Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 10 January 12 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow 2012

webcomic with a total of 3 pages see [1] Melaen 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FOOJO

probalble nonsense see on google Melaen 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A Google search for Foojo turned up no hits that were related to the article. Likely nonsense. Arviragus 01:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. No Google hits for "ninja turtles foojo". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:46Z
  • Delete as unverifiable. N Shar 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete from mainspace unless it can be verifed -- Eddie 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not verified.--MONGO 05:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if it could be verified, it is not that worthy of its own article. DaGizza Chat 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. VegaDark 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable in the English WP (or indeed arguably anywhere else) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Robin Johnson 16:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it is unverifiable, unimportant and poorly written. Themusicking 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all above. User:Cchan199206
  • Delete. Kafziel 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GTAGuides.com

Website vaporware, the site is not online yet and hence inherently non-notable. Stifle 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTA-SanAndreas.com —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:26Z
  • Delete as non-notable website. Once it's launched it should probably be merged to the GTASanAndreas article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:44Z
  • Delete as non-notable website, and we are not a crystal ball: the site doesen't exist yet. Mike 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Onthost(Mike) -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article about a non-existant website? Come back when it attains notable status. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NN website. VegaDark 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crystal ball spam. The worst kind. Actualy all spam is the worst kind.. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it's spam and it is not notable. Themusicking 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG.--SarekOfVulcan 23:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nn. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This should really be merged into the GTA-SanAndreas.com article, and when it is operational, the GTA-SanAndreas.com article should be renamed. We could do with an automated link to the GTA-SanAndreas.com article. GoldenTie 08:15, 12 January 2006
  • I have copied it over to the GTA-SanAndreas.com article, and am trying to integrate it better. I agree the GTAGuides.com article should now be deleted, for now. Nanook 22:31, 12 January 2006
  • Keep Why delete it? What's the point? Who cares if there is an extra link on Wiki? What's the big deal? - cg

(UTC)

  • Delete as nn vaporware for the time being. I would support recreation when the other url goes offline and switches its content to here. But delete, for now. Youngamerican 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense plus spam. --Terence Ong Talk 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for many of the reasons stated above. NN, NE, spam. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Spam is evil. -MegamanZero|Talk 01:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Months Till Spring

Looks like vanity of a high-school band. Staecker 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Japanese artists

Nearly blank list that is devalued in comparison to its category. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:37Z
  • Weak Delete (added after post AFD edits see comments below) or Redirect to Japanese artists Category -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and protest. It is impossible to measure the merits of a redirected page. This action preempts discussion. Durova 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Lists can communicate information that categories cannot. At the risk of self-promotion I'll make my own most recent list an example: take a look at List of notable brain tumor patients. A researcher of Japanese art may want information on eighteenth century ivory netsuke artists. An expanded list could make them easier to locate. Durova 08:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Protest I agree with, but why keep? This is a useless, forgotten, nearly empty list, and we have a bright shiny category! I mean, c'mon! I hardly ever nominate things for deletion(I think this is my third) and constantly infuriate people by voting to keep, but this one should be easy, really... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not everyone is in the camp that lists must always be ended if there is a category. This list is pretty tepid, but maybe someone can find something to make it as expansive as List of Chinese painters. Although on that there is a List of Japanese painters. Possibly this should be merged with that, or the painters list should be merged with this as artists is a broader term. Anyway point being the Japanese are surprisingly poorly covered at Wikipedia compared to how many of them there are. (I checked this) So if someone can make this a long list of important, but poorly covered, Japanese artists that'd be good. In fact I might do that now.--T. Anthony 08:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not exactly in that camp either, just against the keeping of unattended lists. If you're willing to tend it, that would be great. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I added a bunch of names from Artcyclopedia. Many of them are red, but that's good because it allows for expansion in this area. I tried to avoid painters as we have a Japanese painters list.--T. Anthony 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this list could be much more useful than the category if it gets annotated. Still a bit reddish, but could easily work. Let's see if it can get attention before deleting it. Cleanup or expansion tag first? - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment T.Anthony's actions on the List of Japanese artists page have made me reconsider my redirect suggestion. [2]-> [3] Attempts to influence the course of a AFD by retroactively editing looks bad in my opinion. The redirect, the AFD could have continued without a problem even with the redirect in place. To view the context on a redirected page you simply click at the top where it says "redirected from" then click on page history, nice and simple.
Lists of people are generally duplicative in nature, un-used lists are a misuse of database space. This list was created in october and was dead until the AFD. Which begs the question, Why this sudden interest in editing on this page now. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 13:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Retroactive editing? Isn't so-called retroactive editing a good thing? It tries to address issues brought up here. - Mgm|(talk) 14:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that part of the point of AfD? So that when articles come up for deletion, people improve them? Ofcourse it would be a good idea to leave a not on the AfD voting page when it's done. 132.205.45.110 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This list was not in a category so I was essentially unaware of it until now. I am interested in expanding coverage of East Asian topics, moreso than African ones as East Asia is my interest, and if lists help that I'm positive for that. Granted I could simply create 20 or so articles based on bios I find, but this would eat up more time then I want at present.--T. Anthony 13:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and it might get improved. As wikipedia grows being less complete can actually be a merit of a list, providing the most important people are included. CalJW 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential, and the redlinks indicate articles that might need to be written. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not nominate this article for deletion. I stumbled across it via the recent changes. That being said I think it should be clear exactly how this matter should be looked at from. Until the article was nominated for deletion there was absolutely no interest in the it for the 4 months since it was created. The edits only occured because it was nominated for deletion. I suspect that the interest will go away rapidly once the AFD is completed.
The purpose of article for deletion is to decide on deletion or not. It is not something to warn people that an article may be deleted so they better rush off and throw some quickie edits on it. I see the actions after the AFD as an attempt to subvert/circumvent the AfD process. In the process this violates the principle that process is important
Before these edits the list contained exactly one name.[4] Subsquent edits should be ignored for the duration of the consideration of this deletion request. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Your view and actions were in many ways justified as the list was just one name and no interest before AfD. I think you're worried my changes cloud that and make you look somehow bad. My intent is not to make you look foolish. No one should believe your view was invalid. No one should believe it is invalid now. I'm sorry you think my efforts to improve this list are cheating, but I think this is a valid topic and once aware of it I did what I did. Further last ditch save efforts often fail and there is a chance this one still might.--T. Anthony 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That's absurd. Editing during an AfD is allowed, and even encouraged, if it addresses some of the concerns brought up in the AfD. Why should we vote for a static snapshot of the page at a point in time? Would you truly vote to delete this article on principle if in its current form it warranted a keep vote from yourself? What would be the purpose of that? Turnstep 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is what categories are for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the above is a case for {{expand}}, not VFD. Lists have an important role that categories do not, they serve as reference for missing articles. Articles that don't yet exist (no stub, even) can't be in a category. They contribute references and red links that count towards Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful,verifiable list which cannot be replaced by a category. Categories and lists are complementary, not exclusive. Turnstep 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the nominator should have brought this list to the attention of other editors by adding a flag to expand, cleanup, or verify. There are more harmonious and productive ways to proceed than preemptive AfD nomination. Durova 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You have to weigh the value of what was in the article when it was nominated for AfD, and one name a list does not make. So the Nomination for deletion was ultimately correct see CSD-A1. The issue is he used Article for Deletion instead of speedying it. The people with the sudden interest in the fate of this article have no history of editing oriental art articles, or for the most part art at all. I checked their contributions. They are all however regular contributers to other list articles. I sincerely believe that they are letting their personal opinion of the value of these types of articles, to come between the removal of an article which has limited value, and in this case can be best served with an existing category. The use of Categories is the proper way to go for things of this nature, especially where there is little interest in developing, maintaining, and promoting the list. Several people have mentioned that the lists best indicate articles which need creation. This is true however the process is better served by the request for article process. Non-existent articles links in article content are of a limited benefit to the Wikipedia and indeed can run off newbie visitors. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It's wrong of Durova to say this was invalid. As stood it wasn't a list, but possibly an ad for one guy. That said I'm a bit irritated on the rest. I do have a history on List of Chinese painters. Some of that won't show up because what I did was turn red names blue, but some should. Check the edits from October 1 to November 12 2005[5] at the Chinese painters list. Also check List of Japanese painters[6] for January 1, 2006.
      • Not invalid, hasty. The usual procedure is to bring such a list to the attention of the community before nominating it. This list in particular was less than three months old. It is very odd that anyone would introduce a reference to patent nonsense in this discussion. With so much actual nonsense at Wikipedia it seems strange to single this out. I have already addressed the matter of lists and categories in a much fuller manner than SusanLarson's rebuttal suggests. Durova 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

comment CSD-A1 is short articles: Articles #1 "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. A search engine may help in determining context and allow for the article's expansion." One name lists would qualify under that section. As for no history I was primarily speaking of T. Anthony who initially stepped up proclaiming an active interest handling this article. At the time I posted that I did not know others had shown an interest in or stepped up to edit on that article. At this point I am flexible on keeping the article or not. I would suggest that a list should be more than a list and include actual text on the arts in Japan. New question is why can this not be added to the Japanese Art article? -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm more flexible on lists then you might think. If this information could be merged to the article on Japanese art without losing any information that could be okay. I'm not for that in some cases as it ends ups distracting from the article, but it's worth thinking about. Likewise merging List of Japanese painters, with the proviso of putting the new names in the format used here, I think should be considered. Have I even voted on this?--T. Anthony 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
On second thought the Japanese art article is already fairly long. However this could be made a link at the bottom of it acting as a kind of addendum of sorts.(And I'm going to put a merge notice on the painters list)--T. Anthony 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'keep please it can be expanded japanese artists are notable too Yuckfoo 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list is a stub. Keep and expand stubs. They cannot grow if they're deleted. Wikipedia does not have a policy stating that articles must be in their complete and final form before being posted. Such a policy would be contrary to the nature of a wiki. Wikipedia actively encourages people to post new articles, and actively encourages editors to add new factual content. Fg2 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and I would have voted the same even if I'd seen it with just one name. Fg2 explains it perfectly. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fg2, also agree with OpenToppedBus. Dsmdgold 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Valuabe - lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those artists waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously) Cactus.man ✍ 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 13:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete (left a note on creator's talk page about Wikitravel). bainer (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lima at night

Very little encyclopedic material- mostly an image gallery. I say WP:NOT. Staecker 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wikitravel. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:37Z
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel, per Quarl. Madman 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwikification to Wikitravel is not legally permissible, because it uses the Creative Commons Licence. The original author has to submit xyr own edits directly. Please make a legally permissible choice for your opinion to be counted. Uncle G 03:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that I did not express an opinion on which of the other choices available should be taken. The above is only pointing out that one of the usual choices is unavailable. Uncle G 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sigh, silly licensing incompatibilities. It'll probably take a year before LL and RMS work out the cross-compatibility upgrades. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 19:31Z
  • Delete as per Uncle G. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if possible, otherwise Delete -- DaGizza Chat 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. VegaDark 09:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP is not an image gallery. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per UncleG, as ever. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the possibility of transwiki'ing this if the original author does it, it might be a good idea to userfy this with an attached note to transwiki it.--eleuthero 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment re: userfy This user (User:Macromp) seems to have a limited understanding of copyrights on WP- check out his contribs to the image namespace. He needs some good guidance, but I haven't had the time to sift through almost 100 images, all tagged GFDL. Some (like the ones on this article) are really made by him (probably). Most are almost certainly not free (fair use at best) and probably need ifds. Wish I was a bot. Staecker 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • After a bit more digging: looks like we've got a gallery fiend on our hands! Check out
    • All by him- I'm not sure how to handle talking to him about it. Maybe somebody more experienced can drop him a note? Too bad I'm still not a bot. Staecker 19:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per UncleG. --Terence Ong Talk 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Norwegian photographers

Unnecessary list, and it only has one bluelink anyway. Category:Norwegian photographers is perfectly satisfactory as a repository. Stifle 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--MONGO 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list was started only yesterday. Give it enough time to populate before putting it up for deletion. Durova 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Durova. DaGizza Chat 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful list with redlinks. Why? Because people might come along and create those articles. Punkmorten 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, "stifle" is a good name. Punkmorten gets it.--Leifern 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Punkmorten, it's useful enough on it's own anyway. Jamorama 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, redlinks with promote the creation of articles. They'd be lost in a category. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Okay, this is going to end up in a keep. I can't request a speedy keep because MONGO has voted to delete. Instead I'm going to come back next month and if it's still full of redlinks and/or pretty much empty, expect to see it back on AFD. Stifle 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like Leifern has been adding to the list pretty consistently. Durova 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has plenty of red links and also has some dates, which can't be shown in the category. CalJW 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral default keep and wait a bit to see what happens. If those redlinks turn out to be non-notable then I will probably support a second nomination. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because bluelinks + redlinks is a good thing. The blue validates the list, and the red shows the possibility (and need) for expansion. Turnstep 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this can be expanded not erased Yuckfoo 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I know this is going to end up as a "keep" anyway, but it makes much more sense as a category, not a list. If we keep the list, do we delete the category, or just have two redundant lists of the same articles? Kafziel 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete better as a category. --Revolución (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Leifern has created seven new supporting articles overnight. Pretty nearly all lists look like categories in their infancy. Let's give this a fair opportunity and support a productive editor. Durova 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As Japanese artists above, lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those photographers waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously) Cactus.man ✍ 16:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep encyclopedic list. --Terence Ong Talk 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waffley

Delete. At best this is an obscure joke; see Google. Melchoir 00:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy_is_a_unifying_concept

Delete. Original Research. Eugman 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's original research; but WP:NOT a how-to guide for basic physics. Merge anything relevant to Energy, then transwiki this to either wikibooks or wikisource -- I'm not sure which would be the best place. bikeable (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can assure you that it is definitely not new research. It is an attempt to talk physics in very-lay terms to the average person. It reads more like an edu-tainment presentation. Blnguyen 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The underlying concept here is really calculus. Original Research. --Pfafrich 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Another Comment - Well, energy in this case he is considering potential energy, can be related to a force causing it, (this is valid and meaningful only when the force is conservative so that the integral of F in the coordinate space is path-independent) so that F_x = - dU/dx, x being the coordinate and U the potential energy, to give the force in that direction. This means that when dU/dx = 0, there is no force, which occurs when U is at a max/min or a saddle point, which means it can be in unstable, stable, or stable and unstable in various directions respectively. Find any 1st yr universtiy physics book, or a 2ndyr+ classical mechanics book, and this will be verified to be well-founded knowledge, which the author is trying to convey in an informal way for non-physicists. I have no previous experience with the policy of wikipedia towards the suitability of informal pedagogical presentations. Blnguyen 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt there's much information to merge to Energy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:34Z
  • Transwiki to Simple English and Delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm new at this whole thing so any advice to helping out would be appreciated Eugman 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm torn. On the one hand, this doesn't cite references and isn't very well formatted. On the other hand, it's entirely true, and a VERY useful technique I was taught in Physics. He's absolutely right; if energy is conserved you can simply calculate everything based on energy equations and the solution is a lot easier to get. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a mini-essay about two very loosely related ideas. Someone who wants to write about potential-based analysis should build on the potential and potential energy articles. Gazpacho 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Energy then Delete DaGizza Chat 07:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge and delete is not a valid choice. To make the merge compliant with the GFDL the edit history of the article would need to be retained either by a history merge, or more easily by redirecting. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this content is already covered well. Salsb 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Authors Comment. Thanks for the discussion. I am fully in agreement that this page should be deleted and the contents moved to a new section in Energy. I started it as a seperate page to provoke the discussion, without messing with the main energy page too much, it seems that strategy worked (forgive a noob his sins). This section was not intended to talk about potential energy, nor finding the force on a capacitor. I felt having read the Energy section that were I an intelligent non-physicist, say a government legislator or a bright 14 year-old, I would still not understand why the concept of Energy was so very useful, rather like a treatise on complex numbers that does not mention that they unify solutions of polynomial equations and simplify electrical calculations. This section is intended ultimately to convey WHY people should take the time to bother to use the concept, rather than HOW to use the concept. Does it belong in wikipedia? I've read "what wikipedia is not", and it's not clear about what I'm trying to do. In part, that's why the article is so short and ill-drafted. The intention is ultimately to have one well-chosen succintly described example from each main useful branch of energy calculations (bounds on conversion, force finding, equilibrium finding etc). Where to put the section is a problem. If it grows to lots of examples, it should go at the end for risk of hijacking the main article. However, if it is to fulfil its purpose, that of getting people to spend the time reading the rest of the article, then it should really go up front. I could have spent a lot of time putting together a well-polished section only to be told that it was not wiki policy anyway. So in the spirit of "you can't break wiki, give it a try", I offer the aim of this section up for consideration. If thought appropriate, then I can work on better examples without touching the how part of the article, and referencing them out to the other articles that cover them in more depth. I guess I am really wanting the wiki to be more accessible in this article. We are all familiar with the so-called help screen, which only makes sense if we have enough background to understand its terminology. I feel that the assumed level of knowledge to be able to appreciate the information on the energy section is too high for many of the visitors that may be turning to that page for information. Expanding the breadth of the target audience is not easy. I do not advocate "dumbing-down" of the existing information, but do suggest an additional section which "reaches down" to hook people in, starting with why we should bother with the concept at all. The comment about edutainment is quite near to what was intended. It is possible that in attempting to present or sell physics, it is possible to stray away from strict NPOV, but are there really any other majority concensus ways of viewing the world? Could I go further? In teaching my children about energy, I have used the currency analogy, Joules is capital, energy is rate of spend, friction and other losses is taxes and exchange rate levys, levers and transformers get you between a few high value bills and many low value coins, it's an analogy that can pushed a surprisingly long way before it fails to inform. That's what I want to do, inform on the "would understand physics with just a little more help" level. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for that.NeilUK 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and redundant per other articles. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to user space. Everybody wins. Kafziel 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; transfer any relevant information to the energy article. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Family Entertainment

Advert page, written in first person. Either delete or transwiki to Yellowiki. Stifle 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:33Z
  • Delete. Advertisement.-csloat 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just spam--MONGO 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clean to make it Wikipedia/Encyclopedia standard. DaGizza Chat 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. FFE was covered in Private Eye in some detail; this is a blatant puff piece and reinforces a POV which may turn out to be moot (there is a rumour they will be taken over by their major competitor). Ian "Gandalf" McKellen is on their roster. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: clear publicity and vanity page. Ritchy 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not quite so POV any more, but still of doubtful notability; however, has substantial media coverage so probably meets WP:CORP. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: needs work, and I couldn't be less interested, but seems at least as notable as half the stuff on here. Kafziel 23:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, vanity. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salisbury Hall - Liverpool University

  • Delete. Is dormcruft a word yet? There's nothing salvageable here. Melchoir 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete just college gossip. --Pfafrich 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:32Z
  • Speedy Delete per above. Arviragus 01:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. More of a story journal then an encyclopedic article. -- Eddie 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, useless for research. This belongs in the author's blog, not on WP. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above DaGizza Chat 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James lu

Redirects to a deleted page Galaxydog2000 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment this should be either speedyable or on WP:RfD. It may be speedyable. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per nom. Mike 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (it's been tagged). Just tag these with {{db-r1}} next time. Special:BrokenRedirects lists a bunch of them. - Bobet 03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedro's BTMusic Tracker, Pedro's BTMusic Only Tracker

Nominating this site for promotion/advertising/soapboxing. The Pedro's BTMusic Tracker article was created first then BitTorrent websites listing a link to this article. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There is currently an edit war going on over this article, with POV pushing and vandalsim competing. Check the article before voting, as it in a state of flux.

Delete as nominator -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I wouldn't call it promotion/adversiting. See http://friedenwatch.blogspot.com (comment unsigned by Flacinhell signed by SusanLarson)
Comment yeah, flacinhell is no fan of pedro's (comment unsigned by 154.5.31.38 signed by SusanLarson)
  • Delete Not much to verify here, and the creation of articles this can be spammed onto isn't helping. Rx StrangeLove 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising. Only 21 unique Google hits for "BTMusic Tracker", one of which is their website. Madman 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Essexmutant 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as apparently insignificant, article as written is vanispamcruftisement. Adding the article since this AfD is for a redirect. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In all seriousness, do you think this site wants to advertise? What I can see has been written is very NPOV. I do not think this article would lead those who are sane to join up to that website - if indeed it lasts much longer.

Above point has merit to this extent: this is apparently an illegal file-sharing site. As such it could get shut down any time. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Restored AfD tag removed by El Cazangero (talk · contribs) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect your right to mark it for deletion and haven't removed the tag myself. But please explain why you don't want this? It is the true facts, and like all sources of knowledge will hopefully teach a lesson to some in the future.

--Flacinhell 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) So first it gets nominated as a "promotion/advertising/soapboxing" and now it's an "attack page". Please could you make up your minds.

It's an attack page that is promoting/advertising/soapboxing a grudge. -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's neither an attack page nor advertising, the text is NPOV and informative. Communities built around trackers are an interesting topic, which shouldn't be missing here. --El Cazangero 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Flacinhell (talk · contribs) and El Cazangero (talk · contribs) are the two main parties in the edit war. Whether or not tracker communities should be covered in WP is, of course, irrelevant to whether this particular tracker community should be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not a party in any edit war, I'm an author and I contributed major parts of the article, so I didn't want to see them defaced by random vandals. This particular website is worth writing about, because it is uniqe with regard to lossless content and music beyond mainstream stuff. If magazines like Rolling Stone are allowed to have a presentation, then why shouldn't the tracker? It is definitely a virtual music magazine.--El Cazangero 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. But I note that things are calming down a bit now, which is good. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if evidence can be provided Surely if it says 'consisting of approximately 5,000 members' it would comply with WP:WEB? If evidence could be shown that it had 5000 or more members, it should be kept. ComputerJoe 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: Just visit the site and look at the bottom of the start page, where it says: Total Registered Users: 5,772. The user approximation is just a rough estimate, because there are probably several people with multiple accounts. --El Cazangero 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't tell us how many are currently active. There have been, since records began, many thousands of British MPs; only 625 are currently active. And is not a particularly reliable source, since it might be inflated. So, let's have some real evidence of notability or importance, shall we? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you'd never accept a "proof" anyway, because it looks like you were firmly determined to remove it at any cost. What would be an acceptable proof for you? There are many other articles about less interesting websites, I don't see what you gain by campaigning against it. By deleting it we'd only lose interesting information. --El Cazangero 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF. After all, if I were "determined" to delete it, I'm sure you'd be able to cite at least one credible reason why I should give a toss about it; I can't think of one offhand. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Importance/relevancy of this article is totally obscured by the author's personal vendetta against these people. Distasteful and disrespectful motives reveal themselves when you scratch the face "value" of the article. HappyHunter 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Flacinhells vendetta is one sentence of the entire article, and it's quite irrelevant for the whole picture. --El Cazangero 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. This is a fascinating combination of an attack page and pure advertising, but since neither of those things should be here, I don't see why their offspring should be here either. Also note that I don't think the site wants any publicity at all; what private torrent tracker does? --Aaron 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Before requesting delete let me just confirm this: My blog (and hence this article/site has finally started to get newsworthy, people from media organisations are in touch - stay tuned, I will be posting links to news stories/interviews as and when they appear Unfortunately I think this could mean for a short time this page could be prone to more vandalism, so please keep your eyes peeled --Flacinhell 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable advert for a non notable website. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see it ever becoming big on the scale of Suprnova or The Pirate Bay, which realisticly is the sort of numbers needed to really make a site notable and an article on it useful to people. --maru (talk) Contribs 06:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jtkiefer, JzG, et al. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a matter of the site's notability. The article is just...useless. — 83.227.238.221 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreal (demo)

demo: un-notable Melaen 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that Future Crew lists many demos, 3 of which have articles. Unreal also apparently won an award ("1st at Assembly 92"). I would say Merge all the Future Crew demo articles to one. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:55Z
  • Keep but combine with Future Crew page. Mike 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Future Crew--MONGO 05:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Future Crew-- DaGizza Chat 10:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep Per commets by Gargaj DaGizza Chat (c) 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't merge any of the articles (especially not the Second Reality-one. You dont merge albums and singles to artists either). There's a lot of information I could add to the articles I just couldnt get around it. // Gargaj 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also do note that this is only the second demo to have it's own article - Scream Tracker is a TOOL, just like Fast Tracker or Nuendo or Microsoft Word. // Gargaj 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal opinion: Being someone who's been doing demos for years, I find "demo: un-notable" highly offending. // Gargaj 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Melaen isn't saying that demos are not a notable thing, however this demo is not notable to the standards of Wikipedia. Don't be offended, merging it into the article for the Future Crew would preserve this article since it is not able to stand on its own merits. Mike 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Demo articles are a rarity and they're not flooding over Wikipedia either. This demo is a milestone (if not the starting point) for the PC demoscene - as the article (now) says, it's been a first time for many things to be done on the PC, thus IMHO it belongs here. // Gargaj 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Edited the article into another shape. Anyone changed their minds? // Gargaj 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it seems notable no reason to erase it Yuckfoo 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an awesome demo, and it is one of the most widely-distributed too. I think any demo that placed at Assembly is notable enough for an article. Rhobite 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Gargaj. It appears that this demo is widely identified as helping launch the demoscene on the IBM PC platform. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep separate and expand the article. Unreal and second reality have their own history and how they spun the demoscene into a mainstream phenomena. Demos are central to the history of the proliferation of 3D computing also, as worthy of individual articles as race horses, football players, and music singles. Metta Bubble 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, un-notable is an interesting judgment. This demo was one of or the starter for the demoscene on the PC platform. --Avatar-en 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep highly notable demo... hell half the techniques these guys were doing on 486 and Pentium level hardware has only just recently begun to be supported in modern graphics cards.  ALKIVAR™ 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unreal was certainly a notable milestone for the PC demoscene. This is not a random demo from a random group. It is an influential demo from the most influential group involved in the early PC demoscene. It is true that influential albums and even singles are afforded their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't see why policy should be different for demoscene productions -- unless you want to argue that the demoscene is less worthy of historic documentation than the music industry, and that is shaky ground. Dilvie 01:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video games rock

Website vanity. Unimpressive Google showing, and most hits (including the top one) do not refer to this site. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Possibly speedy as patent vanity. Jdcooper 01:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely non-notable web forum. 6 registered users. No alexa rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:57Z
  • Delete non-notable web forum, reads like an advertisement. Mike 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Quarl - no Alexa rank, no claims as to notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl (again). Punkmorten 08:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NN. VegaDark 09:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanispamcruftisement per all the above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl... Themusicking 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kafziel 23:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator, does not meet WP:WEB. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superlander

No indication of notability or verifiability; not on imdb

Delete. No indication of notability or verifiability; not on imdb. Melchoir 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:Not/Soapbox/Promotion/Free Host/Notability/Verifiability take your pick which ever you feel best applies all apply in some form or fashion. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, vanity. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:59Z
  • Delete as per all of the above, looks like a school project movie, not even a mention of it being in a film festeval. Mike 02:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Vanispamcruftisement -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. User:Tiltonic is almosty certainly the Tilton who produced, directed, created, wrote, coloured in and probably sticks the stamps on the production. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pretty clearly a vanity page. Kafziel 23:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, all along I have had a different view of what the Wikipedia was about. In setting up my movie on the Wikipedia, my original intent was to create a small article explaining a little about the movies for those who ask me what "Superlander" is when it comes up in conversation. I now realize the wiki is not for non-notable items such as this. Please accept my apologies. - Tiltonic


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Byun

This isn't a speedy because the article does assert notability ("Byun is an important person in this world because he is an ambassador for Christ"). However, the claims in the article are unverifiable, and I could not confirm any of these statements through Google. Furthermore, the claim to notability seems to be that he is a Christian. So am I, but that isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. I don't consider "ambassador for Christ" to be an assertion of notability, just like "I am important because I am female" would not be an assertion of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:01Z
  • Speedy delete Crunch 02:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Things like this should be speedied, despite a claim of importance, because every Christian is in a sense an "ambassador for Christ". Therefore, the claim boils down to "Byun is an important person," which doesn't count in my view. N Shar 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nonnotable bio. "Ambassador for Christ" simply describes his Christianity. —ERcheck @ 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - as per all of the above. Mike 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, hoax, all of the above. Olorin28 03:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio --MONGO 05:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tagged it as {{nn-bio}} since almost everyone except nominator seems to agree it is not an assertion of importance. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:28Z
  • Speedy deleted. No assertion of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophie Halliday

pure vanity page, non-notable no one who wanted to see their name in lights Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete ASAP, as per nom. Blnguyen 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:06Z
  • Speedy Delete. Crunch 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content (not to mention nn-bio). (See the deletion log -- it looks like Longhair deleted this page yesterday.) N Shar 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Dysfunktion 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable bio real person. —ERcheck @ 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • oh Dear heavens, Speedy Delete this nonsense.--TaeKwonTimmy 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, non-notable, etc. Mike 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete; should every cute underage girl who wastes time on MSN get a wikipedia entry?-csloat 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete; Extreme vanity --Dysepsion 03:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Bwahaha! Oh, what they said. rodii 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Why wasn't this speedied? Olorin28 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, please. She can make her own website or Myspace if she wants to blatantly promote herself, but she's definitely not worthy of being in an encylcopedia. Fabricationary 04:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - But, uhhh, merge pic into hot chick or something. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - WP:NOT a free webspace provider -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genuine Poo Pong

Hoax or extremtly non-notable game only one unique google hit [7] Fails WP:V by a long shot Strong Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-verifiable, and even if true, some silly game played by one small group of schoolkids doesn't seem sufficiently notable. *Dan T.* 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Unverifiable, seems like a humurous nostalgia page. Blnguyen 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, possible hoax. Genuine Poo Pong was a game played by students from Moorfield Junior School between 1974 and 1978. The single Google hit is for Special:Allpages so really no Google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:09Z
  • Delete. Not notable even if true. N Shar 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 02:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Mike 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, with regret. I love this article. rodii 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--MONGO 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Schoolyard nostalgia. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- DaGizza Chat 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as clear a case of WP:NFT as one could wish for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NFT. Robin Johnson 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense --198.86.17.21 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Message left for creator Gav 2000 (talk · contribs) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; pretty funny in its own way, but it's a clear delete. Kafziel 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons listed above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the poo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whupee jumps

Verifiability/original thought

Delete as nom -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*Keep - It is a excercise as common as a pushup sometimes called a burpee, defently not original thought however [8]. Mike 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I might agree if the site mentioned whupee anywhere [9], anyone can make up an exercise or give an existing one a new name, that does not mean it should be listed here. There are no web results for this[10] [11] [12]. So one must grant the deletion request on pure verifiability if not on original thought. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -this is bogus original research-csloat 02:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if this a real form of exercise, it is not notable. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided this is a real exercise, but not I think by this name and I can't find the proper one. It's not jumping jacks, that requires landing alternately legs apart / legs together. Formatting sucks, title is probably wrong, shouting is optional, but apart from that.... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some notes left for creator, Dariusarsenal (talk · contribs). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is defently not known as a whupee jump, but a search on google for burpee yeilds the correct name for the excercise. I think it should be deleted and if no article exists for burpee one should be created (obviously cleaning it up, rewording the whole thing, etc).Mike 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep yes ok fine they are not called "whuppie jumps. Upon further research they are burpies. However I found that my father who is the only one i have ever seen using the excersize would spell it "Whoopie" . I think that is a much better title. Susan Larson is not a nice person. But we all new that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusarsenal (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006
The previous account is less than 1 week old -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move whatever relevant information can be compiled to calisthenics or some such thing. Or hazing, maybe. ;) Kafziel 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redir to Black1. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solstitium Fulminate

This disc already appears in the Black1 article. It was never available on its own, only as a bonus disc to a limited edition of Black1. Not enough for an article of its own. Dysfunktion 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Black1, since it is now mentioned in there. - Bobet 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect--csloat 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge any info not already at Black1. Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Emanski

Funny stuff. BJAODN. - EurekaLott 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It still needs work, but the revised version is a vast improvement. Keep. - EurekaLott 15:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (or BJAODN) Not as notable as the article pretends, although some of the information is true (Tom Emanski seems to actually exist.) N Shar 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not notable.--csloat 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known videos, well-known youth baseball coach. [13] [14] [15] [16] There's even a nation called the Republic of Tom Emanski at NationStates. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Zoe, also interviewed in baseballworld.com [17]. Kappa 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly notable figure. Grandmasterka 08:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Zoe -- DaGizza Chat 10:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but edit to read less like an ad. Robin Johnson 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: creator of well-known baseball skills videos. - squibix 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please zoe is right this is notable Yuckfoo 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Zoe, passes WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zoe and squibix. MKaiserman 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Went ahead and did some major rewrites on the site adding more information, removing a few stretched claims. Still needs more work to back up some of the info (especially the last paragraph), but he is no-question a Keep MKaiserman 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trading Paint

Content is Trading Paint, also known as "Britney Spears Untitled NASCAR Movie" is to start filming in mid 2006 and released in late 2007. Sorry but WP:NOT a crystal ball, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Jaranda. Mike 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything about this on IMDB or anything. Per some quick research [18] this seems like a stale rumor, and the production has not been confirmed at all. --W.marsh 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

*Comment. Actual movie produced by Brittney Spears [19]. Seems to be in the can right now. Wisco 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

    • How do you get that, when, from that very page, it says Release Date: Unknown; that will depend upon when/if filming eventually gets started. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Because I've been up all night and can't read... Wisco 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • LOL. Hope you made it to bed.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable rumour. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:11Z
  • Comment Greg's Previews has several pages on the movie. It has not been updated since 2003 and even then indicates there was only sketchy material on the movie. It would appear that this is a dead movie idea --eleuthero 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I first heard about this project well over a year ago, and there's been little official news about it since then. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per W.marsh Kerowyn


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

The result of the debate was speedy - nn-band. -- RHaworth 19:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Few But Crazy

band vanity Melaen 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty (porn star)

Kitty (porn star) was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star)/2005-07-10.
  • Delete. Non-notable. Not every porn star should have an entry on wikipedia. There is no information here about her anyway; this is basically just an ad for her website. Her name apparently is inaccurate too so it should be renamed if it is kept but it should not be kept at all. If she is not known to the general public, or even most of the porn-watching public, she doesn't belong in wikipedia. csloat 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. --Dysepsion 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 45 films at the imdb. If she is known to a reasonable number of the porn-watching public, she belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia like wp. Kappa 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The IMDB isn't based on legions of fans creating articles; most pages are created and maintained by agents to help promote their clients. As a longtime member of the "porn-watching public", I will avow that I have not only never heard of her, but have never even seen her. This article is just an ad. Kafziel 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa (OMG!) User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion has not changed since the last AFD discussion. No biographical sources are cited by the article, or were produced as a result of the prior AFD discussion. (The IMDB listing gives her date of birth and height in its biographical section. If that were all of the biographical source information required for a biography in an encyclopaedia, everyone with a passport or a driving licence would qualify.) Note that the place of birth given in this article has no source apart from the almost certainly entirely fictitious biography on the web site. People in the pornography industry are usually deliberately unverifiable by their own choice, for obvious reasons, and this person appears to be no exception. The purported biographies that accompany pornographic pictures are usually fiction, moreover. As before, delete. Uncle G 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We have plenty of biographies of fictional characters. Kappa 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously this is a broader subject than just this AfD, but fictional characters are verifiable in that we know what books/movies/etc. they're in, there's often published criticism concerning them, essays about them, etc. What's kind problematic here is that there's really nothing verifiably known about this person other than that she's been filmed having sex 35 times. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, but we know that she's been filmed having sex 35 times!!! (ye gads). Indeed, IMDB knows that. BD2412 T 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information though, obviously. Biographies are written on verifiable information... it's just hard to see what's going to be verifiable here other than the contents of her IMDB page, that's what I meant. I'm sure this argument has been held before though. --W.marsh 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • As W.marsh points out, the fictional characters for which we have biographies have independent secondary source material available, such as third-party annotations of or commentaries on the works of fiction concerned. See the References section in Sherlock Holmes, for example. Uncle G 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What sort of "proof" are you looking for? [20], [21] User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I actually wrote "independent secondary source material". Ironically, the "proof" that you've offered is proof of my point. You've hyperlinked to a list of products for sale in a catalogue that contains no biographical information whatsoever and an on-line biography every field of which apart from the birthdate, ethnicity, and hair colour is "No data" — giving as much information about this person as a driving licence or a passport, as I said. I have a passport. Do I get an article? Uncle G 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Are you in the IMDb? Turnstep 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • He could be, if he's willing to pay the fee for gold member access. For a few bucks, anybody can be in the IMDB. Kafziel 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • According to their homepage, there are 2 million people listed on IMDb. If we make an article for each of them, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Kafziel 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Sounds good to me. You do the first million, then I'll do the second. :) Turnstep 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete commercial advertisement for non-notable pr0n-media product. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:44, Jan. 11, 2006
  • Delete - I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If a run-of-the-mill college basketball player played in 45 games over three years but had no major awards and was not a likely high-round draft pick in the NBA, we would kick his article out in a flash (that's not a hypothetical - we have done it many times). If a 21 year old girl appears in 45 videos in an industry that cranks them out in a matter of days, she's a "star" without a single shred of evidence. No awards, no critical acclaim, nothing but a list of her "body of work". Boggles my mind. -- DS1953 talk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; ditto what Cyde Weys said, above. Kafziel 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What DS1953 said. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a star with no brillance.--MONGO 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DS1953 Reyk 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DS1953 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G and DS1953.
  • Delete. No sign of mention that are not actor listing or her site. gren グレン ? 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no purpose except advertising. CalJW 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

* Keep as per Kappa --kingboyk 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Confusion between her and Kitty Jung. --kingboyk 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Uncle G, and it looks like advertising. Robin Johnson 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 45 movies for a porn star is not the same as 45 movies for a hollywood actor. Obli (Talk) 18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the IMDb in itself is not an indicator notability. -R. fiend 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa BenBurch 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Cyde. Themusicking 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with DS1953, Uncle G, and Cyde Weys. Barno 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough for WP:BIO ,WP:BLP, per Obli, adult entertainer can be notable, but we can't use same movie or google counts as other potentially notable people.Obina 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'keep please this porn star is notable too Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please, this pornstar is not notable Eusebeus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider moving to "Kitty Jung (porn star)" instead. Is there a seperate set of criteria being used for adult film stars? In any case, this should be notable and WP:V enough. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Kitty Jung is a different porn star. Kappa 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But external links suggests she is Kitty Jung. I think you're right and the article must be wrong. --kingboyk 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. Proto t c 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. We don't waive WP:V just because the subject has a lot of sex. --Malthusian (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not notable enough as one editor said indicates a level of notability. No work done on the article since the last AfD is not a reason to delete the article. If it was, we could flood AfD with many other articles. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. She is real, and there is information about her. Also if the article is correct, she is not American born. We know that some editors have raised a bias issue with articles of foreign subjects. Is this part of the reason there is little information available? In the end I don't see a reason to delete this article. I do see another article in need of impovement. Kappa is right on this one. Vegaswikian 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, IMO 45 film credits on IMDB generally makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per csloat. Stifle 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for verifiability difficulties. Sliggy 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a big difference between 45 film credits, and 45 video credits over a period of less than two years. Ed g2s 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The difference between appearing in 45 commercial films and 45 porno videos is that each of the 45 porno videos constitutes a starring role. Porno films do not hire extras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.128.151.131 (talk • contribs)
    • I would argue that given the necessary talent to perform in the starring role, porn stars should be compared to stuntmen rather than Tom Cruise. --Malthusian (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep porn is notable.  Grue  13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Levy

WP:NOT a memorial. Gets 18,000 google hits but most of those seem to be other "Rachel Levy"'s or wikipedia mirrors. Pboyd04 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment At the time this created quite a stir and was covered in major news outlets. N Shar 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Palestinian political violence - condense the relevant info into a paragraph and add it to the "current political violence" section. Fabricationary 04:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but maybe merge per above... this is all verifiable and attracted quite a bit of media coverage and public interest. --W.marsh 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now. I found 479 unique google hits for her, so there is a certain level of fame. Pburka 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Her name pops up often on sites about the Intifada, but beyond being blown up she has no other claim to fame, and WP:NOT a memorial. If this isn't deleted, then merge and redirect per Fabricationary -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Fabricationary -- DaGizza Chat 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though I'd support the merge suggested by Fabrictionary, too. Levy passes the bar for notability due to the news coverage. I'm pretty certain she even made the cover of a major news magazine (I want to say Time but I've been unable to find an online source to confirm). 23skidoo 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or possible merge. Seems a fairly well-written article about an arguably notable news story. Robin Johnson 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Robin. Themusicking 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please because of the coverage Yuckfoo 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being in Newsweek seems notable enough. Johnleemk | Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Victims can be notable. Story is well known and is verifiably documented. Her "American-ness" made lots of news here. MKaiserman 14:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.  Grue  13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable story, widespread coverage, all verifiable. —Cleared as filed. 14:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moyple

No relevant google hits [22], looks like something made up. Kappa 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd bimillennium and bimillennium

Almost patent nonsense. Nobody measures years in "bimillenniums", and seeing as how we are only five years into this one, it's pretty much lacking all of its content. Cyde Weys votetalk 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have bundled the AFDs for 2nd bimillennium and bimillennium. There is also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Bimillenniums. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:05Z
  • Delete per nom Melchoir 03:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sheeeeeeesh. bikeable (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's also Bimillennium and Category:Bimillenniums ×Meegs 04:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot of 'em. Pburka 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Timeline_standards for precedents and what this article would intend to follow. -- Perfecto 05:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The following was for Bimillennium only (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimillennium). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:05Z

Delete. Non-notable concept, unless there's something commonly measured in bimillenniums. I can't imagine there is. Grandmasterka 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Recreate when historians and the like begin to refer to bimillennums on a regular basis. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • correction, delete both. -- Saberwyn

AFDs were bundled at this point. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:07Z

  • Delete all per above comments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:06Z
  • Delete all bimillenniumcruft. Gazpacho 08:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 09:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete random hobbyhorse. CalJW 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Any list of events that includes "The September 11,2001 attacks came and attacked the socialists" and "some millenairists came and thought this would be a bimillennium of peaceand great" is at best weird, and at worst defined or executed in an excruciatingly bad manner. ("Attacked the socialists"? Really?) And, as noted, this unit of time isn't actually used for any notable purpose. Bearcat 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all non-notable and the article hurts my brain. Themusicking 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All someone is trying to coin a phrase. Good luck, but this isn't the right place to do it. (Signed: J.Smith) 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both and speedy delete any related neologisms that pop up (trimillenium, quadrimillenium) --Revolución (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. KramarDanIkabu 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. AnonMoos 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocketship Rodents

A parody comic with two issues published. Ezeu 03:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dividing Line

The Dividing Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Never Go Back (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unreferenced since creation, also tagged as lacking evidence of significance, episodes of a minor British TV series and there is sufficient information about the episode in the main article to satisfy the encyclopaedic purpose of documenting the series. Cruftbane 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete both As pure plot summaries. SolidPlaid 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both If anybody was that interested in the plots of Ultimate Force they'd watch the episodes concerned. The information on the programme's main page is adequate for the rest of us. A1octopus 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tri-blog

Extremely non-notable content. NO relevant google hits [23]. Delete, neologism/blogspam. Not even worth merging into List of blogcruft Timecop 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. Incognito 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — it's not even a neologism. It's a protologism (or should I say, proctologism?) --Hosterweis 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Seems like a made-up term to me... WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tri-Delete - one liner advertising -- Femmina 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - No notability whatsoever. Cptchipjew 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:00Z
  • Delete per nom. Proto t c 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete New internet lingo? Never heard of it. --Depakote 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. nn Eusebeus 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - ZERO google hits pertaining to "tri-blogging." (see here) -- 66.142.85.214 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Cptchipjew 08:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omega Squad

nn Star Wars Video Game cruft Pboyd04 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not video game cruft, since they're novel characters. So far, they've been in 2 novels and a short story, as the protagonists . They're more notable than more than a dozen other Star Wars characters.-LtNOWIS 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to the relevant list of minor Star Wars characters. -Sean Curtin 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sean/Gtrmp and/or disambig if needed. WhiteNight T | @ | C 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! these are major characters, as worthy as delta squad. if you keep delta squad, keep this.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Zamanfou

Hoax? This seems to be a joke. No sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) DELETE. Simply, this does not exist in any othe encyclopaedia. It would possibly be an entry in a slang dictionary, or a funny websites list. Not wikipedia.

    • Comment: why you won't find it in encyclopedias is explained below. Zamanfou is an attitude and lifestyle, not an organised movement. Wikipedia has other topics not found in encyclopedias. Pictureuploader 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Could be acceptable as a lexicographical entry (an entry in a Greek slang dictionary), but not as an encyclopedia lemma. The social phenomenon it describes is neither unique to Greece, nor unanimously bound with the title word. Unless somebody provides links or references to some widely respected resources treating the alleged social phenomenon as a unique case for which a special term is required (and thus establishing a strong bind with the title-word), unless this happens, the entry should be deleted. As said, it would be perfectly OK to have a related lemma treating Greek slang expressions, marked and labeled as such. Modern Greek has an intricate system of profane verbal expressions and signs, and it would be great if someone were to document it and, if possible, link it to the formative social phenomena. But the "Zamanfou" article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.62.220 (talk • contribs)
  • No reputable references (all Google searches point back to Wikipedia), so I suggest speedy deletion. It sounds like someone had a lot of free time on his/her hands and was spouted out a lot of unfounded nonsense. Fabricationary 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if there is not an equivalent, legitimate article on the same topic in the Greek 'pedia. pfctdayelise 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP It's not a hoax folks, it's a valid social phenomenon in Greece. and you won't find any resources unless you search using GREEK LETTERS AND WORDS cuz we all speak Greek over here dotchaknow? For example search for "Ωχαδερφισμός" <-- search for that. And since when does the Greek wikipedia, a wikipedia with less than 10K articles, and in which you'll find mostly articles of historic value, validate the english wikipedia and vise versa? O_o So, if i put up a similar article in the Greek wikipedia, it will validate *THIS* one? Please. :P Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 17:34, 10 January 2006
  • Keep but rewrite. The subject is not a hoax. Maybe funny to some but it is an existing phenomenon in modern day Greece. -- Michalis Famelis 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The talk page leads me to think it is not a hoax, but it may be very inaccurate, non-NPOV, needing cleanup, link to Greek Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:59Z
  • Keep, but please rewrite with citation. And an article in Greek in the Greek Wikipedia would probably help a lot, because there would be more people there to feed back and improve it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm reading Nikos Dimou and Demosthenis Kurtovic as fast as I can :P Damn it Jim, I'm a programmer, not a Literature Major! ;) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 10:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite, as per Michalis Famelis and Jmabel above. Lukas 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is definately not a Hoax, ask any Greek and you will find out that it is totally correct
  • Delete Uses foul Greek language. There is no phenomenon of the kind but terminology and the gestures mentioned can be found in the streets. It is like elaborating in detail on gestures and idiotic neologisms. Entry regarding the army is completely irrelevant with the subject, term "loufa" as well. The lazy idiots described in the article are always unable to respond correctly to disciplined situations in life, like in the army, in a decent job, etc. It is a silly article, unworthy of Wikipedia. It cannot be rewritten. How deep can you elaborate on laziness and idiocy in non-medical terms? --Spryom 10:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not have a position an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, being greek, a couple of points. It is vulgar. A lot more than anyone might consider even remotely necessary. It is badly written. It generalizes a lot, being at points inconsistent. However, there is indeed such a culture in Greece, although informal. Even formally, many have referred to relevant aspects as characteristic of the Greek people. Perhaps it would be best to scrap and rewrite under "Ωχαδερφισμός" or something. I wonder, though, how one would write that using proper naming conventions. --Cangelis 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP it's the quintessence of modern Greek society and psyche, although the article should reduce it's 'manual of behaviour for Zemamfoutists' look and it needs to make clear that Zamanfou is an abstract phenomenon; not an official or organised movement with dedicated followers, as sometimes non-Greeks would wrongly understand. That's why you cant' find it on Google and find bibliogaphy and references. That doesn't mean that it's unexistant, fake, nonsense or irrelevant Pictureuploader 12:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • NO, this is NOT a hoax. The phenomenon exists. All the article describes, including the hand gestures and foul language do happen. The terms are broadly used in everyday life. Even, I use them. As a Greek male who lived in Greece through the 80s as well as presently and served in the army, I cannot describe how close this struck to my experience and how relevant it is to my life.
Loufa could be seen as an extension of Zamanfou, even though it is an related army term. There are even Greek movies about loufa. The movies are called no surprizing called "Λούφα και Παραλαγή" and "Λούφα και Παραλαγή 2" (the latter one is by Nikos Perakis).
Comment BOTH movies were direted by Nikos Perakis Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 12:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The article does use foul language but only as it is necessary to talk about the phenomena. Foul language is part of the specific sub-culture. I would suggest not to remove it because it would alter the accuracy of the content. In the end, such is life and one cannot and may be should not clean it up!
The books can be found at: [24] and [25]
(Unsigned comment by User:212.205.97.6)
Please, please and please keep this article. Zamanfou is a part of being Greek. This is a part of my life!!! Nikolas Athens, Greece 11/01/2006
  • Keep and Cleanup, Verify. If All your base are belong to us deserves an extensive Wikipedia article, then so does this. Foul language, if it is overwhelming the article, can be translated periphrastically to avoid it becoming the main attraction. Actually, some of it is untranslated in the present article: I believe σταρχιδιασμός means something like "on-my-ballsism," but that isn't mentioned. And since there are no official Greek government statistics on the demographic distribution of zamanfou attitudes, we need to cite more of whatever evidence we do have for its prevalence among different age groups. What arguments do Dimou et al. make in the books? It has some issues but it is definitely worth keeping.--Jpbrenna 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not even understanding some of these delete votes. "Delete because it uses foul Greek language"? WTF?! Cyde Weys votetalk 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is one of the great pages in the Wikipedia, despite its being rather coarse. They should be congratulated for including it! Definitely a keeper. Anyone who has been in Athens for 5 minutes can attest as to the existence or not of Zamanfu! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.49.131 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP IT!!! Its humoristic, very very real and describes modern Greece exactly! These expressions are used all the time by Greeks and thy are not vulgar! An encyclopedia should not be repressed by pseudo-morality shocks! This article speaks the truth, and I being greek recognised it instantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.1.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and Cleanup, Verify. User:Romanista

Comment: What brought this article to my attention was an email to the Help Desk mailing list from a Greek national who claimed it's nonsense. We need some references, people. This is unsourced and all lookups on the net go to Wikipedia mirrors. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Comment: Zoe, Greek society, currently, really hates the idea of their dirty laundry getting public. It's not something Greeks are proud of. So, look for alterial motives when a Greek national asks you to "delete an article that's utter nonsence". Ask them "why is nonsense?", first. About the references: They are out there, definately. Gimmie some time, and i'll compile a list. In the meantime, I got to make some Pentiums at work compile some bytes for me, so, cut me some slack. ;) I'm trading my hours for a handful of dimes...
More to the point: Watch the article I got in line next about Greek Shadow Theater and Karagiozis. See what kind of reactions I'll elicit then. AFAIC, I can smell the foam comming out of the mouth from those so called Greek "nationals" (Read: nationalists), already.
I got 3 links to the books of 2 Greek authors. Would you like to list them by ISBN instead? There are many more in print, just not enough on the web, though "ωχ αδερφέ" does yield enough google hits to guarantee notability. Note please that the Zamanfu attitude is something like insider knowledge, i can't describe it in a better way: you got to be Greek in order to fully understand it. So, it's highly unlikely that you are going to find any references to this attitude that are not in Greek. Oh, here's a tip: Your average modern Greek assumes bad faith . Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I really fail to see how all this can be verified bibliographically, although I can agree with every single word of the article. Come to Greece and ask anyone you want about what Zamanfou is and not only everyone will tell you about it, but you will clearly see it on yourself; ask for books and articles about it and you will find none. I don't know if it's a weakness of Wikipedia: to erase a general truth simply for being unverifiable Pictureuploader 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A comment on google hits: It is quite natural that searching for "Zamanfu" only yields 333 hits in Google. The term as used in the article name is a greeklish transliteration of the french language slang expression je m'en fou (420.000 google hits) or je m'en fous (217.000 hits). I think one could consider zamanfou a neologism, as there exists an otherwise slang ("argot") term to describe the state of being "en fous", je m'en foutisme (only 634 hits but with an entry in the "Dictionnaire d'argot"). From the above I would note that apart from cleanup and verification, there should also be a renaming as I see it to one of the following:

  1. Je m'en foutisme (which would mean that the article would have to incorporate information on the french version of the mentality)
  2. Ohaderfismos (which gets no google hits in english and merely 266 hits in greek (ωχαδερφισμός) but could(?) be accepted as a transliteration)
  3. Oh Aderfe (Ωχ αδερφε) which gets merely 764 hits in english but a relative impressive number of hits, 14.900, in greek as "ωχ αδερφέ".

-- Michalis Famelis 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. However sources would be nice. If it is as well known as people are saying it is, then surely there is a magazine artice at least written on it. Paul August ☎ 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sources are easily verifiable, just not on the web. Greece has still to come out of the bronze age as far as available bandwidth is concearned and it's still in the dark as fast as internet b2b. So, there are 8-10 books, and plenty of newspaper articles in print available, but none really on the web. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)~
There is no requirement that sources have to be on the web, nor do they have to be in English (although both things make verifiability easier). Please add whatever reliable references you have, with complete bibliographic information. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete I’m sure that you find apathetic and socially irresponsible people in every country of the world. This article can only have meaning as satire or a joke. Taken literally as an attempt at sociological analysis it is plain stupid. The author takes a gesture, a few words, and a quite common human characteristic, found I’m sure in people of all races and colors and creates a “social phenomenon”. He gives it a start point in time (that has developed since the late 1980s), a place of origin (It first began in Athens), and a background that even involves the Greek civil war.

The paragraph in which he offers an extremely detailed description of the movement of the hands towards the genitals organised in 5 different categories is proof enough as far as I’m concerned that the author just wanted to spend a fun evening in front of his keyboard.

This pseudo-sociological text could be amusing in a blog but it can be extremely misleading as an article in an encyclopedia. Of course the word exists. Of course the gestures exist , but you can not make a social phenomenon out of them. It is nothing more than the author’s personal, completely unscientific opinion probably inspired by certain satirical pieces (I see links to Nikos Dimou)

It is definetely not suitable for Wikipedia. Dimitris

Comment: Weather or not the phenomenon exists is not something that per se dictates deletion or otherwise. If sufficient sources can be presented that there exists a trend that holds it as a social phenomenon then there is a place for it in WP. The article could be like
"Zamanfou, is a belief held among some Greeks <with citations> that.... They trace it back to....." etc etc.
WP has an article on Flat earth theory. Flat earth does not exist, but there exist people who think it does. -- Michalis Famelis 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would like Dimitris to show us how Nikos Dimou is satirical in his writings. I think Nikos Dimou, a modern Greek author is dead on point on his observations about the modern Greek society. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP IT The references are real and it is modern Greek... People reaching their 60 years may not even be aware of these "words" but that does not mean that they do not exist out there. Maybe it is exagerating somehow but they are people that fall exactly in this category

OK, I"m going to withdraw my nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This should not be deleted! - people who say delete have no experience of modern Greek Culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.62.189 (talk • contribs)

KEEP IT-Definately an accurate and valid greek social phenomenon, not even part of a sub-culture but rather a vital part of the modern greek mentality, except, of course, for those who think that the entry came out of the blue (and who probably live in another country, not to mention another planet). Some parts are written in a caustic manner, but do not give false information, on the contrary, they are precise and revealing in an imaginative and non-conservative way. As for the hand gestures, well, if they are not part of a culture (as the greek or the italian), then what is? -- 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)mxrwho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.233.187.84 (talk • contribs)


DELETE As far as I am concerned, it could be accepted as a lexical entry in a glossary but definitely not as an attempt to analyse a - so called - sociological phenomenon, especially in an encyclopedia. Absolutely misleading. It just doesn't have any scientific grounds whatsoever. Furthermore, the links to Nikos Dimou articles are just a collection of the author's opinions, definitely not a scientific approach. I don't even think that Nikos Dimou intended them to be considered scientific.

This is definitely not a culture-specific phenomenon. It's not bound to the Greek society. Maybe the gestures are. As an extralinguistic phenomenon, gestures are linked to language itself, and these gestures are definitely linked to the Greek language. But that's about it. It should not be associated with a sociological stance, well, at least not one attributed to a specific nation, anyway.

Eri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.39 (talk • contribs)

COMMENT Eri, pray, do tell, show us antother culture on this plannet that does have a Zamanfu attitude about life. And if you are conserned about the scientificness of the whole thing, just be patient, i'm reading as fast as I can. Cut me some slack :P ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Unrestrained generalization could be borderline racism. Note the following comments:

‘look for alterial motives when a Greek national asks you to delete an article’
‘your average modern Greek assumes bad faith’
‘Greek society, currently, really hates the idea of their dirty laundry getting public’
‘not even part of a sub-culture but rather a vital part of the modern Greek mentality’
‘it’s the quintessence of modern Greek society and psyche’
‘Anyone who has been in Athens for 5 minutes can attest as to the existence or not of Zamanfu’

Such sort of aphorisms, (most of them written by the same person who wrote the article), are simply biased in their ‘steamroller logic’. I was born in Athens and I’ve lived my entire life in Greece. I’m 28 years old now and I have never met a single human being that I would categorize as part of this ‘social phenomenon’. Have I lived in a bubble then? You know, as far as I’m concerned what really makes this article fall apart is the systematization that it leads to. Taking this word and that gesture and some example of mentality of indifference and combining them all to create an actual ‘sociological phenomenon’ a system of values, a pattern of behaviour, conscious and so specific. Well such a theory or movement or system simply does not exist

The author also gives specific information that even more enhances the view of this as an actual sociological phenomenon, official and probably studied by scientists. Note the following:

‘that has developed since the late 1980s’
‘main supporters of this phenomenon were generally between the ages of 16-25’
‘citizens that chose to prioritize their individual well being’
‘It is thought of as a form of insubordination against the state and the Greek status quo’
‘Due to Zamanfou, as of 2006 the cohesiveness of the Greek society has deteriorated to some extend’
‘this was also one cause of the less than optimal recovery of the Greek economy,
as a member of the European Union, during the eighties and the nineties’
‘Subscribers to this ideology use a characteristic phrase’
‘The Hellenic Armed Forces have developed a military version of Zamanfou, called Loufa’

I doubt the credibility of all of the above quotes. I suppose that in this context the hand gesture so eloquently described by the author is a definite way for the scientist to recognize the ‘Zanmafoutian’. It could be a sure way for members of the ‘movement’ to recognize each other as well. You know sort of like a secret handshake :)

The part about the military variation of the ‘phenomenon’ called ‘loufa’ is also nonsense. Loufa or the verb loufaro is slang and describes the international in my opinion tendency to slack off. It is not a word or a tendency that is specific to the Greek military forces.

It’s like me saying that there are people in America for example, who sometimes instead of working spend their time in the office surfing the internet or checking their personal email. Actually there are expressions in the English language such as ‘I don’t give a damn’, ‘I don’t give a shit’, “I don’t give a flying fuck” etc, all used to express indifference. The people who use such expressions and slack off at work are part of a specific sociological phenomenon. Add a few dates, a fancy name and a link to a ‘how to slack off at work and get away with it’ guide and I have my sociological Wikipedia article.

There is not such a thing as a sociological phenomenon called Zamanfou, developed in the late 1980’s, originally in Athens, from 16-25 year olds…. etc, etc. Just the personal, totally unscientific systematization of a number of words, phrases and international mentalities, all woven together by the author in a pseudo-scientific mess.

It might be funny, certainly puts a smile on your face, but it is just not true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People come here for information. It should not include articles appearing to be scientific while providing completely personal views and ideas. Dimitris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.248.248 (talk • contribs)

KEEP but refine. As a non-Greek who has lived and worked with Greeks for two decades, I can say that it is 100% true. The elaboration on hand gestures is ridiculous and should be deleted. Although I have never heard this social condition referred to as zamanfou, I have seen numerous comentaries on the phenomenon of Ωχαδερφισμός in the Greek press. If someone has the time, they could translate a few articles or post references to them. This is by no means a uniquely Greek phenomenon, but in Greece it does indeed have a unique expression bordering on a counterculture. As far as loufa goes, it does not really apply to the Greek military as a whole but only to the conscripts who serve a 12-month tour which is viewed as an unwanted interruption from their life. The truth of the matter is that the Greek military is largely a professional force with conscripts relegated to menial labor duties and other busy work that would drive most Americans mad. Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.167.225 (talk • contribs)

KEEP!!! Having read the article on Zamanfou I must stress with a thick underline that the article must be kept. The term is no longer being used except by those of a certain age but the phenomenon is certainly here to stay with Greek everyday life unfortunate as it may be. My sincere thanks for those who posted it!!! My age allows me to know exactly when the phenomenon got started and how it evolved over the years. Thanks for the hospitality, www.phaedrus.gr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.10.97 (talk • contribs)

DELETE The article is full of factual inaccuracies, and the writing style is very poor. The subject is serious, yet the article is tongue-in-cheek. See the article on Chav for how a serious treatment could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.29.36 (talk • contribs)

  • We can reassure you that it's NOT full of factual inaccuracies, and if it is, you can just go on and correct them. Pictureuploader 13:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Better than one more article on a video game character (I know, pretty low standard, but don't take it as an insult). alteripse 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edublog

non-notable dictdef. Begone. Timecop 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn. Incognito 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Timecop, I think you might be incorrect about the non-notable part - googling reveals a fairly broad reach for the term (including "edublog awards"). However, it is still a dicdef without too much room for expansion, so I'll say Transwiki to wiktionary. WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Though the meaning is patently obvious and the article is cruft - 'water bottle is a bottle for storing water'. Not even sure it needs coverage of any kind. --Timecop 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a one-liner in Blog if not already there. --Timecop 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
for the record for the closing admin, I'll accept either a delete or merge here also. WhiteNight T | @ | C 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Hosterweis 05:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - or create a page about Bablogging, for people who like to blog from their bathrooms too -- Femmina 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's already an Educational section in Blog -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Blog#Educational. I see enough google hits (300k) to warrant mentioning the name there. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:55Z
  • Delete this, mention in Blog#educational as per Quarl. Proto t c 12:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Edublog? I'm not laughing... --Depakote 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with maybe a one-liner in blog under genres (i.e. would accept merge as would some others here). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since already mentioned at blog and does not justify its own article. Eusebeus 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eusebeus. *drew 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cptchipjew 08:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick joke

Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given. As it stands it's unreferenced and may contain a certain amount of original research, but I believe that these are a real phenomenon which should get an encylopedic treatment, so I'm inclinded to vote keep. Kappa 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - original research. —ERcheck @ 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems like a personal essay to me, not encyclopaedic. - Jjjsixsix 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, at least it's a reasonable article now. - Jjjsixsix 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. This has the potential to be a reasonable article, although it is not one now. N Shar 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • After changes, the article is reasonable. Speedy keep. N Shar 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - references added by Uncle G make this "good enough". -Jcbarr 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. This could actually be a good article, eventually. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Dick jokes are hilarious. Nobody can get enough good phallus humor. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, famous comedy concept. Rhobite 06:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with potty humour. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:53Z
  • Keep as can envisage this developing into a strong article, and is now an OK one. Sliggy 13:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to penis humor. Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep hilarious Sceptre (Talk) 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and I'll make a redirect at knob gag. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)*keep please these kind of jokes are popular we shouldcover them too Yuckfoo 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Bello Band

NN Band. 103 Google hits for "Steve Bello Band" [26], 3 hits for "Steve Bello Band" "Jupiter Return " [27], its most recent album. Fang Aili 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Argument Against Deletion:

  • Has had 3 releases on notable indie labels.
  • Is endorsed by several notable professional musical intrument companies (Ibanez, Ashdown, Warwick)
  • Featured as an official Ibanez Guitars artist on the Ibanez Guitars website.
  • Gives clinics to promote Ibanez guitars.
  • Has gone on tour.
  • Official website first result on google search.
  • Most recent album has been topic of discussion on online forums (mention of the public's reaction is made in the Steve Bello Blog

Flypanam 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Question for Flypanam: One of the criteria for notability is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Which indie label produces this band's records? I looked at their website but could not find out. --Fang Aili 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not on allmusic, not on Amazon, not convinced by Flypanam but open to persuasion. Significant media coverage of albums or tours would certainly do it for me (and I do not mean on blogs / forums / fansites) - in the UK, NME covers indie acts. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG Eusebeus 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Save I feel that the Steve Bello Band should not be deleted because they have this acclaim that not a lot of other bands have. They have been doing extremely well with their crowd pull, they have numerous endorsements that are not easy to get, they have been featured in several "Zines" in the NY/NJ area and their bassist Courtenay Penick had a feature in the December Issue of "Bass Player" Magazine. They are on a fast track to the top and are pulling people from all over, Yngwie Malmsteen couldn't even sell out a 1500 seat venue in Philly, yet this 3 person band is pulling people from all over the NY/NJ area and has a deep following and is yet to plan a new tour supporting the new album. If the Steve Bello Band gets deleted for their "non existance in the music industry, then other bands that are in the same boat need to be, The Muckrakers (louisville) are in this fourm and they have 3 releases on an Indy label and why are they not getting threatend with deletion. Mark J. - Louisville, Ky.
  • See above, Mark: if you can cite coverage in authoritative magazines (I'm a brit so I know NME, there are different ones in the States of course) then you will stand a good chance of persuading people. We need to be able to verify their claimed significance from reliable sources. And I'm sorry, Carlos, but your comments are subjective and of no help to anyone here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Save One of the most talented instrumental bands that I've heard in quite a while. Steve's playing ranks up there with ANY of the famous Steves out there, Courtenay's bass work is BOTH driving and melodic, and last but NEVER least Evan's drumming is ALWAYS on the money. --Carlos G., Bayshore, NY.
Comment: Please see WIKI:MUSIC for Wikipedia's band notability standards. --Fang Aili 17:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron crighton

Sophomoric nonsense Fuhghettaboutit 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For some reason all of the text of the article went away Fuhghettaboutit 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Presumably someone speedy deleted it while you were in the process of tagging it. Kappa 03:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as empty article. Tagged as {{db-empty}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:51Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Anonymous editor —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:51Z


[edit] Tony Zhang

Nonsense article about an apparent 13 year old who is "is the best football player ever" Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Where's the article? N Shar 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syrupy Pop

Non-notable blog. Has no assertions of notability. —Cleared as filed. 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete This really should have been placed under speedy delete. Non-notable and spam. Get rid of it. --dj28 04:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Indeed, and speedy the blog's author as well (see article). --Timecop 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unfortunately not a speedy as far as I can see. WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable blog. Incognito 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pagerank inflating spamvertising -- Femmina 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - non-notable blog. Hosterweis 05:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under my loose interpretation of CSD A7 to include blogs. N Shar 06:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable weblog. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:49Z
  • Delete at any velocity as a WP:WEB-failing blog. The blog's creator appears to have been speedied. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or delete if that doesn't work, not notable blog. Proto t c 12:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Who/What is this? --Depakote 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blogcruft. Burn it now. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete more nn blogclog. Eusebeus 23:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hang on - Syrupy Pop! can't we redirect this to Chris de Burgh? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that a troll? --Timecop 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sort of, lol! (a few artists come to mind, heheh) WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. --Hosterweis 00:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable blog. *drew 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.Cptchipjew 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 06:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zuup

Someones hompage and blog Ezeu 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is not someone's home page or blog. It mentions the creator has a home page and blog. It is a social networking service. Not a very popular one yet (Alexa rank 50k) but notable enough for me. See also List of social networking sites. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:32Z
  • Delete. Although this would merit its own article once it becomes more popular. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only just. The site is everythign I hate about that kind of site, the article needs some work (and to be half as long) but it does seem to be busy and reasonably popular. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough for the time being. Stifle 18:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Incognito 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Openposting.com

A craigslist replacement with 63 unique google hits and no other pages linking to it at all. Good luck to them, and when they have gotten big, we will write them up. bikeable (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Perfecto 05:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website. Mike 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:28Z
  • Speedy keep it says it's like eBay and craigslist! It must be right up there! Nah, only kidding. delete. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slingdottery

The subject of the article is an online game from a website; google returns five discrete hits Fuhghettaboutit 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slingdot. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:26Z
  • Merge to Slingdot. -- Perfecto 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable flash game. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:26Z
  • Delete not merge. Sorry, Perfecto, but I think this is so minor as to amount to trivia in Slingdot Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I placed my vote before Slingdot went to AfD. If Slingdot stays, I want to let the (future) editors of Slingdot decide, not us. If it doesn't, I retract my vote. What do you know: I'm a mergist! -- Perfecto 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rommel "Bumelitz" Javier

Delete - Nonsense, vanity. no references. nn čĥàñľōŕď 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. 0 Google hits for "rommel javier" bollywood or rommel javier bumelitz. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:22Z
  • Delete Unverifiable. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Justin Eiler 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems very made-up.Bjones 13:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax-humour-vanity. Blnguyen 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Review, There is an actor in the micronesia named Bumelitz. Jones 12:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Osbourne

Delete: There's nothing notable about him except he's Ozzy's son. He wasn't even on the show. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - his sister Jessica doesn't have a page, there's no reason he should either. Reference in Ozzy's page really covers all you need to know about him! -Jcbarr 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ozzy Osbourne. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:20Z
  • Delete as nn, although he was in the show (guest star in the first season Christmas episode.) Essexmutant 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge seems fair. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. He is noteworthy, albeit purely because of his father. -- Greaser 14:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Redirects are cheap, and we need to retain the page history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landscape (disambiguation)

There were two Landscape disambiguation pages, Landscape and Landscape (disambiguation). With the creation of Landscape art (which was Landscape painting), making Landscaping into a disambiguation page, and redirecting all the redirects, this page is now unnecessary. Sparkit 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge the remaining meanings in Landscape (disambiguation) that aren't in the other page, then delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:19Z
  • Move content then delete per Quarl. -- Saberwyn 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. We need to retain the edit history of the page when merging content to abide the GFDL (and to be able to attribute edits to individual editors). That could be done with either a history merge or a redirect. Redirecting is easier. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Boldly Merged into Landscape and redirected there :: Supergolden 17:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete following boldness. Could be done speedily, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment why bother deleting it now its just a redirect? :: Supergolden 09:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Because unlike most redirects, which direct an alternate or misspelled name to the correct topic, I would find it highly unlikely someone is going to type "Landscape (disambiguation)" into the searchbox. -- Saberwyn 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barefoot Radio

Non-notable podcast. Andrew Levine 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN --Ezeu 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 04:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a newcomer's first article/edit. I'm sad we AfD it two minutes after submission and three people agree five minutes later. -- Perfecto 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I gladly pile on to a non-notable article's AfD, regardless of who created it. Are we supposed to give all newbies a free pass? That's where most of the spam comes from. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with no tears. Daniel Case 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe, but Perfecto's free to leave a nice note on the new user's talk page. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:13Z
  • Why is this a non notable podcast?? Why can others have a similar description of their podcast and not be deleted? Why don't I get any reasons for deletion? Why not suggestions about how to edit the article? Barefoot Radio is Trademarked and will be around a long time, so why can't I write an entry for it? Somebody please explain the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyagewiki (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 January 2006
  • Delete - Agreeing with deletion because this is non-encyclopedic. Only the biggest of the big podcasts get their own articles. This one ... just ain't notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Eusebeus 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand. Barefoot radio is a legitimate podcast (Google it). Perhaps instead of deletion, we request a stub and perhaps some pictures. krispymann25 15:46 15 Jan. 2006 (EST).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Toronto, Ontario roads

This list has now been superseded by the category Toronto Streets. Either Delete or Redirect Atrian 05:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, the category doesn't include all the street in the list. Kappa 06:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Kappa -- DaGizza Chat 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How is the significance of included roads on the list determined? - Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Categories don't supersede lists. CalJW 14:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Categories do not replace lists. Especially not if the list still has red links. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please caljw is right Yuckfoo 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubois digital get-down

0 google hits for this " well-known national festival". Unverifiable. Kappa 06:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax (or at best unverifiable). N Shar 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, POV and Americo-centric article, useless for research. -- (aeropagitica) UK 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:04Z
  • Delete per all above --DaGizza Chat 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as blantant made-up patent nonsense. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I'm very familiar with the DDGD in Raleigh, NC and Columbia, SC. It's not super well-known but certainly a notable event. Everything in life isn't on google, particularly events attended by people without regular Internet access.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death worship

Very short text with no context; at best a definition. -- Cjmnyc 02:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, basic religious topic. Kappa 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this is sort of an important topic for an encyclopedia. N Shar 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This sub-stub needs to be expanded though --DaGizza Chat 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a shame this thing is so small; I'm no expert on the subject. Grandmasterka 07:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting, something to build on. john 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Perhaps get some links to some pages about the role of death in religion, eg suicide? Blnguyen 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep the expanded version, nomination withdrawn as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ManchVegas

Neologism. No evidence that anyone ever actually uses it. Reyk 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

GOOGLE MANCHVEGAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuma (talk • contribs)

Okay, I phrased that badly. I should have said that the article provides no evidence that this term is in common, widespread use. Encyclopedia articles need to be verifiable and their subject has to be, in my opinion, important enough to merit an encyclopedia article. If you want to rewrite the thing, I will reconsider my position but a handful of hits to websites doesn't equal notability AFAIC. Reyk 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, since the Manchester, New Hampshire contains the term, I don't think it needs a seperate article. Reyk 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Change my vote to keep per Karmafist and Nhprman's rewrites.Reyk 21:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstain. Article has insufficient context as it stands. If you want it to stay, add more information, since you seem to be the one who knows something. N Shar 06:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as above, and it's not even defined. Tempshill 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If updated, keep

I have to agree with Fuma. Google shows over 11,000 separate uses of the term online in various contexts. It has been used for quite a long time here (in Manchester, NH.) The owner of the Website manchvegas.net (which was registered by that person in 2000, according to whois) says he's not OLD enough to know the origin of that term. I don't know him, but even if he's just 20, that's establishing long-term use.

An article in the Hippo Press newspaper (a local alternative weekly) back in the summer noted that, "the mayor is pushing to replace the nickname ManchVegas with Manchhatten" (meaning Manchester+Manhattan.) He's now the former mayor. Maybe there was a backlash. Still, the mayor (who's about 60) knew the term and knows it is well-used.

The paper also noted in an article that someone was selling "ManchVegas" t-shirts. His Website noted that they sold extremely well after the article came out. Not solid evidence, but at least hearsay evidence.

A 2003 note on Virtualtourist.com sums things up well: "Residents reflect the regional dry humor by referring to sedate Manchester as 'ManchVegas'."

Anyway, it's recognized, and yes, it's a colloquialism. I do, however, think this article needs expansion, if it's going to stay. Maybe Fuma should contact me and we'll do some more digging for sources. Nhprman 07:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have to add that "No evidence that anyone ever actually uses it" can't possibly be the case, given even the barest of citations I have submitted. Was any research done to back that up, or was it assumed someone just made the phrase up recently? Nhprman 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Now, i'll be perfectly honest here, I thought a buddy of mine made this term up, and when I saw this AfD I was convinced he was the person who wrote it. I was wrong. In either case, this should be redirected to Manchester, NH because there's nothing here. I'm not sure this will be much more than a stub, and it doesnt deserve a stub status - make a subsection in the Manchester page. If it does turn out I'm wrong, and there is a not of stuff on the term, it can always be re-split later.Keep Article's been fleshed out more than I thought it could be. --jfg284 you were saying? 12:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You may very well be right. However, consider that this is a cultural distinctive like any other. If the Kurdish Work song deserves a page (and a very short one at that) and the cultural peculiarity of the Scottish cringe does, and - perhaps the most analogous - the oft-used term "Massholes" has it's own page, then a nickname that is well known and, frankly, is well used deserves one, too. Frankly, this almost qualifies as a Portmanteau word - which combines two words into one. Though it may be dubiously one, since I'm not sure place names fit in that definition. If so, however, the word rises to a new level of legitimacy. This evening, I hope to start expanding the article with sources I've found, and perhaps it will win converts. Nhprman 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I'm a local, and this word is used frequently among youth circles, particularly through the diffusion medium of the Hippo Press, the primary source of youth media in the area, which has built up the term. I'll try to build the article where I can, but this is definately notable, at least in terms of New Hampshire. karmafist 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology (disambiguation)

Unnecessary disambig page. Scientology prominently links to Church of Scientology, so there is no need for disambiguation. This page was created due to an incomprehensible page move war, it is now unnecessary and has no incoming links. Rhobite 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Tempshill 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --DaGizza Chat 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two item disambigs aren't a great use to anyone, especially when the two disambiguated topics are a religion and the church that practices it. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep People do practice scientology without belonging to the offical church of scientology, I say keep its two separate articles, and possibly two separate ideas. If required ill reference. Mike 12:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a proposal to merge the two articles. All I'm saying is that this disambig page is useless because it isn't linked from anywhere and nobody is going to type "Scientology (disambiguation)" in the search box. Rhobite 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The two disambiguated pages differ in subject and content only by extreme hair-splitting. wikipediatrix 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A disambiguation isn't necessary here as Scientology and CoS refer to the same general thing. Cyde Weys votetalk 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The two topics are too closely related to justify disambiguation. Besides, anyone interested enough in the subject matter will know to type in one or the other if they want information on the organization specifically or the belief specifically. 23skidoo 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — there's no ambiguity that needs correction. — RJH 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not deserve a disambig page having only two entries. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was dealt via copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New dimensions radio

Non-notable, advert Tempshill 06:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Copyvio, tagged and listed on WP:CP. Adverts like this are copyvios from their official website over half the time, and it is often a good idea to check for that possibility first, but thanks for spotting it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been sent to copyvio team. Stifle 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Harding

  • Keep - besides the internet phenomena, he's also a known game developer and is linked from other pages.: First and only edit by 202.161.30.22
  • The 15 minutes is up--Porturology 06:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've created this for Porturology, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Harding. I'll go keep -- notable and verifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable random human. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -- Those are some very notable shows he was on (or supposed to be on...) Grandmasterka 08:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ephemeral entertainer. Isolated appearances on television talk shows (if that's what meant by "visits to" the shows...) are not notable by itself. Sliggy 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems notable, we at wikipedia shouldn't delete someone because "his 15 minutes of fame are up" as the 15 minutes themeslelves prove he's notable, also he appeared on numerous talk shows and that in itself is notable.- Deathawk 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Rethink in a year, but right now this looks like one of the more interesting anonymous people on WP. Better than this year's BB contestants, anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he was part of a popular "internet phenomena" and I believe he is significant enough to deserve an article. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have finally tracked down what Matt Harding did on TV[28]. I have a concern with this as it is basically plagiarism of the station promo that the SBS network was playing when Mr Harding was in Australia. He has not even bothered to change the music. I will include this on the Australian linked deletions for further comment. If this article remains an appropriate edit pointing out the plagiarism is required.--Porturology 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)-

I can't find a copy of the promo which first appeared in the mid 80s and was revived about 2004 but I can confirm the music was'Deep Forest' and a description of the ad from July 2004 is here [29]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --Porturology 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--nixie 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep besides the internet/television/etc stuff, he's known for working on some of the turn of century Pandemic/Activision games. -- Synapse 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. enochlau (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crimebusters

Delete: No need to hive this info from Watchmen (leaves main article incomplete), also poorly named Dyslexic agnostic 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Concur -- not notable in own right, only in Watchmen/Minutemen context. Ambiguous title. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur-- In the book, the group didn't even actually form: most left at the proposal meeting. --Dynayellow 09:28, 11 January 2006 (CMT)
  • Concur (as I'm not clear whether any merging is required before deletion). For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with SockpuppetSamuelson. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game drive

Definition only. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary -- Cjmnyc 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Verifiable neologism/slang. Surprising meaning because I was expecting something else. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:02Z
  • Transwiki per above -- DaGizza Chat 07:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhotoDrop

Seems to be promotion for a service that is non-notable (the article even admits "PhotoDrop technology remains rather unused. This is mainly due to lack of public knowledge of the technology"). Andrew Levine 06:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Little-used application with no claims as to notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website, self-admitted. Also doesn't sound very useful -- 4MB is enough for one photo from today's digital cameras. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:18Z
  • Delete: PhotoDrop currently doesn't use it's own domain name, instead is hidden within RichardRussell.com. Now that's a really notable product! Daniel Case 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with thanks to the author for making it so easy. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone above. Proto t c 10:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slingdot

Non-notable macromedia flash game website. Alexa traffic rank of 400k. Google rank of 0. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slingdottery. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:23Z

  • Keep 23000 hits on Google, the site properly began on 2 December 2005, very recently. I'm sure it will increase in popularity. In addition, it is a pretty fun site. If the site is deleted now, as becomes more popular, an article will have to be written sooner or later. -- DaGizza Chat 07:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete For the moment DaGizzaChat (c) 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Of those 23,000, only 54 unique hits for slingdot -site:slingdot.com. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:17Z
  • Delete Non-notable games site and pure advertising. If it does become significant it can be re-written in a useful, non-advert, form. Kcordina 10:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn game. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DaGizza may be right - and when it does increase in popularity it will merit inclusion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 23:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manipulation of geological data

I looked at this page for a while tying to determine whether anything in it is salvagable. Actually, all the verifiable material is already at flood geology. Otherwise, this article is a creationist POV-fork of geology (assuming that there are only two perspectives: Old Earth and Young Earth which are clearly creationist idealizations). The article doesn't deserve saving and no one is going to search for such a title. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per ScienceApologist. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:14Z
  • Delete per ScienceApologist. Salsb 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete creationismcruft Cyde Weys votetalk 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reyk 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- an article with this title is unlikely to become NPOV any time soon. N Shar 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timebase

Delete. Non-notable fan production group. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete a group of nobodies who released some fanfic vids starring nobodies. Sorry, guys, but this was a bad idea for an article. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Blnguyen 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability(how many watched these?), No sources(How do we know this isn't made up?).Obina 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/s11

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBloks

Ad for a software package with no indication of significance.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable company/software, about 20 google hits, mostly for own website. Simple advertising. Kcordina 10:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn advert. wish this was speedyable. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of significance, spam as it stands and nobody impartial is likely to care enough to fix that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlashClone

For something that attempts to be a concept surrounding slashdot the google hits are rather abysmal. under 300 just filtering out wikipedia and encyclopedia and even then some are mirrors of this article. Besides google hits there does not appear anything else substantiating this concept. Looks like neologism to me - Delete/Merge WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - don't you think that a single slashdot in the world is more than enough? I do. -- Femmina 09:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, neologism. Incognito 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Uh? Not notable? Doesn't exist? --Depakote 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of the "Delete" votes here are self-identified members of the GNAA. Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
And so? -- Femmina 17:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Slashcode. The article is describing the word "Slashclone" as a neologism for clones of slashcode. May also deserve mention at Slashdot. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:27Z
  • Delete or merge per above. Eusebeus 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - see WP:WEB; non-notable. --Hosterweis 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge above Ashibaka tock 01:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Slashcode. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Idiotic in its existence.Cptchipjew 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheetahTemplate

Despite its Google hits, something tells me that it's simply advertising for something non-notable. --Khoikhoi 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: "Cheetah is included in FreeBSD and several Linux distributions: Gentoo, Fedora, Debian, and Ubuntu among others" makes it notable enough for me. It's open source, so commercial-style advertising is unlikely. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Open source and notable IMO. Mike 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GeorgeStephanek, but without that testimony it would likely be delete since Sourceforge shows pitifully few downloads and the article hits my number one spam button, starting with the name corectly intercapped as a weblink, so please can somoene clean it up if kept. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Should be renamed to Cheetah (Computing) or similar. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:24Z
  • JzG, for the record, there's between 60 and 200 downloads a day and it currently has an activity rank of 455 out of 110,278 total sourceforge projects. IMO, that's hardly pitiful. What do you mean by 'starting with the name corectly intercapped as a weblink'? - Tavis Rudd --64.69.80.177 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Traffic stats look good to me as well; 99.70 activity percentile on SF. I will clean it up. What JzG meant was the article should not start with an external link per Wikipedia style guidelines. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:51Z
  • I can be wrong about things, of course, but Sourceforge activity ranks are about the diffs checked in, aren't they? Given this is just hitting RC status a lot of uploads would not be a surprise. And the number of downloads is not 200-odd per day, it's 200-odd per release for the 2.0b version stream and not more than about 1500 per release for the 1.0 released product; many of these will be single users or sites keeping current ([30]). So I still don't see much evidence it's widely used, even while accepting the statements above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, you're right that checkin activity is irrelevant. In support of notability, here are some arguments. 1) I personally researched templating engines once when I was deciding which one to use, and Cheetah was one of the top candidates. 2) Cheetah Template is 4th hit on google for "Cheetah", a very generic word. 3) Linux distro packages exist (python-cheetah in Debian) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 11:14Z
  • Not disputed; I accept the statements of other Wikipedians who have specific expertise and no dog in the fight. If you look up there ^^^ you'll see I'm voting Keep on those grounds :-) - JzG 12:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to sourceforge's notes on project ranking the algorithm uses measures of "traffic + development + communication" but "The current statistics system excludes CVS and Mailing List data." I suspect their docs are out of date and that cvs commits do, in fact, influence the rank. JzG, for a more reliable indicator of usage see http://cheetahtemplate.org/whouses.html :) Tavis Rudd --64.69.80.177 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


I think he meant merge ?
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely be against Merge if that's what Timothy Clemans meant. "Merge" is usually a compromise attempt; no need for that :) since everyone has been voting Keep and I already cleaned up the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 06:29Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Paul Schlosser

Delete: WP:MUSIC, vanity page Lukas 08:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. He has some minimal notability. http://badgerherald.com/artsetc/2003/10/30/who_is_art_paul_schl.php for example. --Thunk 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's reasonably well-known in Madison, and he's been around for awhile; he was performing there when I lived there, 1993-1998. Chuck 23:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think he came to Australia maybe? because I remember him being on a TV segment somehow. Blnguyen 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: from The Badger Herald article cited above that supposedly warrants Art Paul's inclusion: "Art Paul Schlosser appears to be less of an entertainer than a sideshow attraction, his audience less interested in musical entertainment than the sheer spectacle of watching a seemingly simple eccentric play bizarre and often incoherent music." Can I start articles about the drunken homeless man that rides my bus every day and sings bad songs and farts loudly if the Badger Herald interviews him for some reason at some point? I live in Madison, so this is not a case of big city bias against a smaller city. Plainly put, IMHO, Art Paul deserves an article as much as the dude, any dude, that sits on State Street and slaps a bongo, plays a guitar etc. Do we really want to go down that road? Because if we do, the section at Madison, Wisconsin#Culture is gonna start to look pretty sad and non-notable.--Hraefen 05:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
He deserves an article as much as any dude that sits on State Street, slaps a bongo or plays a guitar, has newspaper articles about him, has appeared on television, and has had his songs played on a nationally syndicated radio show. Chuck 15:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "...Art Paul Schlosser is a prominent personality, and his performances, records, and television show are all available..." (emphasis mine) --68.228.205.193 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, independent newspaper claims that people have heard of him. --Malthusian (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: does the fact that User:Artpaul (the subject of the article) is making unsourced claims about himself make anyone want to change their vote? I know myspace is a good place for pages like this and wikipedia should deal in facts, but hey, that's just me.--Hraefen 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Not me. The unsourced claims don't belong there, but the solution is to edit the article back down to only verifiable claims, not to delete it. (In addition to putting gentle pointers to the relevant Wikipedia policy pages on his user page.) Chuck 19:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I can prove anything I've written but am open to what ever wikipedia decides.There is a coffee house in Minneapolis where I played at called Muddy Waters.I also have played at several bars in Milwaukee often at venue called The Trash Festival,and an open mic in Seatle,Washington so if these count as touring the country then I have.As far as charting on mp3tunes.com it may still be up there and Pink Pants was number 15 during the month of December 2005 in folk pop section there and it may still be there.My page here was up for over a year at wikipedia and no one said anything until I connected to Madison so I wonder if it's just jeolousy but rather than acuse people falsely I would rather this group make it own choice not base on my music style which is not the same as Ben Sidren but decide based on whether I really was on Dr Demento which if you go to http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbmorris/FAQ/drd01.0708.html you'll see I was not only on Dr Demento but my song Have A Peanut Butter Sandwich charted at number 1 in the Funny 5 that week--Artpaul 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seems ok-ish notable.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Stifle 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street Musicians

dictionary definition, vanity elements (links to non-notable individual) Lukas 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Just merge it to busking. Uncle G 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing to merge. Make it a redirect. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, redirect it to busking. Mike 12:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per GeorgeStepanek. Sliggy 13:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect noting a rare case where I disagree with UncleG :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Never knew it was called busking. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:23Z
  • Boldly redirected to busking. Proto t c 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal gear fiesta

A parody of Metal Gear Solid, which has apparently spread a bit on the internet due to Newgrounds, but I don't think that it has had a really big impact anywhere. I am unable to see why this Flash parody, described with the rather unverifiable "arguably one of the best" descriptor is really significant or encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete "Arguably"? WP is not a debating shop - either this is notable enough to be referenced or it isn't. The author hasn't provided an argument to back the claim of 'best', so it is POV and contravenes WP:NPOV. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft, and several other problems. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:16Z
  • Delete per aeropagitica -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft, among other things. Stifle 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berg connector

Non-notable type of electrical connector, which is also difficult to verify. Kevin 09:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Google sure throws up a lot of hits for it, so I say keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Google throws up a lot of hits, but that seems to be because the term Berg connector is used to refer to all connectors made under the Berg name. Seems to be a generic name for a huge range of connectors, which would be impossible to described usefully. Kcordina 10:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems extremely notable, maybe it should be cleaned up/expanded rather than deleted? Mike 12:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's some caveats, as Berg is a company that used to make these connectors. The subject name, then, isn't exactly correct -- a little like describing photocopies at the Xerox topic. -- Mikeblas 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since we have no article on the parent company to which to merge, and there is reasonable evidence of widespread currency. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe I'll add a photograph. —Ruud 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verena_Vlajo

  • Delete Vanity Piece --Djith 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete either vanity or fancruft. Either way no real case for notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity page. Stifle 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barcaldine Lawn Tennis Club

Non-notable, advertising. pfctdayelise 10:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This may not be the least interesting entry I have read on Wikipedia but it comes close. --Roisterer 10:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Barcaldine, Queensland, perhaps. I think there's room for expansion of every Australian suburb article, along the lines of the excellent work being done by Nick Carson (ie. Doncaster East, Victoria) This could include community facilities and organisations such as tennis clubs. Cnwb 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Put content into broader article about geographical area, otherwise delete. enochlau (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Security threats in europe beyond 2020

Seems to be copied from somewhere or OR. Also, purely speculative as far as I can tell and I'm not sure we could get enough sources to create a good article anyways. Didn't think I could speedy it. gren グレン ? 10:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some sort of report, with original research. Not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We're WP:NOT a crystal ball. Mike 12:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR & WP:NOT. PJM 12:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculation. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: original research, probably copyvio, crystal ball, NPOV violation ... take your pick. 23skidoo 15:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — this is a policy report, not an encyclopedic article. — RJH 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crystal ball, original research and NPOV. Themusicking 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. ×Meegs 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:14Z
  • Delete, NOR. Rhobite 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per 23skidoo -- what in the world?! Grandmasterka 08:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article appears copied, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and how can we possibly know about security threats which may or may not appear 14+ years into the future? Captain Jackson 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Ulayiti as CSD:A1 (no context). Stifle 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merderors

foreign slang dictdef - with one single google hit. delete or transwiki if wiktionary want it - they probably wont. BL kiss the lizard 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Ulayiti (CSD:A7, vanity page) Stifle 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wednesday United

Amateur 5-a-side-football team vanity. There are several such teams around, and this one does not appear to be particularily significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverifiable, doesn't google, in my view certainly non-notable. Article contributor also created Luke Harper article, which was tagged for speedy deletion as egregious nonsense (I deleted it). Luke Harper is listed on this page as a squad member. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn/unverifiable. --Muchness 12:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Thunk 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. jni 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.132.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:12Z
  • Delete QUICKLY. Not sure if a speedy, but apart from the vanity, it has nonsense like gravity defying about the goalkeeper, it lists one player as being homosexual and another male player, as a domestic goddess. Blnguyen 00:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RobertG -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}, please. Stifle 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major General West

Not notable enough. As I recall he only had one or two lines in the movie and never appeared in the series. I would say merge into List of Stargate characters, but such a page doesn’t seem to exist. Philip Stevens 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. And please, nobody start the aforementioned list. Reyk 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not really much information there to merge into Stargate (film), nor is there really a place for it on that page. Turnstep 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per JzG. Stifle 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACMTC

Agressive Christianity Missions Training. Non-notable - only 170 adherents world wide. -- RHaworth 11:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 170 adherents? That's abut 1/5 of the average Sunday congregation at one church I used to attend. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable organisation.Obina 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:11Z
  • Delete as non notable. Does this article incite hatred? Blnguyen 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, currently an advert and non-notable. I'm sure I could come up with a few other reasons if necessary. Stifle 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FSV

Of the four articles that link to this page, three are misleading because they refer to TLAs differant than the redirect and fourth is just a listing of all possible TLAs. Osmodiar 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep — I've seen this particular TLA in use before; it also gets >4×106 google hits. I added in several more common uses. :) — RJH 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I changed one of the 3 lists that link to this; the other two won't load but I'm sure they can be fixed easily. Not a reason for deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:13Z
  • Keep, it's quite all right. Stifle 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNLS

A third-party server to emulate the encryption algorithms of Blizzard Entertainment. The article seems to have been written by a webforum insider, perhaps the author of the BNLS server. I think the topic is too narrow to be encyclopedic. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • SMerge to Battle.net. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:06Z
  • I agree with nominator that this is too narrow a topic. I agree with Quarl that a smerge to battle.net seems appropriate. Let the folks who care about that article decide what content here is useful to that article. The best way to accomplish this is to turn the article into a redirect, thus preserving history for those who may want it. But I suppose I'm somewhat outside the realm of Afd with that suggestion. This is a good example of why Afd is bad and talk pages should be used for this type of discussion. Friday (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's fine to say "Redirect" in AFD. Merge and smerge also involve creating a redirect at the end. It's not just a choice between Delete and Keep :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 03:25Z
  • Merge and redirect per Quarl. FCYTravis 05:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axigen mail server

mail server advertising Melaen 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable software. No Google rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:03Z
  • Delete.per Quarl.Obina 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert and not notable. Stifle 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Greek clergymen

Tagged for clean-up since February 2005, but very little to actually clean up. The list is neither comprehensive nor of clergymen of particular note (comparatively). May actually be serving as an advert for the website embedded in the text. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: legitimate topic, but currently no notable content. Lukas 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No clear criteria. How many *notable* Greek clergymen can there be? Turnstep 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Turnstep -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur -- also not clear if this list, if retained would be for ethnic-origina clergy, or geographically-located clergy (or clergy of a particular ecclesiastical subset) -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Turnstep's entirely pertinent question. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Grace: Talk of Australia

un-notable podcast Melaen 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, and if the article means anything, may have been set upas a joke to get on wikipedia. Blnguyen 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blnguyen -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all podcasts. Stifle 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blub

un-notability Melaen 12:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, insignificant and silly. PJM 12:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the wiki article is the only first page result for anything to do with Blub. There are dozens of these things out there and we don't need an article for each. -localzuk 13:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable.Obina 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I've been watching this for some time, and still have yet to see anything making this subject even slightly notable. Allynfolksjr 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a slang term for crying - leave a redirect? Proto t c 10:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crobasoft

no notability claim Melaen 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete advert. PJM 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert, non-notable. Does it qualify for a speedy as non-notable group of people? Stifle 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameo (porn star)

non notable porn star Melaen 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, was in 140 porn films. Kappa 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of films, controversial history. -- Mikeblas 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article claims many events, but is essentially unverifiable. For example, how do we go about confirming the detail of her arrest - ask around Colorado state jails for a likely-looking Taurean? Sliggy 13:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as possibly unverifiable. This could all be made up and we would be none the wiser. Amend my vote to a Keep if verifiable sources do crop up before the end of the AFD period. Cyde Weys votetalk 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless article about a non-notable person whose name isn't even known. CalJW 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Doesn't seem to pass the porn notability bar for me, and the information regarding the crime is unsourced. 23skidoo 15:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Love the chance to legtimately research porn actresses. The article seems a lot confused.
    • aliases kameo, kelly page.
    • was the girlfriend of , not wife of canadian porn star Cal Jammer, (not Paul), who shot himself, not hanged himself. Cal was married to Jill Kelly.
    • Rest is unverifiable, but note that US 75 does not pass through Colorado, so there would be no rationale for her being in Colorado State Prison for the drunk-driving incident.
    • MNewnham 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa BenBurch 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. Once you take out the unverified stuff, there is not much left to meet notability standards. Will reconsider as per Cyde above. Turnstep
  • Delete as un verified. Per Cyde. Perhaps topic for a book for one of us, then we can write the Wiki articles.Obina 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Eusebeus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sliggy and MNewnham -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain: no idea about her notability. --Bhadani 08:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Then what's the point of making a comment? Proto t c 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being in 140 porn films is not the same as being in 140 real films. Additionally, porn star's biographies are usually faked, and so there is no way to establish the veracity of any biographical information. Proto t c 10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Number of films she had sex in is irrelevant as porn industry churn out hundreds of them. --Malthusian (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable porncruft, no evidence of any coverage outside the very restricted world of porn, and we don't even have the real name. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and check the facts.  Grue  13:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative military ranks of World War II

This page constitutes original research due to absence of English-language sources

I gave some Russian sources ([31], [32]), but they are unacceptable for the opponents. There is no any other English sources for the topic. The present state of the article is the mixture of original research of the users.--Nixer 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless some acceptable sources descovered.--Nixer 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frivolous proposal due to the fact that one person (the proposer) does not agree with certain parts of the article (i.e. he believes that Soviet high commanders were senior to any other officers in the world and will not budge on this position). -- Necrothesp 12:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no sources for the article at all. If you know any - give a link please--Nixer 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Necrothesp. This article is part of a series of articles, including Comparative military ranks of World War I and Comparative military ranks. Nixer has some kind of agenda to present Stalin as some kind of semi-god while ignoring the basic military and diplomatic principles that the most senior military officer of one country is equal to the senior military officer of another. The same goes for Heads of State. The President of Mali is assumed equal to the President of the USA in diplomatic circles. Nixer disagrees with that and has been edit warring on the article to push his POV [33]. He has violated the 3RR many times and has been blocked for it [34]. All other editors disagree with his views. He has cited no acceptable sources and now that it has become clear that there is no way he will get his POV though, when at least three other editors will be rolling him back until he cites a source, there is no other outcome. IMO this is a bad faith nomination and a violation of WP:POINT. Izehar 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I based my edits on sourses I presented. You dont accept them due to language. There is no any other sourses to build the article on exept for original research. If you know some acceptable source - please give a link. The article in the present form not only does not raflect relative correspondence of military ranks, but also does not properly indicate the internal ranking of the Soviet military.--Nixer 13:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have read your sources through babelfish. You must think we're all stupid - there is NOTHING in those sources to suggest that Stalin outranks everyone. Izehar 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The source indicates private view of the researcher, since there was no official view. The table in his research indicates that Marshal of the Soviet Union outranked US General of the Army. Though since the source is not acceptable, this does make any point.--Nixer 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep; we don't delete articles over content disputes. —Kirill Lokshin 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute. The point is there is no sources to build the article on. The lack of sources is because the absece of official correspondence between the military ranks before 1955. So the only way is to build the table based on the contraversal original research.--Nixer 13:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are, go to your local library. I have found:
  • Atlas of the Second World War, Guild Publishing, London 1989
  • The Military History of Worls War II, Guild Publishing, London, 1986, Barrie Pitt
  • The World War II Databook, BCA, 1993, John Ellis
  • Encyclopaedia of the World's Air Forces, PSL, 1988, Michael J. Taylor
Luckily, I'm in a library now and know that you're making up things as you go along. Stalin did NOT outrank the heads of the military of other countries. Stop propaganda pushing. Izehar 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Give some quotes.--Nixer 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There most certainly are sources, if not quite obvious ones. The creation of the rank of "General of the Army", for instance, would have been meaningless without the correspondence. But see my longer comments on the article's talk page. —Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be (mostly) healthy cooperation on the discussion page. I thought that articles without sources got an "unsourced" tag; not AfD. -- Mikeblas 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a request for ban on me! "Healthy cooperation!". To be healty, please ask not to ban me until the discussion is over, in the WP:3RR, please.--Nixer 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If you didn't keep reverting then you wouldn't be blocked! It's fairly simple. -- Necrothesp 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do YOU reverting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixer (talk • contribs)
I haven't broken the 3RR. You've been continually warned about it. -- Necrothesp 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Bad faith nomination? Cyde Weys votetalk 14:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Nixer is abusing the process. Lukas 14:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Nixer is abusing the process. CalJW 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So what sources to be used to base the article on?--Nixer 14:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, I just cited a source on the article talk page which includes a table of the military ranks of every country involved in the war. Do you know that abuse of process = trolling = disruption = WP:BLOCK? Izehar 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems your source does not contain any information on the correspondence.--Nixer 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — very encyclopedic topic. I'd almost suspect a bad-faith nomination. :-/ — RJH 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination IMHO. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- appropriate topic. Yoninah 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Reyk 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disagreeing with other editors is not a reason to list an article for deletion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The above debate belongs on the article talk page. Durova 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep- I can't see why this was nominated Astrotrain 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; Bad faith nomination. --Lysytalk 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and perhaps add translations of the non-English ranks) --Ajdz 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, attempt to delete articles over a content dispute. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete' (non-notable club). howcheng {chat} 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative minds

non-notability/ vanity Melaen 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Article makes no case for notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nn-band. Stifle 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debristream

band vanity, published bootlegs, demos and b-sides Melaen 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete If the band has 14 albums, why is only one on allmusic.com? The article is subjective POV, contravening WP:NPOV. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep; only a couple of hundred google hits, but allmusic.com has heard of them and at least one album is available from amazon.com --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nn-band. Stifle 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • IMO does not qualify as a speedy delete. This is likely a DIY ethic band who by its very nature is unlikely to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC but may be notable nonetheless (see Ghost Mice for another example). howcheng {chat} 20:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Kubit

vanity see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debristream Melaen 12:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nom. No claim for notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If Debristream is kept, merge; otherwise, delete. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, potential vanity. Stifle 18:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taran Adarsh

nnbio; his claim to fame is that he is an online columnist and reviewer of Bollywood films. A google search gives 30,100 hits as his reviews are on popular websites that get picked up by the blogger communities. However, note that not a single hit on Google (atleast not in the first 20) has any information on him. Looks like he is also either liked passionately or disliked intensely by a lot by people influenced by his reviews - article has become a vandalism magent of late Gurubrahma 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I feel he is notable. I did a quick google. I found lot of blogs link to his reviews and relate to what he said on Indiafm. Like you said, I did see a lot of dislike towards him. But vandalism should not be a reason a page gets deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshk (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Extremely notable if the facts stated are correct and the nominator isn't disputing them. CalJW 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The point is, we don't have even a single bit of information about him apart from the fact that he writes for indiafm.com. Is it notable by itself?? Just as we shouldn't vote delete due to a low google count, similarly we shouldn't vote keep due to a high google count. I am all for a keep vote if - his notability is established; and we can get access to some biographical data abt him. --Gurubrahma 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : Is the Lions Award that he won with Shahrukh etc famous ? Tintin Talk 15:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't heard of this award before. I don't think these are famous. btw, "Lion awards" alone gives lots of google hits - most of them refering to the Cannes' lions. --Gurubrahma 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, appears to be a vanity material. Sorry, but agree with User:Gurubrahma on the nnbio point. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable, at least now, to command an entry here. Such contents are veiled advertisement. --Bhadani 08:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable. This does need major clean up, NPOV and better references.Obina 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy - nn-band. -- RHaworth 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitnrun

NN-band/vanity/joke. Punkmorten 12:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No releases or performances mentioned, description is essentially nonsense. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle 18:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C+- Programming Language

Delete as hoax. See [[35]] (and note the URI) Sbz5809 13:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Kinda funny, though. --Thunk 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete while I found it funny, in Wikipedia terms this is a hoax... needs verifiable information and whatnot. Wouldn't send it to BJAODN because this is just a copy of an oft-forwarded joke file... hardly original to WP. --W.marsh 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and sending over to BJAODN. Cyde Weys votetalk 18:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN+-. I suspect this came from someone that studied PL in grad school. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:30Z
    • Oh, I see now it is [From the April '91 issue of AIExpert], unoriginal. Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:32Z
  • Delete. Hoax. Phaldo 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN. May not be original to WP but at least it's funny. I looked through the BJAODN a bit and they all seem to be really lame or tedious. Maybe I'm just spoiled by Uncyclopedia. Inhahe 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - is this a copyvio? Proto t c 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not funny but stupid. Pavel Vozenilek 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN if it's not a copyvio. Stifle 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. If this is mentioned at all, it should be in a computer humour article. Eurosong 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rabbit Joint

Band that released 1 album and does not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete A dead band that released one non-notable album in 1999. A fansite would be better for this information. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and full of redlinks that would be equally non-notable — stop it before it spreads! --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. Speedyable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:28Z
  • Delete. NN Obina 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to another more suitable wiki, maybe the music wikicity. Seahen 23:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move or clean-up - this is the most information I have ever seen about this band, and I've looked often, curious about the band that isn't SoaD. Perhaps removing the red-links would make it look tidier. Satansrubberduck 21:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galore!

not notable (performance?) art project. Mikeblas 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No content, negligible context; I checked the website and this could probably be speedied as {{db-band}}. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable art project. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:27Z
  • Delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Mortimore

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoomzDay

not notable forum website. Mikeblas 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Lukas 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete Babajobu 07:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bih-sut

Subject appears to be unverifiable via Google. Possible hoax or implausible typo. Muchness 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:56Z
  • Delete as per Quarl. Sliggy 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There's a reference to Bisut in Gakhar and a few Ghits - so it does look like a real place. Tribes names would often be similar to place names and the Arabic lettering is also correct. I'd like to see more verification but I don't think it's a hoax and it's quite a plausible transliteration from Arabic. Dlyons493 Talk 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Punkmorten 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the article is about the Bih-sut, "a small tribe of Pakhto-speaking Afghans". There is no evidence for this tribe, even with Dlyons493 admirable efforts. Sliggy 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's absolutely correct - I was hoping someone could source it but they haven't. I'm changing my vote to Delete unless sourced. I'd now vote keep an article entitled Bisut about the place but there's so little info available that it's not worth starting. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I had a go at finding proof, but all I could find were maps that don't show the tribe, and so can't be used to prove or disprove the tribe's existence (since it can be argued that they are not detailed enough to show a small tribe), e.g. [37] [38] Sliggy 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

its real.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glyco-respiration

potato chip experiment of uncertain notability Melaen 14:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, may be original research, hard to tell w/o context. Topic may be a valid one, but not sure this text would help someone writing a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, no context, etc. WP:NFT Stifle 18:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Kanoka Disks

bionicle stuff. If something can be saved from the article merge to Morbuzakh otherwise delete Melaen 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep (nominator requested and no objections) W.marsh 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swilly

Attack page on neighnorhood. Hopelessly POV Bjones 14:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but provide references. Seems a legitimate topic for local geography/politics.Lukas 14:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Lukas. Kappa 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is embarrassing, but speedy keep. I listed the article when it had just been vandalized. Since the vandalism has been reverted, it's a decent article.Bjones 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy - nn-band. -- RHaworth 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Projects

un-notable band- no article improvement since july 2005 Melaen 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No claim of notability, nor references.Obina 21:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notre Dame Web Team

Delete. Vanity page, non-notable. Thunk 14:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tape Leg

obscure episode of Strong Bad Melaen 14:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- actually a fairly notable SBEmail, since it's widely considered to be the least funny and has been mocked as such several times in later Homestar material. Haikupoet 03:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hrwiki.org exists for this kind of stuff -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not HRwiki. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, HRwiki does not have a compatible license. Stifle 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment but it already has an article for this anyway, hence the vote to delete it here -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toba (computing)

non notable software (" not been maintained"). Melaen 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulsan Group of Companies

advertising Melaen 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, big company. Kappa 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've categorised it, removed the advertising slogan and added the country (which is Turkey). CalJW 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to swim

already transferred to wikibooks Melaen 14:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unencyclopedic and already transwikied. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:20Z
  • Delete per above and redirect to Swimming. --Ezeu 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteper nom.Obina 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Neonumbers 10:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Age and Sadness

non notable band Melaen 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaleidovision

advertising - coopyvio see google cache Melaen 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Besides being advertising, it's just so poorly written that I really don't understand it. It reads almost like nonsense to me. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable automatic dj machine or whatever it's supposed to be. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:19Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Williams revolution

The page describes a neologism coined by a Wikipedia editor and is historically inaccurate. No one outside of Wikipedia has ever used the term. Extensive discussion on Talk:Williams revolution Graft 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless Dunc or anyone else has more info that we missed. Joe D (t) 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism/original research. - Bobet 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with arguments (some by me) in Talk:Williams revolution. The content of the article has already been merged into Gene-centered view of evolution by Samsara, so there is no loss of content. Links to "Williams Revolution" should be changed to links to Gene-centered view of evolution.-- MayerG 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the detailed argument given on Talk:Williams revolution. Samsara 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:18Z
  • Delete (reluctantly...) Mikkerpikker 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. See my talk, Samsara talk. Alan Peakall 17:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Sauce

This seems to serve no other purpose than promoting another website. No value to encyclopedia readers. Andicat 15:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduard Einstein

  • Delete: He is not notable except for being Einstein's son and everything useful in this article is already in the articles for Albert Einstein and Mileva Marić. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article does not yet have a full biography of Eduard Einstein. If the article is deleted, how is it to ever grow to become a definitive article? I have seen many excellent Wikipedia articles begin as stubs and grow into comprehensive and informative works in small increments. Short length and minimal content is reason for someone to make an effort to expand the article, not to delete it. Unless there is a substantive problem raised such as copyright issues, nonsense entry or some such, the request for deletion should be withdrawn. 71.16.30.178 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I didn't say to delete because it's short, I said to delete because he's not noteworthy. He's just a guy who had schizophrenia that happened to be Einstein's son. Being the relative of someone noteworthy isn't noteworthy itself. We don't have articles for Einstein's siblings or John Adams' father, etc., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Response to Comment: You say he is not noteworthy; that is your point of view. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral point of view. His parentage, medical conditions, etc. are documented fact, of interest to many (but not, apparently, to everyone). Just because the article doesn't interest *you* is not grounds for deletion. 71.16.30.178 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Again, not the right policy. I'm going by WP:BIO which this person does not meet in my opinion. Did his condition somehow raise awareness of schizophrenia at the time? Was it even newsworthy when he died? He doesn't even qualify as much as, say, Rosemary Kennedy whose condition was considered controversial and who was a visible public figure. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Response: According to WP:BIO, notability includes simply having name recognition. Wikipedia has a huge article on Paris Hilton, for example. 71.16.30.178 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment but Paris Hilton is notable, shes not just a daughter of a hotel mogul, but a model, actress (if you can call her one) etc. Mike 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability or significance included in the article. Sliggy 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Again - an argument to expand the article, not to delete it. If you want evidence that Eduard Einstein is a noteworthy historical figure, you don't have to look far. Here are 2 examples - Google for 5 minutes and I'm sure you will find more. [39] [40] 71.16.30.178 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It's not down to me to find significant achievements; however, in this case I have been unable to come up with anything over and above "he was born, a son, to his father" which, as I am sure you understand, is not that unusual.... Sliggy 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Acheivements are not the only source of fame or notability. Even Nicky Hilton has her own Wikipedia article, for nothing more than being the sister of someone who is famous just for being famous. Even Paris Hilton's Dog has its own Wikipedia entry! Now, tell me, what are the dog's notable acheivements? 71.16.30.178 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I would certainly vote to delete that if it came up on Afd. By the way, nice edit to the Eduard Einstein article --- now half the article reads like a desperate attempt to not get it deleted. And it's not EE raising public awareness, it's www.schizophrenia.com raising public awareness... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This discussion is not about the Hilton sisters or the dog; they are irrelevant. The discussion is about Eduard Einstein. Please state his notability/significance. Thanks. Sliggy 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Your wish is my command. It is relevant - we are arguing degree of notability. As noted elsewhere in this page, Eduard Einstein is notable enough to merit coverage on several web pages, and to be the subject of a book. I submit that if this makes him more notable than a subject that is currently accepted on Wikipedia, the article should stand. Since his life, medical condition and actions no doubt had a significant impact on one of the greatest scientists of all time, I think he is notable, certainly more so than some socialite's dog. dryguy 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Hmmm, I bet if you asked people under 30, more would have heard of the dumb dog than of Eduard Einstein. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sliggy. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: It's too late to try to keep this brief but Anon, you're making my case for me. The schizophrenia.com website says "Albert Einstein's son - Eduard Einstein" and the other one is a site devoted to Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein is famous, his son isn't. Other examples in the former web site are Dr. James Watson's son - who apparently didn't even have a name and has no mention on Wikipedia, let alone his own article - and Alan Alda's Mother who has a one-line article that I'll be Afd'ing next. Mrs. Alda was at least a beauty pageant winner and a model. You're saying that the Einstein article can be fleshed out - but it can't. There's nothing left to say. Because he wasn't noteworthy. He has a few lines in articles for Albert Einstein and Eduard's mother and that's all that's necessary. Oh, and Paris Hilton is a kazillionaire and an actress. That's noteworthiness. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete per nom. Mike 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The burden of proof rests with the article creator and editors to demonstrate notability. There's no move to lock this page. It could be recreated if evidence surfaces that this man was notable for being anything other than the son of someone famous. There are plenty of precedents for deleting this kind of article. Durova 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep else Merge to Albert Einstein. schizophrenia.com lists him as one of the 20 most famous schizophrenic people. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:15Z
Comment: See my comment above. #20 on that list isn't interesting when #19 is Dr. James Watson's nameless son (whoever that is). I'd be happy to merge except it's already in there. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wknight94 and nom. bikeable (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just redirect to Albert Einstein. No need to actually delete the article, in case there turns out to be a good reason to expand it into a real article later (e.g. if somebody would publish a book on him or something). u p p l a n d 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There already is a book on him: [41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.51.7 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because it's interesting and verifiable, and because there's no room for it in the Albert Einstein article. Or merge into something like Family of Albert Einstein. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having separate articles clears things up. I'm sure Albert Einstein article will get full enought without his sons biography. --Easyas12c 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Half-inclined to suggest a speedy due to no claim of notability (neither schizophrenia nor reflected glory qualify), but too many keeps for that to be realistic. Space concerns in Albert Einstein are misplaced because we don't need more than a single line even in that article. --Malthusian (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Albert Einstein. See WP:BIO - people who are notable only for being related to someone notable should be noted in the main person's article. Stifle 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: FYI, I agree - except the Albert Einstein folks shot that down since that article's already too big (and it is huge). I voted delete because everything useful is already in Albert Einstein and Eduard's mother's article so no - or very little - merge necessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

keep Being Einstein's son is enough to get someone to try to search for information on him. Brokenfrog 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: And they should be able to find that information --- in Albert Einstein's article. WP:BIO is the issue here. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Stifle's reasons. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; give it time! Matt Yeager 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above.. give it time to grow. The biggest, most comprehensive and informative articles often start out as stubs which may seem unremarkable. Eurosong 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to meet WP:BIO to me - the name is known outside the context of Albert Einstein, and there is a book about him. Turnstep 02:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I haven't heard one example of his name being notable outside of being the son of Albert Einstein. Has anyone read this book? I don't see what else you would write about him. He started showing signs of schizophrenia in 1930 - the year he turned 20. I can't imagine he accomplished much before age 20 and, from the little I know about schizophrenia, people rarely do much after the onset of schizophrenia either. I know - John Nash from the movie A Beautiful Mind - but his most noteworthy accomplishments were still before the onset of the illness, weren't they? Regardless, show me one example of John Nash-type notoriety in Eduard Einstein - besides his being Albert's son - and I'd agree with you. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirthkon

looks nonsense Melaen 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, the only person who could possibly care about this is the author himself. To anyone else, it doesn't even tell what it really is supposed to be about. 202 google hits for mirthkon says it's not notable either. - Bobet 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly-crafted vanity article. No claims towards notable status, citations, references or independent verification. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this context-less jumble. The only description I see is "self-governing aesthetic system". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:10Z
  • Delete as a serious mess. A vanispancruftisement, I think. Stifle 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mindsay

advertising Melaen 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete an ad, won't qualify per WP:WEB (alexa rank is 37,101) and has no claims of notability. - Bobet 16:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. Very unimpressive Alexa traffic rank for a blog hosting service. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:08Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Poor article, and unimportant website. Tahngarth


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mark Paul" Sebar

Tagged for speedy deletion as "unremarkable person, possible vanity page" but makes various claims of notability, so I brought it here. No opinion from me. Kappa 14:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Published author with not-very-notable literary website. Multiple ISBN's in article were just enough to push it over my notability bar. Weak keep and cleanup, despite apparent vanity status. Barno 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if the Black Ribbon etc. work can be verified -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as barely notable. Stifle 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frosthold

Who? Is this worthy of a page? Even their own website doesn't claim they have done much! Surely this should be reviewed with the possibility of deletion? Robsteadman 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, non-notable band based on the article. One demo cd with 3 tracks, around 10 gigs ever according to their website. - Bobet 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, this is an advert for the group and the company not a notable band. Robsteadman 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. I'm not sure it's speedyable but if someone else thinks so, tag it as nn-band. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:07Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 08:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gear Head

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this dicdef and essay. Already transwikied to Wiktionary 2005-04-05! [42]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:04Z
  • Delete as confused mess. Stifle 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to GearHead or Gearhead.  Grue  13:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Incognito 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minutemen (comics)

  • Delete Article and move info to Watchmen Artcile--Brown Shoes22 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information is sufficently covered by Watchmen. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree we should only have the content once. But the Watchmen article is too long, perhaps it is better to replace the content at Watchmen with a few sentences and "Main article: Minutemen (comics)". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 21:00Z
  • Delete. Content appears to also be duplicated in articles on individual characters as well, so main Watchmen article could be shortened by removing the character descriptions there. -- Dragonfiend 06:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Watchmen. -Sean Curtin 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Watchmen. Stifle 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Watchmen. Dyslexic agnostic 08:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oath Against Modernism

  • Totally POV. only one creating edit and no further edits. Has quite a few web hits on google. but the current format is totally enencyclopedic. If no active editors are found (or votes to keep) are found, should delete this article. doles 18:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S11

I created this page from a request from User:Striver in relation to the conspiracy theory in relation to 9/11. However, some segments of the Wikipedia community have gone to lengths to try to remove that aspect from the page. The protests themselves were seriously non-notable, and without the link they don't warrant their own entry. The amount of abusive behaviour from editors surrounding this is just ridiculous and I am sick of it, so this article needs to go. I never wanted to make the article in the first place, so can we just say goodbye to it, and perhaps just put in a redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks like it was before? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Rhetoric aside, the protests themselves were massively notable. They dominated the news for weeks, caused legal action that was ongoing for years, and are still fairly widely remembered today as the peak of the Australian anti-globalisation movement. The conspiracy theory (that peaceful Australian anti-globalisation protesters mysteriously had something to do with Middle Eastern religious terrorists because incidents happened on the same day a year later) is complete crankery which I very much doubt a reputable source could be found for (the original source was an anonymous Slashdot post, of all things), and well deserves to be removed from the article. Ambi 11:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 209k Google hits = keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As mentioned by Ambi, this protest was notable for many things. For starters, it was the biggest anti-globalisation rally in Australia, and the "S11" protests are well known here. It is unfortunate that the article has been hijacked by the 2000-9-11<->2001-9-11 conspiracy theories, but this is a candidate for cleaning up, not deletion. - Synapse 11:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What Ambi said. pfctdayelise 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This was very notable in Melbourne before that day in 2001. --Canley 13:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:54Z
  • Keep. Rhobite 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Comment Can I post a still of myself being interviewed from the Melbourne Rising film? That's probably the only way I'll ever make it into Wikipedia. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll just say that I regret making this article. I told Shriver I didn't want to do it, but he insisted, and started a stub, so I did it. As I told him, there's no way that they could be responsible for 9/11. But they were suspects. The point I was trying to make with him was that Al Qaeda weren't responsible, not that s11 was. But the issue is that its important to include all suspects, however silly they may be. I for one think that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and I think its pretty bleeding obvious that he was. But that's my opinion. I have never thought that s11 were responsible. Several thousand other people did though. And that is probably the most notable aspect of them. NOT including that element when discussing them is NEGLIGENT and IRRESPONSIBLE. That is the issue. But whether they deserve their own post for the protests is highly debatable. Protests + Conspiracy theory = yes. Protests alone = probably not. You have to consider this. If you are going to disregard a conspiracy theory which at minimum is far more likely than the ludicruous Jewish theory then you have to note that this is very much non-notable. How many other Anti-Globalisation protests have their own articles? Only 1 other. This one wasn't particularly notable. Only notable for the date that it was performed in, 1 year to the day before the 9/11 attacks. And besides which, I would like to ask for the people who engaged in personal attacks, either in edit summaries, or abusive messages to my talk page, to apologise. I never once claimed ownership of the article, it was not my idea to make it, and I do not deserve such abuse. I for one never thought it was significantly notable for its own article. A small section in 9/11 conspiracy theories is enough. And maybe another small section in the anti-globalisation movement. That's been done. No more is needed. I am very much reluctant in this, especially as it is a somewhat farcical conspiracy theory. Yes, there was cover up, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. And the CIA very much did cover up 9/11 issues, including this, of which there is evidence. But that doesn't mean that these guys are responsible. Whilst they had motive to attack the World Trade Centre, they didn't have motive to attack the Pentagon. Case closed right there. And hence, article deleted right there. To have this used as a rationale for labelling me as a "conspiracy theorist" when I have not contributed to any other conspiracy theory article is worse than ludicruous. It is downright irresponsible. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No one's calling you a conspiracy theorist for creating this article, Zordrac. It's just that the conspiracy theory doesn't really come into things - it's such a minority view that there doesn't appear to be any reputable sources for it (and thus can't go in the article), and you're obviously in the minority about the significance of the demonstrations. No one knows about the conspiracy theory, but ask most Australians if they remember the S11 demonstrations, and you'll very probably get a positive answer. Ambi 12:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember that day in 1999/2000 all too well. We couldn't go and see Bill Gates because of it. It really left a mark where globalisation is/was concerned. --EuropracBHIT 12:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. Protests were notable. Article should be cleaned up. Agnte 07:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove the wikilinks from every single date. Stifle 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd prefer protests be merged with what was being protested against, but such a proposal may lack support. I'd support the mention of S11 sometimes being used to describe the attacks. googling S11 "terrorist attack" mentions wsws.org using S11 as shorthand for the attacks, for example. I independently noticed the calendar coincidence, but I thought western anti-capitalist activists lacked the capability to carry out the attacks. Andjam 03:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ambi. Sarah Ewart 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This vote seems to be just an attempt at Americanisation bias. Not everything that happens in America makes everything that happens outside America non-notable. That is hugely biased. Xtra 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Zordrac is an Aussie, and User:Striver wouldn't exactly be part of a conspiracy for American hegemony. Assume good faith Andjam 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but that's what it looked like when I read the VFD. Xtra 14:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This protest was all over the Australian media as it was happening. Amongst the Left in Melbourne, it was certainly a watershed event. Cnwb 05:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNK Boss Syndrome

  • I think it's just stupid... the "symptoms" are just a user's view on what a hard video game boss is... Delete I say... --FlareNUKE 07:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC),
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the title is barely a neologism and the content is original research. - Bobet 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable and POV. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:52Z
  • Keep While the name may or may not be original(An older site called Fighter Mania(which seems to be defunct now) used the term SNKBoss as a group that included many of the characters mentioned in the article), the fact of several of the bosses in fighting games, SNK-made games in particular, being excessively hard for the reasons listed is rather famous among the fighting game community, as noted by posters in this thread, which predates the article by a year . - SAMAS 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Another thread from 2004 - SAMAS
    • A review that makes a casual reference.
    • Another review, predating the article. The author mentions: "SNK bosses ain't got nothin' on the CPU in Guilty Gear X2."
    • In this review, we get the following: "Our resident SNK expert in the forums, Shonen_Red has assured me that the level of cheapness in the bosses and midbosses is an SNK staple,"
    • And again: "The bosses are up to the SNK standard... hard and ruthless. Igniz, the last boss, has an SDM that takes off 80% of your life! 80%!!"
    • Remarks another: "And if Omega Rugal's one of SNK's easier bosses, I hate to see what their hardest is like."
    • here, a blogger remarks that the boss of a game called the Rumble Fish is "Almost as bad as SNK bosses."
    • A reviewer at IGN notes: "The game's AI is quite easy through the first three or so fights and at the boss levels, it raises significantly. It's not hard, but if you've played any SNK or Capcom games, you'll remember that the bosses are more cheap that tough. SNK doesn't lose that cheap boss touch here." [43] The review, again, predates this article.
    • and to top it off, a review from 2002 which mentions the cheapness of the bosses of a King of Fighters game under the title of ""the SNK trademark" [44]- SAMAS
  • Delete under WP:NOR - there is no such thing as this "syndrome" -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see nine links that say otherwise. SAMAS
    • Comment lemme clarify: is the term syndrome used elsewhere for this besides in the title of the article? Are there any publications detailing this "syndrome" out there. Links to reviews comparing games to each other does not a "syndrome" make. As such, this "syndrome" is Original research, which is not allowed. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree, as no actual research was done. Damn near everybody in the fighting game fandom knew this information years ago. While perhaps "Syndrome" is the wrong word, it is valid information, and not original at all(ask around Shoryuken.com). Even the "SNK Boss" designation predates the article. - SAMAS
  • Not one of those links calls it a 'syndrome'. Delete any and all original research. Proto t c 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I say leave the article. It's interesting and it does have some truth to it. People aren't stupid, they can decide for themselves what to believe. I enjoyed reading the article and I'm sure that many more people will too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.226 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 12 January 2006.
  • Keep. Agreed that this article has a sense of truth to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.73.168.111 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 January 2006.
  • Delete. This is just some guys vague opinion on some hard bosses in games. Generic Player 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Read the links. - SAMAS
  • Delete—"SNK Boss Syndrome" is just a colloquial term, shouldn't be here in an Encyclopedia, there are better terms to describe overly powerful bosses rather than saying the words "SNK Boss Syndrome", now that there are Namco and Tecmo bosses that are overly too cheap (i.e. Jinpachi Mishima). — Dark Insanity 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Namco and Tecmo, however, have not been known to have insanely hard/cheap bosses for more than ten years. That's been the staple of SNK's fighting games since Wolfgang Krauser at least. Much like how a great many non-Konami games use the cheat code Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, it's still called the Konami Code because Konami started it, they did it more than anyone else combined, and they became (in)famous because of it. This is why, when somone in just about any given forum with members over the age of 18 posts a thread about tough, cheap bosses, it usually doesn't get past two pages before someone mentions SNK Bosses in general. This is why, when a reviewer mentions the difficulty of a boss in a fighting game, he compares it to the bosses of SNK's games(see links above).

While the use of the word "Syndrome" may sound a little too colliqual to some to describe it, I can't say it's inaccurate. Wikipedia's entry on Syndrome says this: In medicine, the term syndrome is the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs, symptoms, phenomena or characteristics which often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others.

The contributors to this thread have done a very good job in pointing out the recognizable features, signs, symptoms, phenomena and characteristics that have made the Bosses in SNK's fighting games so damn tough. While not a medical syndrome, it's certainly one gameplay-wise.

Not that there's not any precedent. See the Stormtrooper effect. - SAMAS

  • Delete as unverifiable, among other things. Stifle 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Facts can be verified by playing the games and fighting the bosses mentioned in the article. - User: SAMAS
    • Then it turns into POV, oops! ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's like saying a Tiger has black stripes is POV. None of the "Symptoms" in the article(dude, did you even read it?) are done by any opinion. The authors measure it by the actions of the boss(no crouching animation) or the observed effects of it's attacks(a single move that takes off a large chunk of the life meter). If we counted every thing that could be(or had to be) personally verified, we'd have to remove every single movie, book, or video game-related article, and that's just for starters. - SAMAS
  • Keep: Methinks that, if it doesn't get deleted, it needs a better name, like merely SNK boss perhaps, and maybe cross-references with List of fighting game terms (which, admittedly, also needs some work, but still), and something clearer at the beginning which explains why this isn't just POV (i.e. the fact that there are several specific "factors" that contribute to the "syndrome"). Admittedly, I suppose there could be some debate as to how many factors you need for it to qualify for an "SNK boss", and yes it does need work to keep it from becoming POV, but for that and the reasons stated above (by people who have demonstrably read the article), I say we keep it. --Yar Kramer 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in Iraq

Delete Too short, only one line, see history comments too. This should be deleted and if anyone desires to, then recreated. Rlevse 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Scouting movement is a notable organisation. This page is so sparse in detail that it might almost not bother to exist at all. It needs to be expanded in order to justify being kept but it does in essence have a claim to validity. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Contains useful information and links. Calsicol 20:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand per aeropagitica -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly requires expansion :: "restarted" implies a substantial pre-history not recorded here. On the other hand, this is no more than a stub. IMHO, flag for expansion, wait 1 month and if unexpanded, delete at that time, with liberty to editors to restore later ine xpanded form. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is part of a series on Scouting in various countries. Gazpacho 10:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with significant cleanup. Stifle 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultirian

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, something someone made up one day and uses to advertise himself and everything related to him. And the content is unverifiable/original research. - Bobet 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Also the author doesn't appear to know what "©" means. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:49Z
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Obina 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep/Nomination withdrawn —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Albert Einstein

  • Delete: Not notable except as Einstein's son. Anything pertinent to Albert Einstein is already in that article. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being Einstein's son is enough notability here, as Einstein was a major figure, and people could easily be plausibly curious about his children. There is clear precedent with this in the articles on Darwin's children. He was also a scientist with a tenured position at a major university which puts him in the same category with a ton of our academic articles. There was at least one biography of him written (by his first wife, in 1991, published by the University of Iowa). In short, no real reason to delete, is certainly more notable just from his affiliation with Einstein (had strained relations with him, was with him at his death, was involved in the dispute over what to do with Einstein's brain) to warrant a small article, even if it is not the most thrilling one we have. --Fastfission 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Those all sound like great reasons to keep him ---- in the Albert Einstein article. Those aren't reasons to keep him in his own. And be careful mentioning the Darwin children articles - they may be the next ones I Afd. This isn't a genealogy web site, it's an encyclopedia. I'm just going by WP:BIO which doesn't mention anything about making articles about obscure relatives of notable people. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If he's really a well-known professor there, I'll even change my vote. Curious that he's not in Category:University of California, Berkeley faculty... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Added the missing category. :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:59Z
  • Keep Notable enough. Merging is a non-starter as the Albert Einstein article is already nearly double the recommended size. Calsicol 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A prominent figure in some cases. --Sunfazer 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is notable for any of several reasons above, plus there's too much content that would not belong in Albert Einstein. ×Meegs 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a leading figure in the development of the study of sedimentation. For example, published a work, "The bed-load function for sediment transportation in open channel flows", Einstein, H. A., United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1026, Washington DC, 1950 which is still cited (in undergraduate courses etc.) [45] [46] [47]. He had a book published in his honour, Sedimentation: symposium to honor H. A. Einstein, Hsieh Wen Shen (ed.), 1972, published by his (ex-)research students. A notable figure, but not because of his father. Sliggy 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wow. Sounds like there's a lot of stuff missing from his article. What's the procedure for shutting down an Afd nomination? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. You could try striking through your nomination and commenting "Nomination withdrawn". I've seen that work before. Sliggy 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You can also close the AFD yourself, but if you just do as Sliggy says, someone will come along and close it for you. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:00Z


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepper's Pet Pantry

advertising Melaen 15:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pootie

it has been transwikied to wikictionary. delete Melaen 15:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a dicdef and could never be anything else. - Bobet 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (The transwiki doesn't have all the content that this article does, but the third definition isn't notable anyway.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:52Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cadenza (disambiguation)

Unnecessary disambiguation article between cadenza in a concerto, and cadenza (military), which now redirects to military cadence. "Military cadenza" is not established English usage; the stub that used to be there may be the result of misunderstanding. Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: nothing links here, except an {{otheruses}} template on Cadenza. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Military cadence does not mention the word cadenza. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete DES (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boyd Landerson Shearer Jr. (Cartographer)

No mention of notability. Google search of many variants [48] [49] even for an alternative spellings turns up almost no hits. The creator is also Boydx. Delete. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. feydey 16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 nn-bio. Stifle 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prurience

Transwikied to wiktionary. still just a dicdef. delete. --jfg284 you were saying? 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Miller test; "prurient interest" is an important term of art in U.S. obscenity law. Smerdis of Tlön 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Possibly should redirect per Smerdis; "prurient interest" is one of the most widely quoted terms in one of the most widely discussed areas of USA law, especially at the Supreme Court level. But we don't need redirects for alternate forms of every topical word; in this case, "Prurient interest" is the only version that I think should have a redirect. Barno 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki complete so delete. Stifle 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leecher's law

Looks like a joke. Google shows four unique hits, all Wikipedia or mirrors. Thunk 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense/original research. - Bobet 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, humorcruft. Daniel Case 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's the truth, though :( -keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While being the truth, it is nn/original research. Mike 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original reserach which may be nonsense. Blnguyen 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, among other things. Stifle 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TWBPSK Kevin Ray's Corner Blog

What appears to be blatent spam - 9,000 google hits, many of which are just spam themselves, and there are only 15 unique googles in the first 1,000 which should reinforce that. I don't think there is too much debate as to whom wrote the article either ("Emperor Kevin", heh), and it even has testemonials right on the wikipedia page.... (For the really pedantic does not meet WP:WEB) Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fake/non-notable testimonials and animated gifs don't make your crap notable -- Femmina 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Waddya mean?? animated gifs are so retro! lol Delete Eusebeus 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. Incognito 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination additionally i've never seen worse css/layout abuse on wikipedia --Timecop 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per timecop. --Hosterweis 04:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy delete as advertising if possible. Fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 10:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable blog and a complete mess. Stifle 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh Dear God Delete wtf... how did some RC patroller not notice this horrific webspamvertisement?  ALKIVAR™ 13:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete holy crap batman! it's just spam. --supers 07:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this vanity article asap. *drew 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as nonsense. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:56Z


[edit] Gaffers

Patent nonsense. Speedy. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete nn nonsense, vanity?, isn't a gaffer a hollywood term? Mike 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont delete its real stuffGaffers11 January

  • Delete. Nonsense. BTW, Gaffer is indeed a Hollywood term. --Thunk 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gaffer. Or speedy delete, whatever... Jdcooper 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, db-nonsense. Tagged. PJM 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Gaffer. Cyde Weys votetalk 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G1. Redirect is fine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:45Z
  • Speedied, no need to redirect a plural. Gaffer article is fine. Barno 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz statements

Delete Less than noteworthy school band - Jamorama 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clappers of hell

Two separate potential dicdefs but no worthwhile content. Orphan and deadend page. Delete Supergolden 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a dictdef page rather than a disambiguation page. They are poor definitions of the terms, too. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologisms. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:42Z
  • Delete but not as neologisms. OED gives a 1957 reference for Like the clappers Dlyons493 Talk 00:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 17:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid sort

An anonymous user, User:81.197.39.124, decided to change the entire content of this article into a redirect to an unrelated article, on the theory that the topic discussed here is non-notable and the name is better known as a synonym for the other article (see Talk:Stupid sort). This seems like a deletion to me, and in the interest of following proper process I am nominating it on their behalf. I am not voting Keep or Delete. Deco 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete content and replace with redirect to bogosort. Do a google search for "stupid sort". You will find: (1) pages from the jargon file, which say "see bogosort" (an unrelated algorithm); (2) wikipedia mirrors; (3) phrases like "it's stupid sort of thing"; (4) unrelated algorithms. The article points to no reference to the literature talking about "stupid sort" as this algorithm; the original poster made it up. Pfalstad 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to bogosort, unless it can be sourced. As per Pfalstad: it's unsourced, no source can be found with the Google test (which is very odd for a sorting algorithm, as all computer science subjects can be easily found on the web, for obvious reasons), and it's probably original research. --cesarb 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then redirect as or regular Redirect. Here's the anon's claim, which sounds plausible to me. This Stupid Sort Article started by Panu Kristian Poiksalo is bogus. It's an algorithm that Panu came up with when attending the course of Data structures and algorithms at Tampere University of Technology. There is no such algorithm mentioned in the literature and this article should probably be deleted and only mention Bogosort as a synonym which seems more widely accepted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:40Z
  • Redirect per Cesarb. Stifle 17:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Cesarb. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is about a stupid variant of gnome sort, which is a stupid variant of insert sort. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this name actually used; at best it is an informal term, perhaps from some programming lecture (as stated above). I concur with the other editors: redirect to bogosort; there doesn't seem to be much useful material to merge to gnome sort. - Mike Rosoft 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TrustDigital

Seems to just be an ad, with much of its content copied verbatim from TrustDigital.com TomTheHand 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising. There is little information in the article that isn't already present on the company's website. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an ad...I have had a good experience using their product, and given the lack of information on mobile data security in the Wiki, I thought it would be a good idea to add some. I have taken down the external link to their site and only included relevant links to government sites concerning legislation.

  • Comment Keep the link to their web site. (I just had to find it). The key to making this page better is to have a neutral point of view, and to have external evidance of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). I think it might be OK for notability, but we need the sources beyond the company's own web site. I think the ownership and board of governance structure is interesting - I have to believe that somebody is writing about these guys. Find sources. Any of us can help make it more neutral.Obina 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert, but if someone wants to recreate an NPOV version they certainly can. Stifle 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey's Breakfast

Dict-def. Delete -- Egil 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteen Stories

Non-notable independent film by non-notable amateur filmmaker. Cyde Weys votetalk 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Balance of the Seventh Column

Unpublished novel written this past year, with publication anticipated sometime between now and 2008; WP:NOT a crystal ball. ``keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero For A Day

Just another nonnotable indie film by an amateur filmmaker. No assertions of notability. Cyde Weys votetalk 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saberwolves

Werewolf creatures made up by the author. I had speedied this but there was an objection, so it's here. TomTheHand 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The article's author states on his article Forest Wraiths that both the forest wraiths and saberwolves are his own creation. TomTheHand 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable or original research or non-notable reference to fictional work. No google hits for saberwolves sajob. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:26Z
  • Delete. I'll redo my research and reconsider my position if some context is given. Particularly, what work of fiction (novel, comic book, game, etc.) do these animals come from? Google's search results consist largely of sports teams, especially this this Canadian softball team (who I'm not suggesting creating an article for). ×Meegs 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aireti

Non-notable actor. Google search didn't show many hits to that was this person, and IMDB only had a very small listing with a unnamed role in one movie. Esprit15d 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete . A less-visible actor is hard to imagine, seemingly zero information in any language on any film done apart from Anacondas 2. Was this perhaps a one-film pseudonym? MNewnham 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable actor. [50]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:24Z
  • Delete as non-notable actor. Possible speedy as A1/A3 no context and only an external link. Stifle 16:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenInfo

As a GIS professional, I've never heard of this company. The article doesn't give any reason why it's notable, nor do Google search results or Alexa. This looks merely like an advertisement.—--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenGCL —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:24Z
  • Delete or maybe Speedy delete. per nom. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This was listed here this morning and then inexplicably removed by 165.154.136.7. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 18:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that there are stringent criteria for speedy deletion -- and this doesn't fit in any of them. Also if it did you could have just tagged it for speedy deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:22Z
  • This is not an advertisement. It is a serious article about a company that has a better product than ESRI or MapInfo. Please do not stifle Canadian ingenuity just because you haven't heard of something. If you worked for an IT department in any Ontario municipality, then you would have heard of this company and its products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.136.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Mike 19:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. Also Googling for "openinfo" gives someone else as the first hit. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:20Z
  • Weak delete, notability not established. I work at Claritas in the USA and our veteran GIS experts (skilled with ArcInfo, MapInfo, etc) aren't familiar with OpenInfo. Google search shows that this Canadian company exists but so does an apparently unrelated UK company, and none of the other first-page hits show any evidence of notability such as major media coverage. I'll change my vote if it can be demonstrated that this is more notable than "just another aspiring software firm." Barno 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Response OpenInfo is specifically holding back any major publicity or details of its products so that competitors will not have a chance to steal ideas. OpenGCL is something radically different than anything else on the market today. 165.154.136.7 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OpenInfo is also currently working on a DRM project with some major players in Spain and Korea.
    • Response to Response -- That's as may be, but it also means that it's done nothing of any interest to the outside world until such time as it makes its announcement. I can think of only one company that did that and would be worth consideration, and that would be Transmeta (and for all that, mainly because of who they hired). Delete until the product is, you know, a product. At least. Haikupoet 03:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it's not published somewhere, how could an encyclopedia know about it? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:33Z
  • Delete I work in an IT department in Ontario (20 years) and I have never heard of Openinfo. delete as per nom. Atrian 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Atrian: No offense, but you're a database administrator. There's many things you haven't heard of, even related to databases. For example, can you explain to me the inner workings of an R-Tree, and of a Quad-Tree, and what the differences are, in which situation one would use either one of those. Oh, and once you're done that, explain to me how you would go about implementing those two structures if you were writing your own RDBMS? (OpenInfo has developed their own implementations, BTW)165.154.136.7 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:33Z
Comment -- Lemme splain something to you. Wikipedia is not a promotional venue, and badgering people to change their vote on something that is by your own admission vaporware is a good way to annoy people. Who do you think you are, Duke Nukem Forever? Haikupoet 19:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK, HAIKUPOET This is NOT VAPOURWARE. This is a product worth Billions of dollars in sales potential (currently selling in the millions of dollars). Who do you think you are, Narrowminded Forever? 165.154.136.7 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)



  • Some people have said "I haven't heard of it", but that usually isn't strictly a valid reason we delete articles, but it is a big hint if nobody has heard of it. Since OpenInfo is a company, and OpenGCL is its product, the two fall under the notability requirements of WP:CORP. Can you give us any verifiable evidence that the company or its product meets any of the criteria listed at WP:CORP? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 19:33Z
Comment. Below is discussion from Talk:List of GIS software that further reasons why the company is not-notable (beyond "I never heard of it"). Extensive search on Google, Alexa, Yahoo!, and trade publications/websites (including Canadian websites) comes up empty, in regards to OpenInfo. This also means that, I was unable to verify anything. And thanks, Quarl, for pointing us to WP:CORP, for more guidelines on notability. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Yes. I disagree with your deletion of OpenInfo's 
OpenGCL product.  This product has all the functionality, 
and more, of ArcIMS, and is a direct competitor.  The 
Canadian Government has contributed significant 
investments into this product as well, and it is 
being heavily promoted and used by Ontario 
municipalities.   It is set to become the standard 
for Canadian GIS engines.

Traditionally, Canadian companies have had a much 
harder time competing than US companies.  This is 
because of attitudes from people such as yourselves, 
who feel that if it is not American, or European, that 
it is not worth listing.''' {{unsigned|165.154.136.7}}

:Please, no [[WP:ATTACK|personal attacks]]!  I don't 
care if a product is American, Canadian, European, 
or what.  There are plenty of 'notable' Canadian GIS 
products, such as [[Safe Software]], or [[PCI Geomatics]] 
software products, etc., that don't have articles on Wikipedia.  
[[OpenInfo]] isn't even listed on 
http://ca.dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Business_to_Business/Scientific/Geography/Geographic_Information_Systems__GIS_/, 
or on [http://www.directionsmag.com/companies/], 
for example.  Please see [[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]], 
and [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines|Vanity guidelines]] for 
more details on Wikipedia policies. Thanks. 
--Kmf164 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'll try to make this simple. It has nothing at all to do with Canada. If OpenGCL is not vaporware, it's a vertical market product with extremely narrow penetration. Such a thing is not something anyone's likely to look up on Wikipedia, or indeed anywhere except the manufacturer's website. Arguing that it's potentially worth billions of dollars -- well, I could say the same thing about Linux I guess. Wouldn't make it a terribly useful thing to say. Honestly, Mr. Mystery IP, if you hang around Articles for Deletion for any great length of time you're sure to find a couple of people who are trying to make exactly the same sort of case you're trying to make to keep an article, with almost exactly the same methods and arguments. People doing that seem to labor under the assumption that somehow they'll find the magic combination of arguments that will get them accepted into Wikipedia (as if Wikipedia recognition is some kind of elite fraternity), and keep going at it, and going at it, and going at it without realizing that they aren't in the best position to make the case in the first place. Fact is, it's easy to make such assertions about the value and use of a product, but when there's no independently verifiable facts about a product, and only the slimmest of verifiable information about the company that makes it, such an assertion is worth approximately nothing in an encyclopedic context. IMHO it's not only a battle you have no hope of winning, it's a battle you had no business fighting in the first place. (I mean, I don't get any mention at all of your product even on Usenet, which means one of two things: either you don't have a very large community of customers, or you have them all NDAed to death, a rather strange thing for a product which claims to be "open". Either way, not enough people know what it is that it belongs on Wikipedia.) Haikupoet 06:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and various sundry concerns raised above. Usefy if he wants it (but an indef block suggests that may be moot). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

This page has been blanked on request. For archive, please see the article history.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opengcl

Redirect page to OpenGCL which is up for deletion, for being non-notable and merely advertising. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This too was listed here this morning and then inexplicably removed by 165.154.136.7. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You don't need to list redirections to AFDed articles for AFD themselves. If OpenGCL is kept, this will be useful. If it is deleted, all redirects to it will be deleted. Also, normally redirects would be nominated for Redirects for Deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:18Z
  • What Quarl said. Stifle 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Underground

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB due to low Alexa page ranking. Also does not appear to meet WP:NOT BenBurch 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. BenBurch 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Democratic Underground is notable. Free Republic is notable. Those two do not make this notable. Daniel Case 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nomination. Not notable. Poor ranking. No coverage in the media. Dr Debug 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable web forum. 49 registered users. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:16Z
    • According to CU's home page, there are 2,429 registered users and 566,509 posts. Where did you get that number? Rhobite 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oops! I think I read the number from currently logged-in users. You're right. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 03:32Z
      • Weak delete, I'm not usually convinced of a webforum's notability from number of vandals/meatpuppets. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 03:32Z
  • Delete. Websita non grata Caribmon 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is almost certainly part of a petty ongoing battle between rival groups. It is also helping rid WP of nn, trivial webcruft, so let's be grateful. Eusebeus 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a well-known web forum with thousands of users and half a million posts. Ben Burch also vandalized the link to CU from Democratic Underground: [51] Rhobite 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please provide a WP:CITEation for "well known" as testimony of Wikipedia editors is not verification.
      brenneman(t)(c) 02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I notice you have no problem with "delete, nn" voters. This is a double standard. Are you following me around now? Rhobite 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll ignore the second question which seems to fail to notice that I've contributed to about a million AfDs that were Rhobite-free, and answer the second. I do have, and have expressed publicly many times, my problems with "D NN" recomendations. If they have done their checking to determine that something is not notable, show us. Which, if you will scroll up, they have done. They have checked the number of registered users, checked the Alexa (which WP:WEB doesn't mention now, by the way), they have provided something to argue against. Which I notice that you have done, kudos to you. We should fight facts with facts, and ambigious claims like "it's notable" are not facts. The number of registered users really doesn't mean anything either way, it fails WP:V. Of course, I cannot imagine why a site would claim a lower number, but that's not relevent. Has this been mentioned in something that qualifies as a Wikipedia:Reliable source? Has it won a major award? Etc etc etc.
          brenneman(t)(c) 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete forum vanity. --Revolución (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I note that the CU article has been vandalized countless times. Anything which is popular enough to attract such a legion of politically motivated vandals is popular enough to keep. --Hansnesse 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Does it occur to you that by this criterion, anyone can get anything to be "kept" merely by finding an open proxy and vandalising? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I find the likelihood of that to be extremely low. I don't think that is what is going on here. --Hansnesse 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Popular website for both Freepers and DUmmies... er... DUers. When we're done attacking each other's wiki articles, can we go back to insulting the other's politics?--WinOne4TheGipper 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. Currently not notable. Stifle 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Democratic Underground as a single sentence or paragraph. Andjam 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A&J Productions

fails WP:WEB MNewnham 18:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, extremely nn (website is on free hosting, this alone makes me believe it is extremely nn). Mike 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable business. (Article is not about a website. But the website does indicate non-notability as above. 45 hits on hit counter.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:13Z
  • Delete non-notable Vanity page Carnifex 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Your Feet

Speculative article that should be deleted per WP:NOT. PJM 18:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Any article whose first sentence includes "rumored" and "speculation", then goes on to tell us "this leads one to wonder" does not belong here. Daniel Case 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, original research, tabloid essay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:12Z
  • Delete As the author, I believe I have a say; this has been confirmed to be inaccurate and I blanked the article to prevent people from reading false information; I am sorry for any inconviences but glad to see someone finally read the article after I blanked it. I am, again, sorry.
  • Strong delete, per all of the above. Barno 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anchor Hedgehog

hedgehog-cruft MNewnham 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable fan-fiction. Possibly a vanity page made by the fan in question. Ritchy 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable fan fiction. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 20:11Z
  • Delete:Fanfiction by definition is non-notable-Deathawk 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Edgar181 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can not find any thing outside brief mentions of three message boards about the character's comic, SonicDaily. I wish the nomination were more thorough and less biting, though. ×Meegs 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn fanfic. - Bobet 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Stifle 16:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indus TV

This is canned processed meat product, otherwise known as spam. Esprit15d 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Publicity page. Ritchy 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Alexa traffic rank for website is 1,569,501. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:53Z
  • Delete. WP:NOT advertising , but this is.Obina 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOCTAOE

Self-confessed protologism. -- RHaworth 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. Ritchy 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Protologisms may deserve listing at Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:53Z
  • Weak delete. Not really notable. Merge to Dilbert if desired. Stifle 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A merge is an idea though. (Somebody just blanked this page) Banes 11:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete, though moving to wiktionary is also possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.96.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Or Move Merge with Dilbert or Move to Wiktionary
  • Merge Or Move Merge with Dilbert or Move to Wiktionary User:Pault 15 January 2006
  • Merge Or Move Merge with Dilbert or Move to Wiktionary. I created this entry. I believe consensus has been reached. Ringbark 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bel.com

Vanity page. Ritchy 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And a little link spamming too. Plus the author removed the Afd notice,allthe more reason to delete it Malcolm Farmer 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, delete it. Themusicking 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is trying to add a company's history/information that has worked heavily in the Northeast region, why would anyone think it's a vanity page? There's other pages that are far more self absorbed (like musician pages?) What is the AFD notice?

The page reads like a vanity bio of Joseph Dombroski. It includes information irrelevant to the company, like Dombroski's paper routes and college major. Furthermore, the second-to-last line is a publicity slogan for the company. None of this belongs in Wikipedia. Ritchy 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thinly veiled advertisement at best. Themusicking 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the same company description that is published in literature about the company worldwide. The point that is being missed is the information at the beginning is to describe how this company was started 30 years ago by a thirteen year old boy. Also, I don't even think Joseph Dombroski knows about this particular posting. Also, there is no sign of the company's slogan (which there is none in existance anyway) in the writing. So is every other company and artist on this website supposed to delete their trademarks and factual information? I thought that was Wikipedia was about. Educate yourself and read some other articles of other companies and musicians.

One of these people that want to delete should update it to fill the requirements, this company is very well known out in Delaware.
Fine, let me spell it out for you. The fact some 13 year old kid had a paper route is not encyclopaedia material. Neither is the reputation he built up in his neighbourhood repairing TVs. Nor the fact he had an "interest in sound", or that he later went to college... in fact, there is no encyclopaedia-worthy material in the first three paragraphs of the article. The next two paragraphs are an advertisement. They too will have to go, as Wikipedia is not an advertisement website. The last line "For more info..." should be in an "External links" section, but aside from this I have no problem with it in and of itself. However, given that we just deleted everything else on the page, that line is now the only thing on the page. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Thus, it'll have to go. Now, if you want to know how to write a real company page on Wikipedia, I suggest you drop the company publicity listing you're reading and check company pages on Wikipedia. Take whichever company you'd like to learn more about - the bigger the company, the better, as it means more people will have gone over the page and fixed it. Once you've read, say, a dozen or so pages, and you know complete, factual, NPOV corporate pages are written in Wikipedia, feel free to rewrite this thing. Ritchy 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So Ritchy has volunteered to revise this page?
I did, by putting the AfD on it. Also, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ Ritchy 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this can grow, if the experienced users here could reformat and add the facts they know into the actual article in addition to their comments here,that would be helpful.209.137.175.3 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not sure what this is nominally, but let's try nn, promo, badvertisement adjectivally. Eusebeus 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eusebeus -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. This is not, however, a support of slapping a G4 repost speedy on any recreation of this article. Stifle 16:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML Help Generator

This is spam. Esprit15d 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Publicity page. Ritchy 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - And I bet I'm the only one on here who's actually used the damn thing, too. Cyde Weys votetalk 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedia material. Edgar181 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then Redirect to Documentation generator. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:51Z
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. Quite, quite useless. Stifle 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern California Amateur Radio Frequencies

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Laser2k 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walking Contradiction

Article does not make a case for why this video is notable. Also, marked for cleanup in September, 2005 and virtually no improvement since. --Wrathchild (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite. It's not a question of notability - it's a famous song by a famous band. The content, however, is very questionable. It should be made into a song article and have a sensible mention of the video. PJM 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and hopefully improve) per PJM. Offhand, I wonder if the title is a reference to the Kris Kristofferson lyric prominently featured in Taxi Driver? ×Meegs 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite per PJM. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:48Z
  • Songs are generally not notable on their own. Merge to whatever album it was that it's from. Stifle 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engle Matrix Game

article about nn game written by author which is entirely unverifiable and poorly written. vanity, imho Savidan 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Static spherically symmetric perfect fluid/to do

All the information on this page and its talk page is already available on the talk page of the Static spherically symmetric perfect fluid article Hirudo 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akashaganga

Not a notable term and not sure if its encylopedic. NicM 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Some mention on new-age websites, may be true. But article is inaccurate ("Indian"? which language? Hindi? Tamil?). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:45Z
    • Keep per Gurubrahma's expansion. Good job. (Wiktionary can still have the dicdefs.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 09:56Z
  • TranswikiKeep after Gurubrahma work. utcursch | talk 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- The word has several meanings; I have converted it into a disambiguation page. --Gurubrahma 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good job. I'm convinced: Keep. NicM 13:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep per GB =Nichalp «Talk»=
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivey position

nn bit of poker trivia. Perhaps merits a mention on the main Texas hold 'em page but no more than that. Hirudo 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to Texas hold 'em and Phil Ivey. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:42Z
  • Keep: Poker pundits have been using this term much more frequently as of late. (Preceding unsigned comment by new user Heokstra)
  • Merge per Quarl. Although I'm not hugely convinced that this has currency. Stifle 16:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interracial fetish

Term doesn't seem to exist outside porn ads. NicM 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Strong keep - dumbest AFD I've seen in a long while. Cyde Weys votetalk 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • [52], [53], [54]. Its real? NicM 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
      • Seems obvious to me ... there's a huge market for interracial porn out there and that would make these people interracial fetishists. let me amend my original statement; I was over-reacting. It's not the dumbest AFD I've seen in awhile, as apparently it has more worth than I first thought. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No problem, my reason was perhaps expressed a little dumbly :-). You may be right that the term is real, but I can't find much evidence it really is, or is what the article says. I'd be happy to keep if I saw a rewrite as "a fetish possessed by (some) people who like interracial porn," preferably with sources, if there are any. NicM 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, but I could change that to a keep if the article is completely rewritten. I am sure something could be written on something reminiscent of this topic, but this article is nowhere close to being encyclopedic. u p p l a n d 21:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sexual fetishism is very real and important, but does anyone call it interracial fetishism? calling it interracial fetishism almost assumes the reader can't be asian or black. So since this article needs completely different content and a different name, it basically needs to be deleted and is somewhat similar to an article that is important and probably already exists Lotusduck 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ethnic stereotypes in pornography exists and addresses every issue that this article should and doesn't. This amounts to a neologism and listcruft and something that if completed to a high standard would be an exact copy of ethnic stereotypes in pornography- note that the interracial fetish article focuses on pornography. Lotusduck 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless totally rewritten and we get WP:CITE from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename. Suggest Interracial sexual preference. This is a real phenomenom, but not a "fetish" inasmuch as fetish a proclivity for conduct or circumstances that the majority would not find stimulating. Given the right circumstances, most anyone could be turned on by a person of a different race. And there are some folks who are known to prefer a specific race (not their own) for sexual congress. There's a few studies, like here, that have been done, but scientific research is generally bogged down due to the politically explosive nature of the situation. Jtmichcock 04:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep possibly merge with Interracial pornography or Ethnic stereotypes in pornography. I haven't looked very hard, but did find one scholarly source that talks about epidermal fetishism and the eroticization of non-white peoples [55]. There are probably many more that look at this from the white-black or white-Asian angles. -- JJay 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no need to merge. --Pboyd04 05:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'd vote on this, if I were convinced that the phrase is in general and widespread usage by people outside the fetishist communuity. Otherwise it's cruft. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "interracial fetish" is new to me in terms of the an explanation. "Prefers dating members of X race" or "Likes to watch pornography where a member of X race has sex with a member of Y race" are common expressions. Fetish implies a peculiar motif that isn't present here such a with latex or bondage practices. Nonetheless, there exists the above-mentioned proclivity and the reason it's hard to find any mentions "in general use" is because few wish to talk about it such as(here. Jtmichcock 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Plea if you read this article I think you will be hard pressed to find a single worthy thing in it. Once again, it is not about interracial anything, it is about ethnic prefferences in pornography, not about pornography with different races participating in it. The title suggests some worthy topic, but the content is a list of ethnicities with unverified statements as to who likes them best. I tend to be a little demanding of inclusioners, so I apologize- I just want to know, what info in the text of this article is verifiable and important? Lotusduck 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is a list of ethnicities with an unverifiable popularity rating next to each. From the article: * Native American Girls (Younger Native American Females) - very popular amongst caucasian American men African Americans are the most popular interracial fetish, apparently, and while these topics could be expanded into something completely different and verifiable, it's important to recognize that they already have been, in interracial pornography and ethnic stereotypes in pornography. What could be created under a different name is another issue- is there actually text in this article that is worth keeping? Lotusduck 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think this topic may warrant an encyclopedic article. But this article is worthless. Edgar181 11:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep VfD is ot cleanup.  Grue  14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Kingdom (band)

From speedy as non-notable, but I see many Google hits (band "Magic Kingdom" -disney). No vote. r3m0t talk 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: No claim of notability, and I'm not going to waste my time researching it. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Keep. It looks like they just released an album on sizable German independent label SPV who are home to a large list better-know heavy metal bands [56]. The album has also been released internationally, including by Ryko in the US. WP:Music. I'll keep them on the fourth bullet of WP:Music. Also, the album and band get 9000 hits on google including a lot of reviews. ×Meegs 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog Networks

Delete definition that better belongs in Blog. Mindmatrix 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge anything useful into blog. Edgar181 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Blog#Collaborative. This is a protologism for "collaborative blog". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:41Z
  • Delete since relevant content exists at blog (will accept merge as well as accomplishing the same thing. Eusebeus 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per User:Quarl. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Incognito 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Less blogcruft, kthxbye. 213.106.152.192 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for a laundry list of reasons: original research, made-up concept, text is almost redundant to title, dictionary definition, not notable, and blogcruft. silsor 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. useless blogcrap. --Timecop 04:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per silsor WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - same crap we don't need on the wikipedia. --Hosterweis 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted FCYTravis 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Stoner

Possible hoax. Article and author claimed to be about an urban legend - see Talk:Nick Stoner. Yet, it is unreferenced and google reveals nothing [57]. The article's material seems dubious. Hurricane111 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Speedily deleted - No need to burden AFD with this patent nonsense. FCYTravis 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. There were a number of votes from new users, but they had some valid points which I have decided to consider. The argument for keeping is that the game is pretty old, yet the argument for deletion is that the game has never received a great deal of popularity and therefore fails the WP:WEB guidelines. On vote count from established users there is an overwhelming majority for deletion. On the matter of discretion I find the arguments by Quarl (only 175 members) and Radiant! convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Bayou

Delete article about an RPG played on AIM. Mindmatrix 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my other nominations of MMPORGs. Daniel Case 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable online game. Would only call it "MMORPG" if the first M stands for "Mini". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:39Z

Keep This is an article about a game that was played on AOL since 1996, hosted by a company that went out of business and was turned over to those that wrote the game and continue to work on it and put long hours and hard work into. There are hundreds of people who have played this game and have put thousands of hours into it and deserve to have their accomplishments recorded. Does the pages about movies only remain because they had millions of dollars budget behind them or because people enjoyed them enough to want to immortalize the information online for those that are fans of it to read about? This topic has valuable information, some of which I didn't even know about until one of the original creators of the game came here and edited my partially incorrect information. I learned something from this topic and others will to unless you get it deleted.

As for it being a non-notable RPG. What is your classifcation of non-notable? Does it have to be a published RPG that makes money to qualify? Something free can't? Does it have to have hundreds of thousands of people playing it? There are message boards still hosted by AOL that have thousands of posts from this game when it was hosted on AOL. The problem was we wanted to expand the game and allow those who didn't have AOL any longer to continue to play. So we took it off of AOL and moved it to AIM rooms.

For proof here is the message boards where thousands of posts still remain from when it was on AOL. And before you say there's only a few...make sure you change your settings to the past 999 days, and even then you can't get all the way back to the 1998 posts. You can only get as far back as 2003 because of the way AOL changed their message boards. Black Bayou AOL Message Boards. HoldynWolf 22:26, 12 January 2006 (EST)

  • Comment: User's only contributions are to this article, this AFD, and Crossroads RPG. Stifle 09:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: You're point about my only contributions being here are what? That this page should be deleted or considered for deletion cause I haven't participated in other topics? I just registered a week ago, never really knew about wikipedia before that. Decided that Black Bayou a game I loved to play deserved a place here for all the others that have played it in the years to be able to remember it. And with this AfD I haven't had time to go and look for other topics that I might know something about that's not beed added. I don't think all these comments you added are important in the consideration of whether this gets deleted or not. I think the facts about the page, not the users should be considered. HoldynWolf

Keep This article is a valuable article to the hundreds of people who have played this game over the years. It is a fact that this game existed and there are many people who might benefit or enjoy knowing that the game still exists. Who has the right to go around and delete a post because they were never personally involved with the game? This game is FAR from non-notable. Thousands of posts on AOL and 2 separate message boards with posts currently. Sakia Warner 22:43, 12 January 2006 (EST)

  • Comment: User's only edit. Stifle 09:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've been watching this page with an open mind, but you guys just helped me a lot. Wikipedia's notability policy indicates that # of participants (web-specific standards) is a criteria and "hundreds" doesn't cut it. -Jcbarr 04:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:N is not an established Wikipedia policy. It is still in the proposal stage. The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:CITE. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The relevant accepted policy is WP:WEB. Also, despite disagreements over the precise wording of WP:N, the fact is that non-notability has been a plausible reason for deletion for over a year now. Radiant_>|< 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Plausible is not a firm policy. As the community has decided, WP:N"There is currently no official policy on where the line of notability lies." Please see our comments below for talk on the Web portion and our verification of Hecklers and Antagonist, where we WP:CITE cited sources for the game. ~~ReporterSteven~~
    • Maybe Obscure to you I cannot give you an exact number of people who played this game. But I just checked the old AOL Message boards, which have been there since 1996 but with AOL's changes can only go back 999 days in the archive. One folder had over 5000 In-Character Posts. Stories written by people. Hundreds maybe thousands. At any given time there would be several hundred active CS's. Which means that they had updated in the last 60 days of their last approved CS. And hundreds more that were not active from time to time. Have you witnessed the game to decide if it's obscure? I know quite a few posts on the internet regarding Black Bayou. There's several reviews of it on Gaming Sites. This page may not be of interest to you or the others asking for it to be deleted, but to all those that games here, and there was many that have. I say hundreds, but I played the game starting in 1997 - 1998 and have taken breaks from time. What is to obscure? I saw a post about some dead guy on Wikipedia who I never knew existed, it had about two paragraphs. I would think that's obscure. Look at the edits on this page already and all the factual information put up about a game that was a very important piece of AOL in it's early years.HoldynWolf 12:45, 13 January 2006 (EST)
Yes, obscure to me and there's no excuse for more notability info being in this AfD page than there is on the actual article. You make a good case, but that should be documented (with citations) in the article if you want a positive vote outcome. -Jcbarr 12:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This page was put up only a week ago. I haven't had time to get to it all and now I have to use my time to try and defend it (And admittidly very new to wikipedia, this was my first article and no so damn little about this deletion thing that I am trying to figure out how to save it. Not to mention it has been edited several times from what I originally put up there by other people. How about you give a page to mature into something before trying to kill it off before it has time to learn to walk? HoldynWolf

Keep This experience has been a part of AOL and the internet for as long as I can remember. It has outlasted the tabletop Vampire: The Masquerade. Yet another version of Dungeons and Dragons has come and gone during its time. It has spawned countless "mini" spin offs along the way, including one that matured, found a home on AOL and is still there. The futuristic breeds that didnt fit Bayou became a game all on its own called Crossroads. If nothing else, Bayou is notable for the length of it's survival in a world of games that thrive on the newest graphics engines. An all text game running for 10 years... and nobody making a profit off of it as motivation to keep it going. Find another game that can claim that. ~Dark Requiem~

  • Comment: User's only contribution. Stifle 10:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- A game that runs for 10 years msut have some notability; a game community that can surivive that long must have even more -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (who has never played in a MMORPG in hisr life)
  • Keep -- 10 years of history consistently rated as the No. 1 game on AOL should NOT be deleted. If ever there was an open-source Role Playing Game, this is it. No one profits. No one makes money off of it. There's not even advertising revenue coming in off of its Web site. Just because people are out to delete all mentions of role playing games on Wikipedia is NOT an excuse to delete this entry. ~ReporterSteven~
    Comment: User's only edits are to this AfD, the article, Crossroads RPG, and related images. Stifle 10:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment::So what? I've used Wikipedia for YEARS and signed up in November 2005 PRIOR to this article being introduced. ~ReporterSteven~

  • Comment: The user ReporterSteven has edited other things 'anonymously' I looked into this when someone edited the Black Bayou page. He didn't log in and by his IP address I knew it was him. If you will check just the IP addresses that were edited with this, one had several other contributions under the IP. Not everyone remembers to log in with editing, as I have done several times in this AfD myself on accident.

Keep: This is not an AIM based game, take the time to read everything rather than latch on to one area. AIM is offered now for a wider variety of gamers and writers, some who chose not to pay the price for AOL just to enjoy a nightly game. True there are still AOL based boards and the posts go back to as early as 1997 on those boards. Black Bayou is not a fly by night game, it is not a MMORPH, it is a gaming community even if it is small. The game is over ten years old, it started in 1996 as a premium game before AOL changed from an hourly rate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samantha Wolfe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Stifle 10:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable and also unverifiable outside its own community. Stifle 09:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

unverifiable? The game has existed and has developed pages online including independent reviews, just check via Google. here ~ReporterSteven~

Here is a link to one review I found dated 2003 [58] HoldynWolf
  • blackbayou.net is the forum and has 175 total members; I see 23 posts on the messageboards.aol.com site. Not impressed. Can you show us some evidence of these "thousands of players" you speak of? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:22Z
You need to go to settings and change it to go further back then 23 days. PLUS those first three things you see are just categories, once you open them up you see all the other folders. The folders on AOL.COM are OLD, they are the archive. The game moved off AOL. Change your view settings then you will see the thousands of posts. Stop looking at the surface and dig deeper in. HoldynWolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.77.32 (talk • contribs)
Okay, you're probably right about the AOL forum (haven't checked). But is the 175 total members on blackbayou.net correct? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 20:29Z
This is not just about the current community but also about the past community since 1996 that has been involved with Black Bayou and Antagonist Games. BlackBayou.net is a split of of blackbayou.com(different versions of the game are being played at both, and I don't believe there is anyone playing both versions at the current time so those numbers don't overlap the two games). Both those games use the Black Bayou Rules. BlackBayou.net split off in August of 2005. They have around that number since just August. BlackBayou.com has been around just a bit longer (They were originally those AOL Boards I mentioned that have 5000 posts since just 2003) but I know for a fact purged some names on blackbayou.com that were inactive or no longer had valid emails. As for the current totals being played by just these two games should not be the basis for deletion. There have been hundreds more that have played. This is about the history of Black Bayou, about what Black Bayou started as, became and now is. I had hoped to add more to this wikipedia but now I have had to spend much of my time in this discussion. Oh and Explorecrossroads.com (Crossroads RPG) is based off of the Black Bayou Rules. That's three forums that I know off the top of my head that uses these rules and there has been others in the past.HoldynWolf

Notability Re: notability, the page that has been cited is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." The "proposal may still be in development" And "there is currently no official policy on where the line of notability lies." Notability is in the eye of the beholder. ~ReporterSteven~

  • Please see WP:WEB, which is the accepted guideline we should be referring to. Sure, it has existed for ten years, but so has my private RPG campaign and that's not notable either. According to google, the term "Black Bayou" more frequently refers to a variety of wilderness camps, as well as a Budweiser band. The creator Remy Thorne hardly googles at all, and I'm not too impressed by Hecklers Online either. Sorry, but this does fall below the bar of notability. Hence, Delete. Radiant_>|< 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
* Of course a normal Google listing is, try googling Black Bayou RPG and you turn up more than 300 hits. If all you type in is Magic , you won't just turn up the card game, you'll get lots of magic tricks. You need to be specific in your Google searches. ~~ReporterSteven~~
  • I know how Google works, thank you very much. From your link, I get 262 hits, which is hardly impressive for anything internet-related. My real name gets more hits than that. Compare eight million hits for this meme, for instance. A rule of thumb is hard to give but any internet-related subject below the five-digit mark is definitely not encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 03:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
And I bet all those pages are just about you and there couldn't possibly be other people in the world with your same name. Hell Let's all look up Bob Smith and see how many pages you get, I bet they are all about one person. HoldynWolf
  • As a matter of fact yes, for my real name I get about 400 hits, all of which related to me. And unlike the Bayou, I'm not even internet-based. Bob Smith gets over a million hits. Radiant_>|< 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What is your name so I can verify this claim? You need to provide proof to your claim please if you are using it as a basis for deletion.HoldynWolf
  • It is possible to have a real name that gets a lot of Google hits. Mine does because of what I do for work and there is only one other person out there who has my name a la Google. Let's stay on subject. ~~ReporterSteven~
  • If you hit the link, you should have gotten more than 300 ... And there's no need to be rude, my friend. You did hit the mark, though, there is no rule of thumb on an internet-related subject for how many hits it needs to get, is there? You really need to see the Wikipedia:Google test to realize that Google isn't the be-all end-all to notability.~~ReporterSteven~~
    • There have been several rules of thumb, and 300 hits falls below all of them. Frequently accepted is an Alexa rank of 10000 or better. Radiant_>|< 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • A rule of thumb is not a community-accepted rule. It's an opinion. As we've already explained in showing citations, a game that existed exclusively on AOL, that pre-dates Google, was part of the dot-com boom, does not have that current acception. But iT DID. We're talking about a game that had a high in circa 1996. However,Importance"There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject" to the point where it was has been featured on the "Welcome Screen" on AOL where it was viewed by its Millions of subscribers. [59]User J Smith recommended this article be changed to RPG Games on AOL or something akin to that. I find that an acceptable compromise with keywords redirected to that article, basically merging things under that one article. And I welcome people willing to give us a way to succeed rather than tearing us down. Do you have a compromise that would work? Do you like his idea? He's a pretty established user. I think we might go ahead and make this change.~~ReporterSteven~~

Apparently new comers are not appreciated here, nor is new information. The page was not even given enough time to turn into anything. I have not had time this week to devote to trying to work on Black Bayou wikipedia entry as I have had to use what little time this week to defend this. I had heard nothing but good about wikipedia and that's why I came here to post about Black Bayou. A game that was part of Antagonist Games and their parent company Hecklers. Both Hecklers and Antagonist went out of business when AOL changed the way they would do their keywords and channels. Black Bayou continued on. This game was played by so many, long before the 'internet' was as popular as it is now. Back before .asp and java and all the other amazing mark up languages that rule the internet now. Back when you could create a simple page using just html tags. There is so little from back in 1996 about Black Bayou because it was all on AOL, in their keywords using their special coding. It was not internet based then, so there are no internet pages from then. Everything is from NOW since we just moved off of AOL. Hecklers and Antagonist only had their website for months before they went out of bussiness. They could not survive outside of AOL. I can't give you the proof you want because this was all on an old America Online that has changed. You are all trying to take away the chance for it to finally be brought off of AOL and documented on the internet. I am disgusted with wikipedia and their 'community' of members that for the most part I have seen through their 'users contributions' links only go in and say 'delete not notable enough' ... 'delete not important enough' ... 'delete we can't get enough google hits' ... 'delete RPG's aren't important.' Well you know what, fine. delete this and everything else. You can then have your wikipedia of pages about how you got everything deleted. I will make sure to document something some place else in the future.

It's a shame that something as old as this is not considered notable or important enough. It's a shame that American Online which along with several other large online services at the time it being forgotten. Black Bayou was a part of AOL through Antagonist Games and Hecklers Online. They helped fuel American Online, giving content people wanted to pay for. American Online didn't use webpages then, they used their own system. And now because of that, this page is at risk for deletion because I have no internet prrof.HoldynWolf

Here's something about Hecklers who owned Antagonist who ran Black Bayou:

Separately today, AOL Studios, the Internet's leading online content programmer, announced its Greenhouse Networks' business unit will provide original content through Netscape Netcaster. The agreement with Netscape includes the distribution of a number of current Greenhouse properties, including: The HUB, ASTRONET, Hecklers Online, and Extreme Fans, in addition to the forthcoming Entertainment Asylum, which are also scheduled to launch on America Online and the Internet later this month. This was taken from the link here http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease511.htmlHoldynWolf

And here's something else. You all want proof and links. I can give you some links to mention of Hecklers.

PR Newswire, July 28, 1998

SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Hecklers Online, Inc., the Internet's #1 humor site, announced today that it has entered into a co- branding content partnership with Playboy.com.

"It's great to be in bed with Playboy," said Hecklers Online's co-founder Sean Michael. "Playboy is one of the world's most compelling and influential brands. We're proud that Hecklers Online will help to continue Playboy's tradition of excellence."

From http://www.itselementary.net/virtual_online_casino_12-09-2003.html HoldynWolf


And another

Hecklers Entertainment Inc., best known for its comedy Web site http://www.Hecklers.com, is taking a gamble on its relationship with long-time supporter America Online. This one from http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2000/10/02/story6.htmlHoldynWolf


  • Hecklers went bust with the dot-com fallout and, thus, so went Black Bayou to the wayside. Thanks to the Library of Congress and the Way Back Machine, some of the Web content as far back as 1997 was saved here for Hecklers and as far back as 1998 here for Antagonist. Per the Web content information, this page needs only meet one of the criteria not to be deleted. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." This game was created by an outfit so well-known that Playboy teamed up with them. Sure, the outfit may be bankrupt now, but does Wikipedia not talk about online outfits that went bankrupt? Wikipedia further states in Importance that "An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community ((that means everyone everywhere doesn't need to know what it is and we established that it has a history amid a corporation that has been written about in business journals ). Further, If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:
  1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or
  2. currently small or a stub, or
  3. obscure.

(Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)" So you may find it doesn't have the relative fame of current "millions" and that it's "obscure" but that doesn't matter to importance. This is a random journal entry on a message board from some guy I don't even know recollecting about his days with Black Bayou cache here In his post, he states, " I've been RPing since about 1998 or so. Much later if you mean tabletop gaming. I started playing in the chats of AOL. First in free-form gaming rooms, then in Moderated chats with pages and pages of rules. (It was great!) One was a futuristic game called Crossroads and the other was a WoD themed game called Black Bayou. If I had AOL still I would still be playing BB. After graduation, I went to Community College and finally found some like-minded gamers.... Now its 2005, and still haven't played a game of Vampire ...." At one point, Black Bayou even spawned a small convention called [Bayou-con] Users have created "member Web sites" for their characters like this one and this oneand many, many others. These people are passionate about their characters. On this Web site titled AOL Watch, which criticizes AOL in general, it copied the Home Page of AOL. That is the VERY FIRST Welcome screen someone would see when they logged onto AOL. Millions of people saw this screen. [60] Thousands of people clicked on the link o go to Black Bayou. This is a copy of the text from the screen from some guy who hates AOL, from an established Web site, yet it states "Today's selection of actual messages from AOL's Exit and Welcome screens....

Not just another pretty screen name--Meet your neighbors@AOL ON The Move!

Meet your AstroMate...

Edgy roleplay. Mouth to Mouth. Vampires of the Black Bayou..." Right up there with a basic astrology in terms of importance. That's dang good exposure. I saw one of those links way back in the day. I clicked on it. So did many, many others. ~~ReporterSteven~~

Here are more from ant.com. Note some of the early ones and late ones come from the company that owned that web address before. http://ant.com. You should find archive of ant.com in the 1998 - 2002 range. HoldynWolf

KEEP if the scope is expanded to RPG games of AOL where the myriad other games can be talked about as well. I think this has a place on wikipedia, just not as it's own artical. (Signed: J.Smith) 08:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that's a fair statement. Thank you for offering a POSITIVE statement offering a SOLUTION that helps us rather than dismissing this like some others who insist on arguing. I think this entry could easily be a called RPG Games on AOL or something akin to that with words such as Black Bayou redirected to this site. ~~ReporterSteven~~


[edit] Note

The edits by 69.161.77.32 Are me. I forget to log in, If you would look at the history you would see it's me marking them with my user name. For some reason it's not logging me in automatically anymore and I keep forgetting to check before I run to defend the black bayou page. Again any edits from 69.161.77.32 are me. HoldynWolf

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's self-identification

WP:NOT a how-to guide or the mayo clinic, besides if you really wanted to identify yourself you have more than enough information to do it from the featured articles on the subjects here. One could also speculate that the article was created to promote the "Aspie-quiz", by the author. We don't have any articles like this for other conditions (i.e. Downs syndrome self-indentification) and it may not be a precedent one would want. I don't really think there is anything worth merging to Asperger syndrome, so I'll say Delete (for the record someone else did put a merge tag on the article but it was removed by the author). WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per nominator. Barno 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedia material. Edgar181 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if anywhere is appropriate; Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:37Z
  • Weak delete per nominator. (Agree especially that the implications that the article exists to promote the Aspie-Quiz are troublesome.) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo effort for the aspie-quiz, mostly, but moreover Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Stifle 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Argument that this was original research never answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fighting game character stereotypes

This article is well written, interesting and has been around for a while. However, it scrapes WP:NOR & WP:NPOV and I don't see it as having much encyclopedic value. PJM 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Unless of course, you play fighting games. SAMAS 11 january, 2006.
I play fighting video games sometimes. What does that have to do with WP:NOR & WP:NOT? PJM 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & link to other lists of stereotypes -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Such as? PJM 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. —Ruud 19:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NOR. Most of these are broad and lack specicifity to fighting games (they tend to have heores, villains, monsters, and sub-bosses, some of whom are one-dimensional? I never would have guessed). -Sean Curtin 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Themusicking 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. A cut above most of the random list articles clogging up Wikipedia, and I like the article, but it's original research and unfortunately has to go. Stifle 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete more listcruft, this one wil lalways be incomplete and it has nothing really specific to videogames, as the archetypes come from much before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artur Cimirro

Claims notability as pianist, completely unverifiable MNewnham 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article has no citations, sources or proof that this alleged pianist is notable. Until this is provided, the page should be considered for deletion. Veres towards WP:BIO. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. 10 Google hits - mostly unrelated, the only related ones are forum posts by subject. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:36Z
  • Delete as unverified vanity bio. Stifle 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaronism - Political Theory

This is a nn Neologism. Returns 220 hits on google and I can't find any that are relevent. The artical is quite POV as well. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand river connection


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

The result of the debate was delete and create redirect to Electronic voting. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated voting machines

Vanity advertising of NN corp by founder MNewnham 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) week keep - I've heard this concept on national talk shows. Delete if not expanded or no sources can be shown. (Signed: J.Smith) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBClone

promotional page for NN open-source software MNewnham 21:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: usually I would be very unimpressed by a "PHP hit counter", but this one seems notable based on Linux distribution packages, Google hits, Google rank, Alexa rank (for a hit counter project). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:30Z
  • Keep notable open source project in use on many websites. --Pboyd04 05:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If the pages of similar web programs such as cutenews are allowed, why shouldn't this be? --mark dr (talk)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French people

Delete This article is nonencyclopedic in its content and its title. It discusses the French as some kind of ethnic group, applying modern borders and criteria to eras where the boundaries of what was "French" and wasn't were totally different (for instance, in the Middle Ages).

In addition, the article confuses the idea of ethnicity with the idea of spoken language. Quote:

In Europe, there are several sizeable permanent French populations outside of France. The largest is in Belgium, in the region of Wallonia and the city of Brussels. In Switzerland, the main concentration of the ethnic French population is in the Western region known as Romandy. Smaller French communities can be found in Luxembourg and the Channel Islands, although most Channel Islanders speak English as their first language today.

I suspect that if we tell the French-speaking Swiss, Canadians and Belgians that they are "French", they will be as thrilled as US citizens told that they are English.

The whole essay looks like some kind of big case of original research used to make a bizarre point, with little regard for usual scientific standards. The factual information that it recounts is found elsewhere on Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree with this page being up for deletion because then you would have to get rid of every page on every ethnic group in Wikipedia. The article discusses the indigenous French ethnic group who have origins to France since the time of the Gauls and even before that. It also discusses the diaspora of ethnic French around the world.
Most French-Canadians are actually quite proud of their French origins and culture, to the point that many want the province of Quebec to separate from the rest of the country. Swiss people are rarely defined as a distinct ethnic group since they are a cross roads of the French, German and Italian cultures and many of the French speakers there are indeed ethnic French. As for Belgium, there are also numbers of ethnic French there as well but they are sometimes confused with ethnic Walloons.
Also, you should know that in the 2000 US Census, some 25 million Americans cited English ancestry so clearly people there don't deny their origins, no matter which ethnicity they are, while also being proud of their own independent nation. Epf 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Please cite a scholarly publication employing the phrase "French people" for discussing Canadians or Americans. Otherwise, this terminology is just original research. David.Monniaux 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
French people in North America is a self-described designation. Millions of people claim French ancestry in North America through the censuses taken as with the US census. Academic usage of French people is quite common, especially from a historical perspective and can be found in many journal articles Language and Nation in 16th-Century France: The Arts poétiques I think we need to relate this article of a French people to all the other articles describing various peoples. Even as the world becomes more and intertwined, some historical memory of regional histories and indigenous peoples can only add context to our understanding of the broad human experience. Tombseye 17:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep We have German people, English people, etc. Chu d'acc avec le nom's point that this is not a very good article at all. But AfD is not the solution for this; working on the article itself is. Eusebeus 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree with deleting this page. Considering the arguments given, one would find political reasons to delete every people in Europe from Wikipedia. For example, do the 18 million spanish in Argentina consider themselves Spanish? Would they feel offended by the Spanish people page? And the millions of Mexicans of Spanish origin? I suspect this page being put up for deletion is, as I have stated on the discussion page, the result of a taboo existing in France on the issue of ethnicity and on the French model of integration (their wholesale rejection of communitarism). I understand and partially agree with this stance, but this must not deny the inclusion of the French people in the "ethnic groups" section.--Burgas00 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Spanish people article is about as flawed as the French people article, and should be deleted too. Do you really think Catalans consider themselves "ethnic Spanish"? Or maybe you are going to tell us that Catalan are distinct, so the article is in fact about "Castillian people"? But then what about the people in Murcia? Are they ethnic Castilians? And in Andalucia? Let's stop the nonsense please! Some nations were built around the notion of ethnicity, such as the German nation, or the Japanese nation, and it makes sense to have German people or Japanese people article. But other nations like France or Spain were built around the concept of statehood, and talking of an ethnic French nation or an ethnic Spanish nation is just a misrepresentation only worthy of the extreme-right. I strongly favor delete. Hardouin 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
We have a policy of no original research which prohibits using Wikipedia for introducing nonstandard terminology. So far, nobody has been able to produce any kind of quotation of any reasonable publication showing the usage of "French people" to designate the French-speaking Swiss or Canadians. I thus conclude it's some kind of original terminology from whoeever wrote this article.
Given that the Belgians and the Swiss generally hate being lumped together with the French, and that the people in Quebec talk of the French as les maudits français, one can see how ridiculous this grouping is.
If what was meant was "people of French origin" or even "people of French language", things would possibly be better. Alas, the medieval part is also wrong in that respect! In the Middle Ages, the modern idea of a French nation did not exist. A third or so of current France was held... by the King of England (but it wasn't too bad because the ruling class in England were Norman nobles, which spoke Norman French). The "français" were those from the feudal domain of the King, around Paris. Most people elsewhere did not speak the same language or recognize themselves as from the same "country".
This article simply does not make sense from a historical or sociological point of view. If you want to make an article about Francophone countries, do so (but we already have Francophonie). If you want to make an article about the current sociological situation in France, do so. But PLEASE do not introduce anachronistic notions that do not fit with any kind of serious publication. David.Monniaux 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongy doubt that all Belgian and Swiss French deny their roots and to say otherwise is obviously typical of pro multi-racial poltical ideology. I'm from Canada and have lived in Quebec and I can tell you first hand that although some may call them "the cursed French", they still don't deny their ethnic roots and if they did, the strong separatist movement would have been extinct by now. Also, how can we forget one of the speeches of former French president Charles de Gaulle when he visited Quebec at Expo 67' and considerably aided in the FLQ and overall separatists movement by declaring "Vive le Quebec libre" !
  • Also, and more importantly, any reader of this discussion should ignore the ethnic and cultural nihilist-like views by User:Hardouin who clearly has a pro-multi-racial poltical agenda and completely disregards the existence of ethnic French despite their obvious roots there since Gallic times. Also, David, you say there was no medieval French nation ? I don't think Jeanne d'Arc would have succeeded in defeating the English and unifying France if that was the case ! The regions controlled by the Angevin kings of England consistently changed over the 300-400 years they had claims in French lands. The countless numbers of wars fought in the period with England clearly gives reason enough for an ethnic French nation which wished to ne ruled by outsiders. In terms of language, many regions did speak a very similar dialect to the Parisian French langauge or at least a "langue d'oil" or related "langue d'oc" (Aquitaine, Toulouse and Provence). I strongly advise the Wikipedia admin to NOT delete this article as you would be just giving into the point of view and political aims of various users. Articles on the ethnic French are present in many respected encyclopedias (see below) and so are articles on all other ethnic groups. Epf 11:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah ah ah! Good example! The Hundred Years War was the beginning of some feelings of nationalism in both France and England. Because of this war, as I understand, the English (Norman) nobility stopped talking French, and some of the people in France felt a urge to throw out the English.
But, see, the Hundred Years War was at the end of the Middle Ages (the war stopped in 1453, and the end of the Middle Ages is generally set by convention to 1492 or a bit earlier). This means that for most of the Middle Ages, the notion of different nations separating France and England was not current. Different feudal domains, sure.. But nations?
As for ethnicity, France until the 19th century was a patchwork of provinces with different customs, languages, etc. It's very dubious to apply 19th- and 20th-century criteria of nation-state to these era (there has been significant homogeneization of the country in the 19th and 20th century due to government efforts and increased travel and communications). David.Monniaux 14:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The Norman English kings and French fought various conflicts over land even before the long period of the hundreds years war. Although the English controlled certain parts of France, that does not mean the people there weren't ethnic or indigenous French peoples. When most of Russia was under the control of Mongols, were the indigenous slavic peoples no longer Russian ? I mean is it to say ethnic Italians have only existed since the unification of Italy in 1861 ? Italians are in a fact a great comparison considering although they have several local dialects and differences they have always been for along time seen as ethnic Italians since the different peoples of the peninsula were also closely related. The same can be said about the ethnic French peoples who although may have local differences in language/dialects and culture, they are still much more closely related to each other in terms of history, origins, culture, and language than peoples in other nearby nations. Anything else ? Epf 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongy doubt that all Belgian and Swiss French deny their roots. I don't know for Belgian, but roots of Swiss are in Switzerland. France is just an influencial (through the common language) foreign country. If a Swiss says that he is French, it means that he has a French nationality. For instance, I know quite a lot o French that live in Switzerland. I don't understand what you mean by roots. It can make sense for Québec, where people went. But it makes no sense for Switzerland. Marc Mongenet 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The history of Switzerland shows the historic divide between ethnic French and ethnic Swiss Germans. When the Burgundians invaded and settled in the west of Switzerland and in France(Burgundy), as with the Franks, they assimilated into the population and adopted Gallo-Roman culture. This is contrary to the majority Allemanni who remained distinctly Germanic. This part of Swiss history is documented here: [61] Epf 09:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, the historic divide is between two disapeared tribes: Burgundians and Alamannen. Now, there is a language border between French and German. The article says nothing about ethnic French because this concept does not exist. Better, the article says, When the French kings persecuted the French protestants ... a great number of them fled to French-speaking Switzerland. As you can read, the people living in the French-speaking part of Swizterland welcomed persecuted French protestants (ie foreigners = French). Marc Mongenet 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there's something wrong with the article, correct it and make it better. --Khoikhoi 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per David.Monnaiux -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. It's ridiculous to delete this article. This same information is found in Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana etc. Why is wikipedia suddenly no longer going to identify indigenous peoples of various regions? This article is about the French of France so the spillover issue is another matter that can be addressed by articles on the Walloons and so on. These articles aren't meant to please people, but to inform. I frankly don't see anything wrong with the article. It just plainly states who the French are. Comparisons with the US and Australia don't wash as these regions also have indigenous people, the Native Americans and Aborigines. We aren't going to have articles about them either then? Just because some people don't like the idea of there being an identification of a French people who pre-date the current multicultural changes taking place doesn't mean we ignore that there are French people. Tombseye 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. I agree with the above statement exactly and it is unfair for the ethnic French not to have an entry here just as it would be unfair for the ethnic Spanish (I do agree they need to decipher between Castilians, Catalans and Galicians) not to have an entry. If you delete this article, than it is an outrage and if it were to happen you should delete every article on Wikipedia about every ethnic group because otherwise you would be showing massive bias against the ethnic French saying they are "less of a unique ethnic group" (or something along those lines) than the world's other peoples and that is just plain ignorance. Epf 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Eusebeus. Please don't misuse AfD nominations for a POV debate, which should be done on the article talk page. Lukas 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not a debate on POV but on original research. David.Monniaux 13:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed part of it is, so provide some original research as to why there should not be an article on ethnic French. Epf 13:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. See WP:No original research. David.Monniaux 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contrary to what some users say, there is no article about French ethinicity in Encyclopedia Britannica. There is an "ethnic groups" secion inside the France article, and this is what Britannica writes in it: "The French are, paradoxically, strongly conscious of belonging to a single nation, but they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge. " [62] Hardouin 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Britannica is explaining regional diversity which exists even with the English, Germans etc. Encyclopedia Americana, has a people section and relates the origins of the French people as well. Check them out and then check out CIA Factbook and the Universal Almanac. They both describe the French people as well. Sorry, but your contention is still not accurate to contend that there are no indigenous French people. Tombseye 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. The above item from encyclopedia Britannica about the French is still under the group of "ethnic groups". The statement itself is speaking of the indigenous people of France and if they are "strongly conscious of a single nation", it is fair to say there are a people or group of related peoples who are responsible for creating French culture, language and identity and which form the original inhabitants of the nation we call France. Epf 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article in a minimal form, stating someting like "The French are strongly conscious of belonging to a single nation, but they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge." and giving a list of related links, like Demographics of France, Francophonie, French diaspora... We do not have any decent source indicating that the "French people" form an ethnic group. The sentence "they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge" seems quite convincing to me that it is not the case. olivier 12:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep I agree to a degree with this approach however the segment from encyclopedia Britannica is only one example from one encyclopedia. We need more information and more valid sources when discussing ethnic French. The sentence "they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge" doesn not however claim there aren't indigenous ethnic French peoples of France which are responsible for the language, culture and identity. The reason why this debate has been so difficult with ethnic French is mainly because the government of France has a ban on collecting data on ethnic groups and religion and has sought an assimilation policy which clearly has failed (hence the recent riots). This article must be kept to decipher between those French citizens which are immigrants or descended from immigrants and the indigenous peoples which have inhabited the area since the time of the creation of the French nation by Charlegmagne (and even before). 69.157.109.6 13:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to publish your original research on the current sociological situation in France or the ethnic origins of those living in France prior to the 19th century. Neither is it the place to publish your opinions on recent events in France.
I'm asking over and over again for things that are verifiable, theses, explanations and categorizations that are found in reputable sources. David.Monniaux 13:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Taken from another discussion:

  • Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder (from WP:NPOV).
  • Delete It is clearly a case of original research based on any scholarly publication. Pyb 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That is questionable considering the page is a combination of edits from various people. "Original research" is a difficult to describe the whole of the article. (Please read the comment by Jimmy Wales). In any case, to delete the article entirely is not the answer. Epf 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' quote, put here by user Epf, actually leads to delete the article, because if we are to follow what most people believe, then most French people do not believe in a "French ethnicity". In all my life, I have met thousands of French people, and I can't think of anyone who would describe themselves as ethnic French (compare this with the Kurds or the Koreans who certainly describe themselves in ethnic terms). French people certainly feel a strong sense of belonging to the French nation, but this nation is not based on ethnic criteria. Olivier and David, ever met a French person thinking of him/herself as "ethnic French"? Hardouin 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion from your own personal experiences and I have to say the French people I have talked to have always spoken about belonging to a larger French nation that has origins in France dating back many centuries. Whether they say "ethnic French" (Francais de souche) or not, they're clearly speaking of a people with ancestors in France going back to the very beginnings of the nation around the time of the death of Charlemagne (814 ad.), widely considered the father of the French nation. Epf 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Charlemagne the father of the French nation? This whole thing is getting more and more POV. Hardouin 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
More and more POV ? Charlemagne is widely considered the father of the French and German nations. Maybe you should read a little more into the history of France, the Franks and of Europe for that matter. After his death and the partitioning of his empire, the kindgdoms would be the foundations for France and the Holy Roman Empire (Austria and Germany). Hardouin, your comments on this will be largely ignored anyway due to your cultural/ethnic nihilist POV and multi-racial ideological goals. I told you before how this has become widely known amongst several Wikipedians. Epf 15:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like White supremacist talk. 193.55.96.31 16:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it's not white supremacist talk and you shouldn't make such a nasty accusation. The term "white" doesn't really have bearing in Europe since there are distinct peoples and cultures. "White" as you put it or "caucasian" can refer to all people with some origins to Europe, North Africa and Eurasia in a sense.
I am discussing with Hardouin the protection of an indigenous culture and people. Nothing wrong with multi-culturalism as long as it doesn't negatively affect the native people and culture. I'm merely stating that Hardouin sometimes comes across as supporting "bad" multi-culturalism in the sense of destroying a native people and culture. Epf 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that all this ethnicist talk and this editorializing on French current events (riots etc) makes me suspect that this editor has an agenda of pushing personal political opinions onto Wikipedia. Nilhilist POV?
Again, Wikipedia is not a device for your opinions. Wikipedia can print the significant opinions of identifiable groups of people. It is not a device for writing a few wikipedians' theory on ethnic groups, violence in foreign countries, or whatever. David.Monniaux 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a clear understanding that there is no ethnicist intent here, but an attempt to identify indigenous people of various regions in the world. If we delete the French, then are the Native Americans, Berbers, and Japanese people next? The article is merely pointing out the traits of a French people who are diverse yes. I think a more fair compromise would be to re-write the article so as to point out differing views on the French rather than deleting the article altogether. There is no actual original research here as much of the information is simply being reiterated almost verbatim from other sources, including encyclopedias. The majority of references define the French from their Celtic, Roman, and Germanic backgrounds. Why is this wrong to state or even inaccurate or original research if other articles, books about France (Insight Guides: France defines French people this way), already explain what French people means and entails within the context of an indigenous population. Surely there is room for compromise rather than wholesale deletion. Tombseye 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is in the whole "ethnic group" series in the english wikipedia, a series which does not exist in other languages such as the french. The problem is that no clear definition of "people" has been given from which to work on. The French argue that they cannot be defined by racial origin because this goes against the ideology of the French state. At the same time, the French do exist on many levels: they exist on a "de souche" level, on a cultural level and on a citizenship level. It would be difficult to ignore any of the 3 in classifying the French people. But we shouldnt jumble up the definitions in writing this page. I propose to divide the French people page in sections. Starting from the most restrictive definition of what it is to be French going to the the largest.

One starts with the French as an ethnic group...talk about their origins etc... (Franks,celts, Romans whatever...)

Then the French as a cultural and linguistic community which would include Belgians, Swiss, Quebecois etc...

The another section should give the "republican" definition of what it means to be French. (here we include Zidane and Sarkozy)

The issue of the Spanish people is more complicated, as there are racial, linguistic, cultural and political divides within the state aswell as the problem of the Spanish in Latin America and the deep connection with this region. The defintion of what it means to be Spanish must also be multiple: Spanish as members of the state; as members of the dominant castillian culture, or simply as Spanish citizens in an increasingly multiethnic spanish society; ,as part of the cultural, ethnical or linguistic community shared by Spain and Latin America...

--Burgas00 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal point for putting this page for deletion has nothing to do with the ideology of the French state, but with the anachronisms that litter this article. Actually, the ideology of the French state in the 19th century was that the ancestors of the French were the Gauls and the French are directly descended from them, and this article somehow seems to be written solely from this point of view, which is now generally considered ridiculous. David.Monniaux 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. We have many articles on nationalities, completely independent of whether there is a corresponding state. This is exactly as valid an article as Serbs. This is in accord with WikiProject:Ethnic groups, which gives a very broad definition covering tribes, ethnic groups, and nationalities. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the messages above? As I have already explained, there are peoples who define themselves in ethnic terms, such as Germans, Kurds, Koreans, Japanese, etc., and it makes sense to have ethnic articles about these peoples, but there are other peoples, such as French, Spaniards, Swiss, etc., who do not define themselves in ethnic terms, but whose nations were formed around statehood, and so for these peoples it makes no sense to have ethnic articles. Hardouin 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hardouin, have YOU read any of the messages in this discussion other than your own ? Who are you to decide who is defined in ethnic terms or not ? OBVIOUSLY the Swiss aren't defined in ethnic terms because their country is at a crossroads of three different cultures and ethnic groups (German, French and Italian). It does make very good sense to have an article on ethnic French because as I've stated before, who do you think formed to create the indigenous people of France and created the culture, language and French identity ? The indigenous ethnic French people , even though the designation of these people hasn't been as readily discussed as other groups to which you have pointd out, doesn't mean that their ethnicity/nation doesn't exist. The fact you compare this with Spaniards is ridiculous. Ethnic Spanish obviously comprise of the closely-related indigenous ethnic groups of Spain although it does need to be divided into the major peoples which came from there in the Galicians, Catalans and Castilians. The fact still remains, they are the indigenous ethnic people of Spain who have diaspora around the globe and, just as with the ethnic French (the indigenous peoples who created the langues d'oil and langues d'oc), need to be differentiated from those who are immigrants and of immigrant descent. One of the main reasons why this has been so difficult is the ban by the French government on collecting data of ethnic and religous groups. Epf 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Change the definition One of the problems with this article is its title: "French people" or "Frenchmen" typically refers to "French citizens", whatever their ethnic background may be. The article attempts to redefine what "French people" means by defining them as an "ethnic group", which is debatable. The CIA World factbook [63] defines "Frenchmen" as "French citizens" and does not mention a "French" ethnic group. It gives the following information:

  • Nationality: noun: Frenchman(men), Frenchwoman(women); adjective: French
  • Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities

No REFERENCE has yet has been cited yet refering to the "French people" as en ethnic group. olivier 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this confused mess, with the caveat that this is not endorsing the concept of slapping a G4 speedy on any proper recreation of the topic. Stifle 09:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
keepI agree with jmabel. I don't really see where the problem is...Olivier: you just cited a reference yourself! tthe CIA factbook claims a majority of French people (as in those who are not of immigrant extraction) are of Celtic and latin origin. From this we can deduce that the French ethnic group has been traditionally of this origin, even though the notion of "French people" has evolved into that of citizenship.... as it has in the rest of western Europe. Olivier, there are ethnic Serbians with Croatian nationality, but this hasent hampered the existence of a Croatian people page!!! This whole debate makes no sense to me...--Burgas00 11:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not see "Ethnic groups: French" in the example of the reference that I have mentioned above, but rather a list of ethnic groups to which French people belong. And again this list does not include "French". olivier 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal research. But an article called, for example, History of French citizenship could be interesting, if it doesn't already exist. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't have anything to do with simply French citizenship or nationality, it has to do with the indigenous peoples of France. Epf 16:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Then how do you say somone is French ? what was used in this article to say there are 85 to 90 million French ? This is only a point of view, impossible to check. GôTô 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Data from various census figures used in Canada, the US, France and other countries listed in the article could be used. No ethnic data is collected by the French government but is collected by independent organizations which can be found on the web. Other information on people of French descent and these communites around the world, whether in France, the Americas, etc. can also be found. Someone's nationality and citizenship is different than someone's ethnic origins. Epf 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Links to the resources you are mentioning would be helpful to support your argument. olivier 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Your commentary will not change anything. I say what I think about this article. it's enough for me. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article requires significant cleanup and proper references to those numbers of ethnic French and descendants of ethnic French around the world. However, complete deletion is NOT the answer. If the article is deleted, it will be more than an outrage and injustice to any ethnic French reader of Wikipedia. I strongly urge this article be kept, but undergo a proper cleanup. 69.157.109.6 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See lines above GôTô 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete French people, an ethnic group ! Arf Alvaro 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Kassus 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete FoeNyx 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Med 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Excellent parody though ;-) Jmfayard 19:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and major rewrite This article would be fine if it was rewritten properly. --nihon 19:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and if there were a vote I'd vote to remove the rest of the X people articles as well. Angus McLellan 19:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but I deleted from the article all the nonsense about French-speaking Swiss being French. David.Monniaux was correctly suspecting. :-) Marc Mongenet 19:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, several of the French-speaking Swiss are of French origin, espcially as their is no "ethnic Swiss". 69.157.109.6 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed in terms of the French-speaking Swiss who are descendants of the Burgundian invaders which adopted Gallo-Roman culture, this link will help: [64]
  • Delete. For those who compare with other articles about people (like Serbs, Bulgarians, etc), they have to know that French do not define themselves like they do. This article is then original work. --NeuCeu 19:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This proposal to delete is just silly. The subject of the article is valid and necessary. It is up to us to make sure that the content is accurate. Is the propopser, and supporters, seriously trying to say that there is no such thing as French people?--Mais oui! 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We have tons of those: List of ethnic groups ----moyogo 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems the bulk of French wikipedia users are against this page and the rest are in favour.... The section deleted by Marc Mongenet on French Swiss being part of the French people should be restored, in my opinion.
Agreed and it has been restored with a source. Epf 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not sure this article is it, but there seems to me to be some case for what clearly is a separate ethnic group. -Jcbarr 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As I have stated in previous discussions, each ethnic group deserves an article, including the indigenous peoples of France and their diaspora around the globe. 69.157.109.6 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The French are considered an ethnic group whether they like it or not [65]. Moreover, French ethnicity is an ongoing debate in France itself [66]. It would be ridiculous to delete this article. zzuuzz (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. As an Alsatian, I've got nearly nothing in common in term of ethnicity with people coming from the south of France. So french peoples cannot be defined with an ethnic notion. --NeuCeu 23:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, being an Alsation of presumed French nationality, what are your ethnic origins? And if you are descended from ethnic French, do you not admit that your ancestors are indigenous to France and are related to other langue d'oil peoples in France ? It is true the langue d'oc speakers of southern France differ culturally but are they not more related to you than peoples in other countries who are not ethnic French ?. The cultural differences between the langue d'oil ("northern France") and langue d'oc peoples ("southern France") is comparable to that between a German from Saxony and a German from Bavaria, but do they not still constitute to be ethnic Germans ? 69.157.109.6 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Romary 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speaking french does not mean being french. Besides, being french has nothing to do with religion. "The French (...) are an ethnic group"? Really? Look at the picture... Zinédine Zidane: "Algerian Kabyle Berber ethnic origin" (Do you change of ethnic group when you change of country? So logicaly french-canadian are not part of a french ethnic group). This is just nonsense. --Coyau 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly why this article needs to be kept. It is not about merely French citiziens like Zidane or just simply French-speakers, it is talking about the indigenous ethnic French in France and around the world in places such as Quebec. 69.157.109.6 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Just read the article... "it is talking about the indigenous ethnic French" There is not such thing, if you read what is written, so I keep saying this article should be deleted because it is just nonsense. --Coyau 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Check what Encyclopædia Britannica says: "The French are, paradoxically, strongly conscious of belonging to a single nation, but they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge. " [67] 195.93.102.69 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That is one encyclopedia's take on the indigenous peoples of France and even though it doesn't say they are an "ethnic group" in it's own classification, it contradicts itself by saying they are aware of belonging to a single nation. Note that the article also intends to separate itself from those French nationals who are immigrants or of immigrant descent. 69.157.109.6 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems to me that French are not an ethnic group. Khardan 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. I can only agree that this looks like original research, but I'll be happy to change my vote if anyone adds references to the article. Otherwise, while many of the comments on this page are insightful, IMHO most of them are not significant in the context of AfD (but they show that in any case, this article should probably be rewritten, with more discussion happening on the talk page). Schutz 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. French are not an ethnic group. - Almak 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete as well the whole series of articles English people, Welsh people and so on. The first sentence of English people says The English are an ethnic group, therefore, quoting from that article, a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source. This is not consistent with the inclusion of people in the United States claiming an English ancestry. People in the United States claiming an English ancestry and people in the United States claiming a Welsh ancestry are not readily distinguishable. So the content of the English people article does not qualify for an ethnographic article. The same flaw permeates the French people and Welsh people articles. Only the Scots (ethnic group) article, redirecting to Gaels seems to be OK, as it rightly does not include the people in the United States claiming a scot ancestry. Scottish people should be deleted. The discussion in the England#English_identity section is an example of what can be written short of claiming an English ethnicity for people who merely claim an English ancestry. Therefore we could create an English identity in the United States or an English Identity article explaining the facts relevent to this identity everywhere in the world. Likewise we could create a Swiss identity article which could include the facts about American people claiming a Swiss ancestry. --Teofilo talk 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or rewrite completly). I globally agrees with Teofilo. But...oh my god, I'm SO sympathizing with the poor sysop that'll have to try to count the votes. maybe changing to a vote model like this one would be helpful ? (easier to see if some vote more than one time, like the 2 ones Hegesippe spotted below). Darkoneko 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I would like to understand why Epf and 69.157.109.6 ("Keep" votes) and Hardouin ("Delete" vote) have voted several times... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 06:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete..-Padawane 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete aussi (je me permet ce franglicisme, there is so many french people on this page) Archie

[edit] Question

I have one very simple question for people who would like to keep the article:if the "French ethnicity" exists, can you offer a definition of that ethnicity? In particular, could you tell us if you consider a Mr. Neumann from Strasbourg (whose grandparents spoke Alsatian) to be part of that French ethnicity? What about a Ms. Vandervelt from Dunkirk (whose grandparents spoke Western Flemish)? Is she "ethnic French"? What about Mr. Kernoroc'h from Brest (whose grandparents spoke Breton)? And Ms. Etxeberry from Biarritz (whose grandparents spoke Basque)? Mr. Delpech from Toulouse (whose grandparents spoke Occitan)? For the records, Delpech is an Occitan family name whose French equivalent is "Dumont". What about Ms. Spuig from Perpignan (whose grandparents spoke Catalan)? Last but least, what about Mr. Jacob from Lyon, whose French Jewish grandparents converted to Catholicism in 1900? Are these people "ethnic French"? or does your "French ethnicity" only applies to people like Ms. Lambry from Tours, Mr. Villeneuve from Beauvais, and the likes? Hardouin 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin: Firstly, we must agree that all nations and nationalities are, to a degree, imagined and the product of a state legitimizing it's power. States always rewrite history in order to offer a continuity between the present day nation state and the past. You will find this problem in every nation state not just France. In Turkey, many people who consider themselves Turks are actually of Greek, Kurdish or Armenian extraction... but, so what? Should we erase the Turkish people page? The definition of the French people has been as broad as possible: "A PREDOMINANTLY GERMANIC, LATIN AND CELTIC PEOPLE WHO TODAY SHARE THE FRENCH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE." This definition applies to the Bretons, Occitans, Catalans and Alsatians. +Many of these regions are only different because of their proximity to Germany (Alsatians) and Spain (Perpignan and Biarritz). Nationalism and local cultures (except perhaps in Corsica) has also been wiped out by the French Republic to a point that you can hardly speak of an Occitan people or Alsatian people. The word "predominantly" is used so that exceptions like Mr Jacob (Globalization is not particular to France nor to the 21st century) can be allowed. Recent immigration is not included yet, because these groups retain their foreign ethnicity and culture and have not yet been fully assimilated into French culture and society. But I agree that these definitions are temporary and that in 100 years ethnicity will perhaps be meaningless in all western countries, unless mass immigration is countered by an ability of immigrant groups to retain their culture and to create transnational communities with the aid of new technologies. Perhaps, at this point it will be the nation state that will disapear.--Burgas00 14:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Then what about the millions of French people of Italian descent, Spanish descent, Polish descent, Armenian descent, Portuguese descent? Do your ethnicist theories treat them as "ethnically French"? Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of Interior, of Hungarian descent, is he "ethnically French"? What about Mr. Michel Poniatowski, former minister, of Polish descent, is he "ethnically French"? What about French singer Yves Montand, of Italian descent? What about Charles Aznavour, of Armenian descent? Not to mention Mr. Jean-Claude Martinez, one of the leaders of the Front National, who is of Spanish descent. Is Mr. Martinez ethnically French? Jean-Marie Le Pen (of Breton ancestry, by the way) is anxiously waiting for your answer. 81.64.86.210 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't associate me with LePen - I am an immigrant to France. Reminds me of when the FN got through the second round of the elections and the French media accused the "old immigrants" of voting for them because they felt menaced by the "new" immigrants. Si tu comprends pas mes arguments, il faut les relire ou demander à quelqun de te les traduire.--Burgas00 15:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But where does this definition come from ? Schutz 16:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, I think you all need to understand that the Bretons, Occitans (langue d'oc peoples), the original ethnic French (langue d'oil peoples), the Basques and the Catalans of France are all indigenous peoples of France. The Catalans consider themselves as a separate nation, as do the Basques and Bretons, so they are irrelevant to this debate on ethnic French. The langue d'oil peoples are indeed the original ethnic French in a sense since it is their culture and language which dominated and formed the basis for the French nation. The langue d'oc peoples have a distinct language and culture in the south of France but the similarities with the langue d'oil peoples are obvious and the two are more closely related to each other than with any other ethnic groups. The person Hardouin mentions from France with a German last name very well could be of full or partial German descent, being so close to the German border. The same goes for the person with a Flemish last name living near the Belgian border. Hardouin and 81.64.86.210 are putting up a futile case with regards to the list of famous French people of foreign descent (some in the list who also have partial ethnic French descent). They seem to forget the numerous famous French people of ethnic French descent. Of course several countries in Europe have famous people from their nations who are immigrants or of immigrant descent, but that does not mean the whole country is comprised in such a multi-ethnic manner or that an indigenous population doesn't exist (whether or not if it forms the majority). It also appears that you ignore the fact that many of those famous people listed in the discussions above acknowledge their non-ethnic French origins and I know for a fact they realize there are obviously ethnic French peoples in France. The reason why this has been so difficult for people in this discussion (and in general) to realize is because the Government of France itself discourages ethnic identification even if the majority of people still maintain it to at least some degree (hence the survival of languages like Breton and Occitan). This assimilationist model by the government is practically unique within Europe and only after several recent problems and violence have officials started to listen to critics of the policy. Clearly new measures need to be taken, such as for one, the government collecting data on ethnicity and religion which is done by again practically every other European country (and most world nations for that matter).

If this still doesn't clarify something, please go ahead and say so, 69.157.109.6 16:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this for the most part and the article should be revised, not deleted. It really just needs some more sources. Epf 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it deserves to be said this article has a long history (I think any person who has edited the article will agree) of repeated vandalism and random massive deletions. Of the users saying it should be deleted completely, I believe this needs to be taken into account as some random users on Wikipedia have some ignorant/prejudiced views towards the French people. 69.157.109.6 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are getting somewhere... How about keeping the definition of ethnic French and then including a section on immigration, the assimilationist model and its effect on the immigrant community? I have to say aswell, I know Portuguese people inFrance, and even the young ones, who dont even speak the language properly, still feel portuguese...and this ethnic group is one of the most well integrated in France.--Burgas00 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I see there is absolutely no consensus between you guys. Burgas00 says Bretons and Basques are part of the French ethnicity, IP 69.157.109.6 says only langue d'Oil peoples are the real ethnic French. This should be enough to prove to everybody that there is no such thing as a French ethnicity. What there is is a French nation, but it is based on a shared history built around statehood, it is not based on ethnicity, which nobody seems to be able to agree on. Hardouin 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for a concensus on definition. We can explain all the varying perspectives and still retain the page. Obviously, the Basques were a distinct group that has largely been assimilated. This can be mentioned surely. This isn't a question of a French nation, but a discussion about the French people. These two aspects don't have to be identical. There's no point in trying to prove one thing or another as ethnicity is a tricky thing to define. A compromise here would be to explain all the viewpoints and add as much information as possible. One could even mention that for many French the idea of a 'pure' French people is offensive and relates to Le Pen, while also adding that from the perception of people outside of France there is a view of French people that is perhaps not entirely accurate. If we work by combining some of the ideas mentioned on this page, the French people page could be greatly enhanced and be more representative of the differing viewpoints of what constitutes a group. The alternative is to abandon the idea of there being any groups, cultural or otherwise and strictly go by language or personal orientation. Tombseye 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a re-write as Burgas00 suggested could be a solution. We could denote that the French are a diverse group and are changing as we speak etc. The description could retain the origins of the majority of the French people and explain that during the course of its existence, peoples from Germany, Spain, Eastern Europe, etc. have moved to France and assimilated into the culture and are essentially French today. Next, we could add the situation with Maghribi immigrants some of whose descendents have assimilated quite easily (Zidane, Adjani etc.), while there are also tensions etc. Surely this could be considered a fair compromise, while acknowledging that France has been a conduit and a willing recipient and place of refuge for immigrants for centuries and explain that a majority population more indigenous to France also exists and has absorbed these waves of immigrants. Is this a better compromise? Tombseye 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you claim that their is no ethnic French when I just told you the original ethnic French were the langue d'oil peoples. As their nation and culture became the predominant one in France, it absorbed the very similar culture of the langue d'oc peoples. With the creation of the nation of France, other indigenous peoples such as the Basques, Bretons and Catalans came to be included in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Though the French policy was assimilation, these peoples have clearly retained to some degree their language and culture. This however doesn't come to say that the ethnic langue d'oil and langue d'oc peoples don't exist. Yes, France encompasses other ethnic groups (both indigenous and foreign), just as does Spain, England, Germany and many other European states. Again, this does not mean that the indigenous ethnic group which created the foundations of the nation (culturally and linguistically) does not exist. I also don't think Burgas meant to say Bretons and Baques are part of the ethnic French, but are part of the nation of France. 69.157.109.6 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This debate seems to be divided into: 1) the pro and anti camps who honestly want to find a solution to the problem through compromise and debate. 2) the intransigent antis who either i) have just joined the debate and are repeating past arguments or ii) find the idea of "french people" so offensive that no debate is possible.

In any case I think we should focus on what we agree on rather than on what we don't and Tombseye's solution is, in my opinion, on the right track. Another thing, I think that we should distinguish clearly between the French ethnic group and the French citizen. I can be a French citizen, without being an ethnic French, and I will not feel offended. So ethnic French people should not feel offended for me!!:-)--Burgas00 20:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

+the camp of people who think that the article is original research, and believe that this is a criteria for deletion regardless of the debate on French ethnicity. So far, I have not seen anything that indicates that it is not original research (sorry if I missed it in the long debate). Schutz 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This terminology is forbidden by French law because it has no sense: French people are whoever acquired French nationality, based on jus soli, and to date, no scientific way of evaluating a so-called "ethnic French" category have been found (of course, since it's a pseudo-scientifical category)
  • Delete. To be French is to be a citizen of France, hence to have acquired French nationality, based on jus soli. As several French people have underlined here, "French ethnic" expression is an oxymoron for mainstream French Republican conception, as French nationality is not based on "race" but on Ernest Renan's "subjective nationality", opposed to Fichte's "objective nationality". This is simple common knowledge. Now, to scholarly knowledge, French language wasn't talked by 90% of the population living in modern French territory in the 18th century, as did historian Eric Hobsbawm show in Nations and nationalities. See also Benedict Anderson's book on Imagined communities . French people are well aware that many Wikipedia users, including many US citizens, love having "ethnic" categories, defining from which "ethnic ascendency" someone has, and others such things. However, those Wikipedians must take into account that under French law, it is forbidden to make any statistics according to so-called "ethnic" appartenances, for the simple reason that French law does not recognize this concept, which most French people consider a simple racist concept, with no scientific groundworks at all (official institutes such as INED or INSEE never use such a category). Lapaz 18:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. The French nation is based on Renan's idea of nation, i.e. a people bound by a shared history and the will to live together, whereas the German nation is based on Fichte's idea of nation, i.e. a people defined by language and genetic characterisitcs, whether or not they actually live in the same state. Hardouin 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
See also Talk:French people#The reason why there aren't any French official references in this entry: "Ethnic French" is an oxymoron:

French law forbids categorization of French citizens by so-called "ethnic" ascendency, and this at least since Vichy France. The expression - often used in this entry - of Français de souche ("ethnic French") is forbidden from use in official statistics and is never used in census. In fact, it is almost only used by members of the far-right Front National. Henceforth, it will be impossible to find official French references for this article. This therefore justifies the nomination for AfD. "French" is a nationality, not an "ethnic" membership. French nationality law are based on jus soli, and not on racist jus sanguinis, which as no scientific meaning at all (what is all this Nazi blood mythology???).

Further information: Claude Lévi-Strauss, Eric Hobsbawm, and Benedict Anderson. Many French people here have pointed that out, but it seem that the French Republic POV is to be ignored by Wikipedia. We are well aware that in the US, census considers "ethnic membership" and "race" as more or less valid notions. Such is not the case of the French Republic. However, do French people push the official French POV on US pages? Why should we, then, bear from US official POV, which leading intellectuals have refused ? Lapaz 19:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LA PAZ: WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS!!!!!!!--Burgas00 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • REDIRECT. The whole article should be redirected to Demographics of France, which is lot better done and deals with French people. As said over and over (we may have discussed it, but no action has been taken yet), "ethnic French" is an oxymoron which as no scientific meaning. If a debate on the matter is to be engaged, "French people" is not the place to do it. Lapaz 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that most of you are just kidding yourselves. All of your arguments seem to be based on the fact that French means a citizen of the nation of France. I don't doubt that, just as English, German, Italian, American and any other nationality means simply a citizen of the country, regardelss of ethnic origin. To say that the idea of gathering statistics for ethnic origins and race is a "US official POV" is ridiculous since America at first did not adopt the principle of ethnic statistics and mult-culturalism, just as France didn't and still doesn't. Also, France is currently one of the only European countries who does not collect such statistics and its assimilationist views can now be considered unique (and obsolete for that matter if you look at recent events). I don't know how reliable the sources used by Lapaz are in describing the percentage of French speakers in 18th century, but even if the majority didn't speak French, they spoke a very similar language/dialect of the langue d'oil family or the less related langue d'oc family. I also doubt most French people consider the gahtering of ethnic statistics as a "racist" concept without any "scientific groundworks" at all considering again, France is unique in being one of the very few countries that does not gather such statistics. The lack of such statistics from the government would make it difficult to gather the numbers of ethnic French in France, yes, but NGO's have gathered similar data and for most of the countries ethnic French have migrated to outside of France (Canada, US, Argentina,etc.) ethnic data on these populations is readily available.
It must be said that just because the French government policy does not wish to speak of ethnic French, it again does not mean they are not there and I guarantee most ethnic French in France do use the distinction of "français de souche" even if "forbidden" by government law. How do I know this ? Well other than speaking with various French people from France over my time, the ethnic French who live here in the Americas (including Quebecois and Cajuns) don't simply regard themselves as "American/Canadian" and also distinguish themselves from French speaking peoples who are not ethnic French (such as French speaking peoples of African ancestry from Haiti, Martinique, France, etc.). You also make it sound like the French government never has used ethnic statistics to describe people. Obviously you have not read much into French colonial history, especially in the Caribbean, where the French had countless numbers of names and statistics for people of varying degrees of mixed white, black and Amerindian ancestry (eg. Métis), just as the Spanish did.
I have explained already what the distinction of ethnic French (langue d'oil, langue d'oc peoples) entails in my entries above and I know from reading anthropolgical studies, French history and of course experiences with French people this is what the ethnic French are. The nation of France came to include other peoples who were not ethnic French and the government refused to recognize the existence of diverse ethnic groups within the nation. You even said yourself that all the various immigrants and their descendants as well as the Basques, Catalans and Bretons are all considered "French" (i.e. citizens of France) by the government, but does that mean their indivdiual ethnicity doesn't exist ? I don't think so and most people outwith the government of France don't think so either. If this is not the case, then why is it that so many North Africans in France are always referred to as "French, but of Arabic descent" ??? Obviously there is an unacceptable prejudice against people of North African descent in France, but it just goes to show you that the ethnic identities in France are only "non-existing" in the out of date policies of the French government (and in the minds of those French officials who still support it). I guarantee the Bretons, Basques and Catlans and also the non-native ethnic groups in France would hardly consider themselves ethnic French or even "French" for that matter. With this pointed out, obviously there are the peoples who do consider themselves ethnic French (langue d'oil peoples and langue d'oc peoples) since they are the ones who won't deny being called "French" when it calls into question ethnic identity/origin since they are the ones who are respnsible for the creation of the French language, culture and nation. To say otherwise is just ridiculous and most academics in the world and many within France would never deny this fact. Remember, the French language, culture and identity originated from somewhere, and this somewhere is clearly the indigenous peoples of France. If you still disagree and are from France, look at your background and see where your family/ancestors originated from and if the peoples of that country have the same language/culture as which is found in France. What more can be said ?

69.157.109.6 11:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Much less could actually be said. Whichever decisions the French government has made to minimize - or some might say "deny" - racial discrimination has basically nothing to do in this debate. These are, after all, "only" political decisions. Everybody here would most probably agree that people with very diverse ethnic backgrounds are French citizens, and all of them are as such called "French people". And yes, there are ethnic tensions in France, and yes affirmative action is currently being debated in France. Now, whether or not there actually is a group of French citizens (or descendants of French citizens) which could be called "ethnic French" seems to be where the actual debate is focusing. So far, we had many OPINIONS supporting the existence of a French ethnic group and we have been given several times the same personal definition of "francais de souche", but in no case did we have any SOLID REFERENCE (the best we had was a link to a Google search of "ethnic French" returning a meager 587 hits). On the other hand, we have at least 2 sources which are advocating against the mere existence of such an ethnic group (Britannica: "they hardly constitute a unified ethnic group by any scientific gauge" and CIA World factbook not even mentioning "French" in the list of ethnic groups in France, but rather "Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities".). The best conclusion that I can objectively draw at this point is: French people = mostly French speaking people of Celtic and Latin ethnicity. Would you call them an "ethnic group"? Not so sure. At this point, I believe that the article should be rewritten and mention these various POINTS OF VIEW with supporting sources. olivier 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of you guys are asking for sources to proove that the French are an ethnic group. This is just an idea but, dosent the existence of French people, people with a French heritage and origin, outside the borders of France (Quebec, Chile, North Africa, Switzerland) prove that one can be part of the French ethnicity without being a French citizen? These guys dont have French nationality so all the arguments about ius soli are not applicable! So one must only reverse the argument to argue that there are people in France, who have French nationality, are full citizens but are not ethnic French. Its as easy as that! Like Zidane who is a French citizen and is an ethnic Kabyle.

Anyways, the existence of ethnic French outside of France (you can find sources for this...) is enough to prove that there is such thing as a French ethnicity which is unrelated to French citizenship. Voila!--Burgas00 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And following my line of thought I have found a source on the CIA worldfactbook site:

-) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/an.html (ethnic French in Andorra, as there are in many other countries!!! --Burgas00 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this debate should be ended and we should take the page off the "articles for deletion", all of us who have really thought this over agree that the page should be kept. The debate should continue on how it should be modified and presented.

  • Although the CIA world Fact Book only says "Celtic, Latin and Teutonic", if you look at the page for Ireland it also says "Celtic and English". Obviously it is clarifying that the "Celtic/Latin/Teutonic" resembles the indigenous ethnic French just as the Celtic and English (from Anglo-Normans settling in the "Pale" during the middle ages) resemble the ethnic Irish under the ethnic groups heading. Another way to show my point, is how under ethnic groups for France "Celtic, Latin and Teutonic" is separate from "North African, Slavic, Indochinese, Basque minorities". 69.157.109.6 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons cited clearly original research.Ariele 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination is absurd, we have a number equivalent articles for other peoples. The article needs a clean-up / re-write. Brendanfox 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Olivier's post above is correct. The focus of the debate is of course on the expression "Français de souche", (badly) translated as "ethnic French" ("souche" refers to "roots"). And the reason of our argument may be (surely) a big difference of conception on what does "ethnics" means, especially refering to something called the "Republic", which doesn't categorize people according to their group or collectivity, but as individual. It may be a good or bad idea, and I would be the last one to deny that discrimination is very real in France, as in Anglophone countries, and that affirmative action is well worthy of thinking about (for the least). However, if a link to fr:Nationalité française here was made, it was so that those of you who speak French but aren't can read what French Wiki writes on French nationality. You folks must be aware that by creating a page legitiming the term "Français de souche", you are playing on the far-right Front National's side - no citation need about it being far-right!!! or you know absolutely nothing about France... :) - Therefore, I suggest again that this page be REDIRECTED to Demographics of France, which is exactly the subject we're talking about! In this page, you may put whatever controversy they're is to the usage of the term "ethnic French" in French statistics -- demography being the only way to speak "scientifically" about demos (i.e. "people" !)... Redirected, or MERGED TO... Lapaz 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
>"we have a number equivalent articles for other peoples" : this is partly wrong. There are no Californian people, Texan people, Floridian people, Vermont people, Massachusetts people, New York people, Manitoba people, Mexican people, Argentinian people, Brazilian people, Australian people, New Zealander people articles. The view that European states should elect for this kind of treatment, while American states could remain unbothered is not NPOV. --Teofilo talk 12:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. But there is still one truth holding : a Dupont has more chances of being considered to belong to the French ethnic group than a Sarkozy. France is a Republic of many ethnic groups, citizens don't have to belong to a specific ethnic group, but they still do, and people are aware of that. ---moyogo 14:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess Lapaz wants to be politically correct and that he feels uncomfortable with the term "ethnic French" because some French extremist parties believe that French citizenship should only be granted to ethnic French. I understand and share his concern. But one cannot over react in such a hysterical way to these racists by denying that the French people ever existed. After all, whether they did or they didnt is inconsequential in modern day France. In my opinion you are just playing into the hands of the FN with this intransigence: Their discourse won't be based on sources proving the existence of the French people, but on the menace of those who are attempting to deny its existence and thus "destroying the nation".--81.37.18.88 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, same as with other ethnic groups.  Grue  14:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete GL 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
First sentence of the Ethnicity entry: "An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source." There is no way of "readily distinguishing" an "ethnic French" from a "non-ethnic French with French nationality" (sic). "Traits originationg from a common racial": "races" do not exist. "National": France is less than two centuries old, known as it is now. Same goes for nationalism. "Linguistic": you will say "langue d'oïl" & "langue d'oc": those languages are several centuries old. Today, everybody speaks French. On the contrary of (Spanish) Catalunya, in France, "occitan" more or less completely disappeared with the 20th century (a revival movement was created in the 1960-70s, with low impact compared to Spain). And finally, "religious", well, I'm sure you'll understand this one without me... Conclusion: your definition of an "ethnic French" is contradicted by the first sentence of the "ethnics" entry... Lapaz 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your recent entries make one want to laugh Lapaz. Ethnicities can also a share similar origin as is described in the [Ethnic groups] article as well as cultural traits and traditions passed down through the generations. Even without these, your claims of ethnic traits that the indigenous French do not possess have no factual basis with the possible exception of religion. - Race: The idea of races is currently very much in debate even though the majority of the world's people acknowledge the existence of such a thing. Whether or not a "race" exists, biolgical differences (as proven by modern genetics and physical anthropology )between different populations and ethnic groups do, even if the traits are not unique to that population/ethnic group alone. - National: Obviously there was a consensus of an ethnic French nation at one point otherwise the country would have a different name than "France" and the language and culture would not be French. As I have said on the discussion page, the French nation is not 200 years old and most academics would laugh at any such claim. The French republic is over 200 years old now but the majority of historians trace the beginnings of the French nation to the death of Charlemagne in 814 AD. The idea of the nation being a "modern invention" is refuted by the majority of academics and by people as a whole for that matter.- Language: Although practically all citizens of France can speak French, various other French dialects and langues d'oil exist which are rarely spoken by non-indigenous French peoples. As for the langues d'oc, it is currently estimated by the Ethnologue that there are 2 million speakers (600,000 native) and therfore hardly disappeared at any point in this century (although under pressure from the langues d'oil and English). Finally, - Religion: indeed under government policy there is no state religion for the nation of France ever since the dissolution of the monarchy. However, the predominant religion of ethnic French outside of France, for example in Quebec, remains to this day Roman Catholicism ([68]) and according to statistics (eg. CIA World Fact Book) this is also the case with the ethnic French (langue d'oil, langue d'oc peoples) in France with a minority of Protestants and Islamic, Buddhist, etc. converts. (There are also large numbers of French Huguenot descendants outside of France which are largely Protestant)

69.157.109.6 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article shows what happens when people tries to write articles about topics they don't know much about.
I see the following weaknesses in this one :
  • Defining French people as an ehtnic group is a mistake. This article could be about people living in France but at this point, it's not. It's written about some imaginary ethnic group of people living in France. But, French people have really different origins : France, but also Italy, Poland, Spain, North Africa, Cameroon, ... . So, there is no unicity of religion, culture, etc.
  • Then comes the next problem. Let's assume that French people are the people who are supposed to be the original French (before immigration). The big problem with this approach is that you have to come back to the beginning of the XXst century while French weren't a single ethnic group but severals (Brittany, ....). So, even the people originally from France aren't a single ethnic group.
  • There is no (real) French diaspora as Italian, Polish, Jewish diasporas, simply because France hasn't really been a land of emigration (but immigration) in the XXth century. So, when this article quotes 16,000,000 French people in USA, 4 000 000 in South America, it's kind of stupid because those guys don't have links with France anymore (the major part have been emigrated between the 17th and 19th century).
To sum up, the concept of French people doesn't exist so it would be better to delete this article. Some information can be put in Demographics of France, or in article about French citizens, People living in France.Poppypetty 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. The nomination (based on a vandalized version) was withdrawn. utcursch | talk 09:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangalore IT.COM

Sad, if true, but wikipedia is not the side of a milk carton MNewnham 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as obviously unencyclopedic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:26Z
  • Delete - per nom. - GaneshkT/C\@ 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Keep after vandal reverts. The domain has changed to bangaloreit.in. Do they still call the show Bangalore IT.COM? Should be move this? - GaneshkT/C\@ 13:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. utcursch | talk 05:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 08:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is a highly notable IT exhibition in Bangalore regarded as the IT capital of India. It is run by the government of Karnataka nad all the top IT companies of the world particpate in it. 24,400 hits on google + it has been held for at least the last 4 years. and Comment I can understand the afd for the current text, but just look at the history, especially [69]. Agreed, it is a sub-stub, but it can definitely be expanded from there. I will have a go at it tomorrow after reverting it to the version I cited, retaining the afd tag. --Gurubrahma 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. AfD nomination was obviously based on a recently vandalized version. Vandalism cleaned up. Lukas 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ahh! missed the vandalism, article needs improving though. nomination withdraw MNewnham 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yiddish cup

If you're here because of a request from an external website:

Please understand that this is not a vote; it is a discussion. Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this article from being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

Supposed phrase definition, but I don't buy it -- may also be an attack related to YTMND. Google finds a few hundred hits, most for the Yiddish Cup Klezmer Band. Delete. bikeable (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: flooded with outside votes from wikijews.ytmnd.com/. silsor 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - is related to YTMND war, probably soon to become a popular word on the internet. Tokakeke 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I find that taking this off would be caving in to the unfair policy that ebaums has. wikipedia has plenty of other pointless entries, why delete this one and not others. KEEP
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.238.144 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2006
This user has never edited previous to this afd -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "probably soon to become a popular word on the internet". Check back when it has in fact become popular. Until then, delete. DES (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This phrase as a YTMND fad should be moved to the article about YTMND fads. The original meaning of the word is probably the domain of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. DELETE
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.40.34 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 January 2006
  • Keep This article has relevance, although it should be expanded wih more information on the origins of the phrase, as it can only be atributed to Neil Bauman at present as he is unlikely to be aware of the band 'Yiddish Cup' and if he was then he would be even more unlikely to use it in the way that he did (ie. its like someone saying "You've obviously lost your Led Zepplin" when they dont actually mean that one has misplaced a piece of music by the afformentioned band.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.93.54 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2006
This user has never edited previous to this afd -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment The phrase is usually pronounced with a Yiddish accent, and is actually usually spelled www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22yiddisha+kop%22&btnG=Search yiddisha kop or www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22yiddishe+kop%22&spell=1 yidishe kop. The current page unfortunately is nothing more than an attack page and should be Speedy deleted as such. If anyone wanted to make a page actually dedicated to the Yiddish phrase, they would have to have enough material to make it worthy on wikipedia, otherwise they should go to wiktionary. -- Bachrach44 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was speedied a few minutes ago, but has since been recreated. Since we are in the middle of an AfD, much as I agree with Bachrach44, I think it's better to finish out the AfD process. I've reinstated the afd notice. bikeable (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Usually a sd takes precedence over an afd, but since in this case there's actually an argument in the afd (not unanimous), I can see your point and will go along with the afd. --Bachrach44 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was very useful, many people (including myself) have been wonding what that comment meant. Now I know.[Tlaxcatl] 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.170.25 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 January 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yiddish_cup&diff=next&oldid=34820602
This user has never edited previous to this afd -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Someone speedydeleted this even though there was a holdup tag on it (i placed it). I have recreated the article, making it NPOV and "attack-free", which is why it was deleted in the first place. Tokakeke 23:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I also came here to find out what a Yiddish Cup is. I see no good reason to delete it, it is useful. --71.134.232.56 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This user has never edited previous to this afd -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge just to clarify, if the page is about a yiddish phrase, then the title is wrong (see my previous comment), and it should be moved. If the page is about the YTMND fad, then it should just be added to the List of YTMND fads, and deleted. Also, I fail to see how this ebaum/YTMND war is at all notable. Since it started I've seen a lot of trolls creating attack pages when doing RC patrol, and frankly this is just another one of them. Wikipedia is not a message board, and this "war" should be faught elsewhere. --Bachrach44 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it would be useful to have an entry on the expression "yiddishe kop" explaining what it means, and maybe having "Yiddish Cup" redirect to it, so the YTMND crowd that looks it up will learn the expression. Its popularization from the YTMND-ebaums war is trivial, and should not be included (except maybe on the YTMND fads page). But if the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, this is an opportunity. 128.12.32.214 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This user has only 1 edit previous to this afd -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom, not notable, too YTMND-centric Zig 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with condition - Keep it only if the article is expanded to feature more information about the original idiomatic phrase (history, usage, meaning, etc). --82.52.180.185 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above IP has only edited to the article in debate
--Olpus 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Olpus changed the anon signature to his username. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yiddish_cup&diff=next&oldid=34839769
  • I agree with the nom and DESiegel. Delete it. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn phrase. --Pboyd04 05:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge The term has no real relevance outside the YTMND community. I agree with Bachrach44, should belong to the List of YTMND fads, and not much else (and to clarify, I am part of the YTMND community) --Brian Callahan 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the above user only edit -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist for vote in 6 motnhs' time, when it will either be notable or the dust under so many feet. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Err, that's not how it works. When something isn't encyclopedic, we don't warehouse it and hope for the best. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and all. Deletion (in its current form) isn't permanent so if in six months it becomes notable then it can be restored via WP:DRV. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand and Verify or Transwiki to Wikctionary and Verify People from one of those websites are obviously going to search for it, and we'd liket them to find it here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was wondering what it ment exactly and this article helped Johhny-turbo 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- It is not only of importance with the YTMND-eBaums war, but is a phrase that deserves more publicity. Kevomatic 12:54 13 January 2006
The above user has less than 10 edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DES. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without reservation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (And I am aware of the whole YTMND business.) We are not here to decide what "deserves publicity" or "might become popular" either, as Wikipedia is not a primary source. Finally, the argument "this article could be useful" is not an argument. Lots of things can be useful and still not belong in an encyclopedia. This whole business is meshugge. JRM • Talk 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and when we delete this, redirect to Yiddish words and phrases used by English speakers, which should have been done in the first place, but never mind. JRM • Talk 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree for the redirect in Wiktionary. --82.50.176.160 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
--Olpus 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous ip 82.50.176.160 changedd his signature to user Olpus, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yiddish_cup&diff=next&oldid=35089280 -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to YTMND or Keep 24.126.217.68 10:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) <- this is me FranksValli 06:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I didn't know what this meant until i looked it up here.
  • Keep - Same here, I do not understand a community that would delete something because people want it included for clarifcation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromage707 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 January 2006
This is the only edit from that new account -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This phrase is relevant to the Ebaums vs Ytmnd war, and will most probably get visitors. - Discombobulatortalk 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masugn

Not-notable, little known band. Rehevkor 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Swedish Wikipedia has an article of the same name, by the way, but on a wholly different topic. Johnleemk | Talk 07:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker-Authority.com

Blatant advertising/spam for a commercial, online gambling website.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable website. Not a gambling site itself but a directory of gambling websites. No alexa rank, no google rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 22:25Z
  • Delete, as per above. Blatant spam article which has more to do with the logistics of the game rather than the website itself. gtdp (talk)(contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatant spam, also written in first-person. Rhobite 03:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. Stifle 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garden Of Concrete

Not-notable, little known band. Rehevkor 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Garrett Development, Inc.

Does not seem to meet notability standards set out in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). No references or sources provided, and no readily meaningful Google results appear. [70]-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply - This article was my first shot at creating a Wiki entry. I have added a number of links to articles about NGDI or on topics which refer to the company directly. As I have stated, this is a company which gained its reputation without the use of the internet. Although, they have been in business for 25 years, there was not a website devoted to the organization until 2005. Consequently NGDI has not left a very substantial footprint on the web and searching only returns minor entries several pages into the results. Because of numerous stories devoted to the organization in local and regional newspapers and magazines, I believe Nick Garrett Development, Inc., and the subsequent bio of its CEO Charles Nick Garrett, Jr. meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). It is also important to note that Wikipedia's Notability guideline is not a policy, and what may be notable to me, could mean nothing to another.Yater 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reserved I encourage User:Yater 77@yahoo.com to read the Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and proceed from there and consider requesting a user name move to something more manageable - User:Yater is available, for example. --Alf melmac 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Userfication is also allowed. Stifle 09:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Nick Garrett, Jr.

Non-notable bio for founder and CEO of apparently non-notable corporation (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Garrett_Development,_Inc.).-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This seems like a borderline case. . .He has been featured on the cover of a local magazine, which is a reasonable basis for a claim to notability. My problem is that this feel like vanity. Perhaps the creator can shed some light. . .is he the subject or related to the subject? Neutral for now. TMS63112 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Should it matter whether he was on the cover of a magazine or not? Is the claim of notability even a real issue? (It's a Guideline not a Policy) To answer the question, I am not related to the subject, though I do know him. Should that even matter? If I wanted to put up an article on my grandfather's story of being 18 yrs old in Europe at the end of WWII, who most wikipedians would aggree does not meet the Notability requirement, who is to say that it is not a worthwhile entry? After reading Jimmy Wale's personal appeal for donations to Wikipedia, where he suggests the purpose of Wiki is "to freely share clear, factual, unbiased information...", I think we can all make the world a better place if we just step back and please don't bite the newcomers. Yater 06:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Although WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, it has pretty wide acceptance and is regularly used as a criteria on AfD. It is my primary criteria when participating in AfD discussions. One problem with inlcuding non-notable people is that the information is hard to verify. Also, it can be difficult to write about someone you are related to from a neutral point of view (hence the vanity guildeline). A lot of people try to use wiki to advertise their companies and that is not what wikipedia is about. I can see how this discussion would feel like biting a newcomer to you. That is certainly not what we intend to do. Please don't take it personally, and continue to contribute! TMS63112 16:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Stifle 09:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aladin

See the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin.

Non notable bio, no references have been substantiated. Not verifiable Ragib 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's only five days since the first nomination concluded with a keep vote, so I think this may be a speedy keep. David | Talk 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete current content, and make Redirect to Aladdin: I had voted keep in the last AfD, but that decision rested on information that has been shown to be unsubstantiated. So, delete the current content, and redirect to Aladdin (disambiguation), as common misspelling for the more common spelling. --Ragib 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to vote in order to redirect something, and in fact deleting and then redirecting makes no sense, because after it's deleted there's nothing to redirect. Just redirect it to begin with and avoid this whole mess. Deleting also erases all talkpage comments = not good, as the fraudulent claims and edits should be saved and accessible for future reference. DreamGuy 00:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This arose out of an interesting situation. There was a disputed redirect on this article (see Talk:Aladin#Improper redirection). I contend that since a redirect is a "normal edit", not a deletion, there's no reason in the world to use Afd if the desired result is a redirect. My "vote" is speedy keep and edit the article normally. If there's talk page consensus for a redirect, that can be achieved without use of Afd. Friday (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN and redirect per Ragib--Ezeu 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aladin was a cabinet adviser: [71], that’s been verified. He is a magician. I also think that he’s more “well known” by people from Indian/Bangladesh from the people I’ve asked. Some (not all) of the original quotes of the original article claims can be verified by e-mailing the authors of the books/ magazines. He’s also had a FamilyTechShow USA Radio interview, which has been verified at the article. However, there are a lot of the previous claims that were made during the last nomination for deletion that have been difficult to verify and this should taken into consideration when voting. Overall, I feel that all information that is now present in the article is verifiable, whether this is enough for an article is up for interpretation. My overall feeling is that aladin is not overly notable but is more notable than a lot of the inclusions in wikipedia. I urge everybody who votes to look at the facts and make up their own minds, whatever that may be. Englishrose 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He was a member of "Cultural Strategy Group for London", but thats about it. That group deserves an article, and he should be mentioned there. --Ezeu 00:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but, being a minor cabinet adviser by itself isn't notable. Emailing the authors of books/magazines isn't verifiable, that's original research, and since the books/magazines mentioning him aren't notable to begin with, even if their claims of his existence can be verified, we have no idea if these claims come from mere copying from press releases and no indication that mention there means the person is notable. We would need REAL sources to establish notability, and the only sources so far claimed have been fraudulent (like the Inside Magic claim, which actually said they never heard of the guy and not all the wonderful praise that was there), unreliable and unverifiable. DreamGuy 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete or Redirect, as Ragib suggested. Take a look at the history to see that there are major concerns of sockpuppetry [72]: Every few weeks, somebody switched to a new alias to promote this person: From Magicsucks to Themeat, then Thegirlinwhite, Selfpublicitysucks (indeed!), the list goes on and on. Truly a non-notable entry that tries to misuse the wikipedia project for self-promotion. Peter S. 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Relisting this article at this time makes a complete mess out of it. You do not need to have a vote to delete in order to redirect something, never have. Now we have people voting for total delete, delete but then make a new one to redirect, keep because they like the article, keep but then redirect... It's impossible to sort it all out, as the keep- redirects and delete-redirects have almost the same function but get counted separately. What could have been handled by a simnple concensus of editors is now all over the place due to this relisting. I think that this vote should be ended with a speedy keep with the proviso that the article then be turned into a redirect. Redirecting the article preserves the talk page comments, and really, those need to be saved so that if someone tries to recreate the article or the editors involved go sockpuppeting elsewhere, that we can track them. Deleting the article only to recreate it and redirect erases all that valuable information. I would imagine anyone voting delete here would, if their delete vote doesn't come through or the vote is canceled, much prefer a redirect of the article than a keep, and when the votes are counted I hope the fallback positions are kept in mind instead of anyone falsely interpreting speedy keep + redirect as a regular old keep vote or delete votes as being against a redirect. DreamGuy 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nonverifiable. Article's author(s) went lengths to stuff the article (now stripped) with wealth of nonvewrifiable claims, also presented in a misleading way. For example, the main notability argument was that he had a feature artile in The Times, while in fact (and I corrected it) it was a certain The Saturday Times Magazine (if it was at all). Information about his descent is contradictory in different published places. Mukadderat 03:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. We just went through this. And the reference I placed was correct, Aladin was featured in the Times magazine in a profile by Lisa Brinkworth. This can be confirmed at the Times archives [73] or here if the search has expired [74]. Claiming the Times did not print the story and changing the reference to fit the claim is very misleading-- JJay 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Confusing indeed. The article snippet you suggested starts with "Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals. Now, as official magician for ...". But according to the london.gov press release, his name is Eenasul Fateh. So, the link you have found there is NOT the person in question here. Thanks. --Ragib 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The important part is "professionally known as Aladin". It's the same guy. The rest of the Times article spells his name as Aladin. -- JJay 08:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that's not correct. Unless the article shows, or any other reference proves that Eenasul Fateh uses Alaudin Ahmed as a pseudonym, or vice versa, we can't assume that both persons are the same. It is very much possible that Mr. Alaudin Ahmed uses "Aladin", a shortening of his actual name, as his stage name. Besides, I don't see any reason why Eenasul Fateh, son of Abul Fateh would use the name Alaudin Ahmed, a completely different name. Please provide a reference that shows these two names belong to the same person. Thanks. --Ragib 08:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I find it extremely suspicious that aladin's website it its brag page carefully snipped the name out of the quotation. Mukadderat 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I perceive no verification for this entry -- unless verified (stringently, in view of above allegations of sock-puppetry) delete with prejudice -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my thoughts at Talk:List of magicians and my tirade at User talk:Peter S.. -- Krash 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • At the very least, get rid of the picture and pull specious references to him out of actual articles whereby a casual reader might otherwise be falsely assured that Aladin is a notable/famous/respected magician. -- Krash 16:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert to this version. (Redirect.) -- Krash 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Aladdin (disambiguation), this guy is completely nn but its a common enough misspelling of the boy with the lamp and the lamp company, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete currently unverifiable. Stifle 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boi the movie

A not-yet-made indie film with its own myspace page, lack of notability trumps crystal-balliness of article MNewnham 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete personality

Original research. Delete. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Delete looks like an attempt at advertising, previously contained an email link and a direct address to "readers". Unsourced OR. DES (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:54Z
  • Delete - original article was attempt at advertising. With removal of advertising link it just makes no sense. LeContexte 08:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 09:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Bush

Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy, but IMO does not qualify, as several claims of notability are made. May be a hoax, some of the claims sound implausible. In any case they are unsourced. Even if true, the notability assertd is IMO rather marginal. Delete unless relaible sources are cited that establish sufficient notability. DES (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arjun Kumar

  • Delete, not notable. This is a research assistant at Columbia university who published a few peer-reviewed papers. He's just a kid applying to med school, according to his undergraduate mentor's website [75]. Semiconscious · talk 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:50Z
  • Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 05:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as NN. --Bhadani 08:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as NN per nom. --Gurubrahma 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio and per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GBU-32

Very little here. The edit history suggests that an editor started this and never got any further before being indefinitely blocked. The "reminder - re-check data" comment in the edit history suggests that what is here might not be reliable, hence delete CLW 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: GBU-31 and GBU-36 are in a similar state. GBU-37 is good enough for a stub. There are many articles about these bombs et al, many of them quite good: [76]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:44Z
  • Expand then Keep. These seem like they would be easily verifiable (for example [77]). Since the other GBU articles are good I think there would be enough contributors to work on it. I'd say get the attention of those people and then give it some time before deleting it. If consensus does not agree with that I would say Redirect to Joint Direct Attack Munition. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:47Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Jimfbleak per CSD:A7. Stifle 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading Rage

This is simply about an amateur soccer team. Rob 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Racist

This page is about a non-notable sketch a non-notable Israeli comedian routinely performs. It should be noted that the comedian in question's article is a redirect to the sketch. Delete Firestorm 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:35Z
  • Speedy delete. Lukas 11:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the article's own eloquent testimony to the subject's anonymity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. — WCityMike (T | C) 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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


The Amazing Racist is a relevent topic and should not be deleted. (Personal attack removed) It's just comedy, so get over it.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buckyjunk

Neologism, 2 relevant google hits MNewnham 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balls Deep Incorporated

Non-notable society -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redir to Millennium. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Mistake

Information already stated in 3rd millenium. Not worthy of a seperate article. Aleron235 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mashdot

Non-notable website. (A SlashClone :) Alexa rank of 3,500,000. Google rank of 0. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:29Z

Delete, informal writing style, just sounds like a plug. --Liface 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Light delete. Mashdot is an example of a trend, or evidence of a trend, that is notable - but is not in itself notable. The author(s) of this article would do better to go and improve the general articles on Journal club or Evidence-based medicine. Hugh2414 08:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pressing the no. 1 spam button, starts with the site name as a weblink. Further investigation reveals little of note. Sorry, chaps, good idea, but not yet over the threshold. Comment above is sound, more input on medical subjects is always needed, but please remember not to linkspam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 40 Google hits. Johnleemk | Talk 07:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Tribute and a Claim

Not an encylopedia entry, possibly transwikify to wikisource if not copyrighted. AnAn | Talk 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as source text. Transwiki if not copyrighted; not sure of copyright status. Written 1946 by D.D. Sheehan. Project Gutenberg has another work by him but not this one. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:59Z
  • Delete possible transwiki as above, but article is not encyclopaedic. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is GFDL-compatible then transwiki to Wikisource; delete from here in any case. Stifle 09:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/update - this page has now been transwikified [78]. AnAn 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for sure now. BD2412 T 19:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blade777's world

Very nn website, maybe a little vanity on it. Only 5 Googles, all from the same site. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but, we should- i beleive- have information on as many things as possible, also it has 1455 visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by crazyfurf (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Quarl. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 09:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanispamcruft garbage -Drdisque 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. --Muchness 04:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koopatorivm and Kaptain H

  • Not notable. Rmhermen 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. Online Alexa online rank of online 1,000,000. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 00:04Z
  • Comment: Kaptain H was speedily deleted by Enochlau per CSD:A7. Stifle 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the website as utterly non-notable. Stifle 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory-literature

It was tagged for speedy, which I didn't think was appropriate. The reason was: "just a heap of facts, covered in other topic areas, no pages link to this article". No vote. enochlau (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; article looks really empty when reading; no trace of "theory-literature" on the web. Schutz 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Dfinitely not a speedy but needs references. The term does seem to exist e.g. [79] Dlyons493 Talk 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism / original research. Term is not in use in English in this way. Lukas 11:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. original research.Obina 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, among other things. Stifle 09:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redbb

Vanity page. Delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. Schutz 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 09:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Becker

Non-notable vanity page. Delete Atrian 23:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, non-notable. Schutz 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy -- JamesTeterenko 06:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. --Ezeu 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it states that he is world-famous, we probably cannot apply CSD:A7 (which relates only to biographies without any claim of notability). However, it is probably spurious, and the article is unverified, so delete. I won't contest an administrator's decision to ignore all rules and speedily delete it anyway, though. Stifle 09:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Tatro

This was tagged with nn-bio, but I'm unsure whether it would be appropriate to speedily delete it. No vote. enochlau (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd vote keep if he ran for mayor, or something similar, but city controler does not seem notable. Schutz 00:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Schutz. Stifle 09:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Schutz. Also note that he gets less than 150 Google hits. I would not mind merging and redirecting this to an article on the city council, though. Most (2/3rds?) of the content would be relevant there, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Admrboltz as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 09:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Siby

Vanity article. Delete Atrian 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete; clearly vanity. Schutz 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H. Kramer and Company

It was marked for db-attack. I think it has NPOV issues, but it's not an attack page I don't think. No vote. enochlau (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Needs cleanup, but deserves an article (assuming content is correct). Schutz 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Err, WP:V isn't "someone else's" responsibility. Do your best to check the facts yourself, eh? Looking at this and this and several like it, looks good enough to me. Keep and cleanup. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Cleaned up, wikified, added references, removed POV. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as cleaned up now. Lukas 11:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not an attack page, perhaps still has POV issues. Keep. Stifle 09:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue's News

Article about a website, does not seem particularly notable to me but I'd rather ask for other opinions (I originally tagged it for speedy deletion). Delete Schutz 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, I am glad I asked, changed to Keep. Schutz 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very old, very notable gaming news website. In the late 90s this was the best place to go for gaming news. Rhobite 02:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Easily in the top 5 for Video Game news. --Wrathchild (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable web site. Thunderbrand 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal Magazine

It was marked for speedy deletion with no reason given. Moving to AfD. No vote. enochlau (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Was going to vote "keep" first, thinking it was a real magazine, but it is a blog. Schutz 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "online magazine", i.e. blog, as above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 09:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocabu

Non-notable "religion" some guy made up. 109 google hits, mostly his own forums posts. Delete.-Halidecyphon 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. And many of the 103 (YMMV) hits don't seem to have anything to do with him. Schutz 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lukas 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as utterly non-notable, and unverifiable to boot. Stifle 09:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete this article. I personally have been to the Temple of Sugarloaf Drive and I must say he's for real and so is this group. Just because you all aren't open to new things doesn't mean they aren't valid. -- Unsigned comment by User:67.155.163.250

No, but it means they're not encyclopedic. Have a look at WP:NOT if you like. And please sign your comments, it's only polite. -Halidecyphon 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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