Reads like a hoax. Googling yields only mirror sites [50] CDN99 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Tried various searches and cannot find any info. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable; likely hoax. --Kinu 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete likewise. No verification. Tearlach 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax (Earhart promised him a dashboard hula girl?! Did they even exist back then?!) Avi 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as bad joke (not even funny). -- Krash (Talk) 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The Second Boer War finished before the Wright brothers first flight. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Obvious hoax. (Flying "Buttress", get it?) --Russ Blau (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:Malo Adrian Lamo ·· 06:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Keys to a Better Night's Sleep

This smells strongly of copyvio, though I can't track it down. Whether or not it is, WP:ISNOT a how-to guide. Delete Tonywalton | Talk 23:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Your suspicion is correct. Can't access page directly, but take a large block of text and google with quotes you find this page [51] with google summary results showing page has exact text. Copyvio and per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Fuhghettaboutit --light darkness 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. Besides, Wikipedia is not Wikibooks. -- Krash (Talk) 02:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 7

[edit] Chronikill

[edit] Trợ giúp:Viết bài mới

[edit] Sunny Mountain Media Group

[edit] Chief Minister of Rajasthan

[edit] General stone

[edit] List of books about World War II

[edit] Usus of ephinasia

[edit] Wunderbars

[edit] Crazy Cross

[edit] Blueprints and Borrowed Letters

[edit] Ac/Dc

[edit] Port-a-john tipping

[edit] Green hat

[edit] Sean Ripple

[edit] Imao blog

[edit] Heavy metal umlaut

[edit] Manbean

[edit] Bios Data Analyzer

[edit] Dnk

[edit] Don't Judge Me

[edit] Pajoolr

[edit] Lists of famous people with Tourette Syndrome

[edit] Panscope

[edit] Ted Guhl

[edit] Bradycubia

[edit] Candaulism

[edit] Pleo

[edit] Epagoge

[edit] National Kidney Foundation Singapore/Sources of public comments

[edit] List of fastest roller coasters

[edit] List of tallest roller coasters

[edit] JCN

[edit] MC Encyclopedia Bear

[edit] Compunicate

[edit] Safety Not Guaranteed

[edit] Chonga

[edit] Tourettes Guy

[edit] Beastron 3000, Beastron

[edit] Jay Zuckerman

[edit] Sean O'Bryan

[edit] Tan Rui Xiang

[edit] G & T night

[edit] List of people associated with World War II

[edit] List of 2006 Hot Wheels

[edit] 88.9 Lancer Radio - Pasadena Campus Sounds

[edit] Durham Center, Connecticut

[edit] Z0l

[edit] Zerbohevzwatz

[edit] Miami University Plantation House

[edit] Eva Z. Genthe

[edit] Poor Atticus

[edit] Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[edit] Tirakh

[edit] List of famous hotel bars

[edit] Eurooptimism

[edit] Webgm

[edit] CEMA Engineering LTD

[edit] Beta-Psi Chapter of Kappa Sigma

[edit] Syedna Burhanuddin

[edit] Alice@Wonderland

[edit] AceProject

[edit] The Mighty MJD

[edit] Dyakuyu, Ruslano

[edit] Ampland

[edit] Russia Import Company

[edit] Alexander Franklin Mayer

[edit] Olesya Rulin

[edit] Youngsonism

[edit] Fastminute

[edit] British Sandwich Association

[edit] OurCampaigns

[edit] JavaScript Client Communication

[edit] NIC International

[edit] Non-linear exploration

[edit] DataArt

[edit] Saphin