Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 16 January 18 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Takashi Hasegawa

Who is this guy? Seems like a fairly regular programmer. The cable he apparently helped invent seems pretty minor. Google doesn't love this guy either Deiz 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, but if he helped to invent something maybe merge it (if we have an article about it). --King of All the Franks 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep His MLVWM turns up 19,000+ hits despite being one of the worst acronyms I've ever seen. The 10 Gigabit Ethernet Media Converter seems to be less notable, but he is credited in the documentation, and seems to be worth mentioning. 1 and a half noteworthy things is enough to warrant a wiki page in my book. --Bachrach44 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By virtue of being a computer program it gets google hits.. the program seems to be aimed at the Japanese market (otherwise it would have a help file in English, for example) and the linked page above was created in 1998 and last edited in 2001. Not notable. --Deiz 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • What does any of this have to do with notability? Age of a project shouldn't matter to an encyclopedia. Nor country of origin. - Jaysus Chris 23:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • 1. Project was shortlived with no lasting relevance 2. Country of Origin doesn't necessarily matter but international appeal would certainly help assert notability. Deiz 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep. His notability is too borderline to justify deletion.--ragesoss 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete MLVWM already has an article, and there is no distinguishing stuff here... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • However, he's done more than just MLVWM. Is he had, I would say merge, but since he has done other stuff, which can't go on the MLVWM page, it needs its own page. I admit that the "other things" are borderline which is why I'm keeping my original vote at "weak keep", but I don't htink he can be plainly merged into MLVWM. --Bachrach44 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The only other thing here besides MLVWM is the "10 Gigabit Ethernet Media Converter" which is just something your everyday "engineer" does - for example, do you think the person who helped make one of the USB-to-PS2 converters would be here? WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WhiteNight. —gorgan_almighty 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's a programmer. Good for him. Can I write an article for my plumber now? -R. fiend 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Has your plumber contributed something notable to his field? Then go ahead. See my comment below. - Jaysus Chris 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Bachrach44 - N (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per BachRach44 -- Eddie 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • People, seriously. Ever looked at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)? And have you looked at the article?? A very short bio on a Japanese guy who wrote some source code for a mac app when he was a student in 1998 and collaborated on some kind of cable. Notable? BachRach, fair do's for defending the little guys but is this Wikipedia or The Online Mega Web Directory of Absolutely Everything in the Whole World Ever? You know the answer. If the things he created are notable then they should mention who created them. And my final word on the subject, this is from my talk page by the author of the article: "Thanks for the link to the guide on Notable subjects. For whatever it is worth, I agree with (and support) your arguments for the article's deletion. Cheers. Folajimi". --Deiz 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We list tons of reporters for simply doing "everyday" reporter things (just an example). This guy's actually done something notable, what's the problem with keeping him? - Jaysus Chris 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete miscelleneous techie. His major contribution to the field, which he co-created with four other people according to the article, doesn't even have an article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, an invention including small ones is quite notable for an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong 11:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. Stifle 14:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Agamemnon2 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article, but maybe keep MLVWM. Just because the invention is notable doesn't make the inventor notable. Peyna 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for a comprehensive encyclopedia. Kappa 08:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. Maustrauser 08:54, 22 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 non-notable advertising --M@thwiz2020 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIMPLY SOFTWARE NZ LIMITED

This company is "in the final stages of formation" - but it needs to come back when it passes WP:CORP or perhaps WP:WEB. I'm sure Yellowikis will host its page though. Kappa 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Why should that matter? Wikipedia is available to anyone to create articles at any stage so it can then be built upon. SuperRobot5000 (User has 7 edits, all on this article, user page, and Wikipedia Introduction.Tokakeke) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That does not mean anyone can create an article about anything they want and consider it notable enough to be kept. The article is NPOV and advertising, regardless.Speedy Delete, or Delete Tokakeke 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe it will be notable after its created, but there's no indication on the page that it's notable now. --Thunk 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely non-notable, doesn't come close to passing WP:CORP (it's not even real yet). I find SuperRobot5000's argument completely flawed as that is, simply put, not the standard that wikipedia holds itself to. --Bachrach44 01:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:15Z
  • Delete The website isn't even up yet. Anyway, the pagename is wrong. And, as argued above, we dont have proof that this thing exists (no google hits) --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Now I know what happens when two people edit a page at the same time. This company needs to exist, and reflect WP:CORP, or it has no business with it's own Wikipedia article (no pun intended). Captain Jackson 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable.--ragesoss 04:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable advertising. SycthosTalk 04:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, advert is not a speedy category (sadly), and neither is vanispamcruftisement, which is what this is. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Pure intentional ad spam. Should have been speedy from the beginning. Admins should not be afraid to speedy stuff like this whenever they see it. —gorgan_almighty 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Try standing for adminship with that on your platform and see how far you get :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL per comment. I think this should have been speedied immediately, saves a lot of time. Tokakeke 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement because even Kappa doesn't like it. Besides Yellowikis will host anything. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:18, Jan. 17, 2006
  • Delete as an advertisement for an (as of yet) non-notable company. JIP | Talk 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Kappa. <sm>Wow, I just typed that!<sm> Barno 20:11, 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 Speedy Delete. Vanity, nn club. Madchester 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaptercheats

Least notable forum ever. ~~ N (t/c) 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Not true, we've had articles about forums with 50 members. But delete. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well myself and the other moderators have been contributing to this.

    I mean, it has 6,000 members now, how can you say that it is least notable, and also you want to delete its wiki? 6,000 members with no advertising, I think the forum is doing quite fine with that kind of back-up.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinCheung (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete I once had a forum with a whopping 13 members. howcheng {chat} 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only is this an awful article, it's a non-notable webpage. Tokakeke 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment As much as I hate to say it, they are a forum with over 5000 members. That being said, it sppears that WP:WEB no longer uses that as a basis for notability, which is why I have no vote for now. (Except to say that if kept, the article is not very encclopedic and needs some work). --Bachrach44 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable web forum. 6,000 members but only 22,353 total posts -- less than 4 each. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:18Z
  • Delete as non-notable.--ragesoss 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity club. This page explains the rules of the forum. It belongs on the forum, not Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if this forum was notable, you couldn't tell it from the completely pointless article. Hint to ANYONE wanting to write an article on a forum: WE DO NOT CARE WHAT YOUR USER LEVELS ARE. WE DO NOT CARE WHO YOUR MODERATORS ARE. WE DO NOT CARE WHAT YOUR RULES ARE. WE DO NOT CARE WHO BANNINATED WHOM FOR POSTING TUBGIRL WHEN. We care about *what you talk about on your forum* and *why people should care that you talk about it.* Thank you and have a nice day. FCYTravis 06:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok..try looking at every other forum wiki you jackass and you will soon find a recurring pattern. Moderators are part of a forum, so it would be useful if they were included. It is obvious that you wikipedians are a bunch of uptight fools, just looking for ways to damn other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.102.90 (talk • contribs)
    Lots of articles on forums here suck, and I've been on a mission to clean them up. FCYTravis 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Best nomination ever. OhnoitsJamie 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 22,543 posts is due to mass-pruning of posts which is carried out periodically, every 3 -6 months.
  • Speedy Delete as per Sycthos. Vanity ad spam pure and simple. And I somehow doubt that KevinCheung is an admin with only 13 edits! —gorgan_almighty 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per FCYTravis. --Terence Ong 14:44, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kid emo

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but non-notable comic is not a CSD. The given reason by Sputnikcccp was "non-notable. (the comic is cute though)". No vote. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Speedy delete would have been useful but since it's not a valid CSD, delete using AfD seconded. Tokakeke 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable webcomic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:19Z
  • Delete as non-notable.--ragesoss 04:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity advertising. SycthosTalk 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable comic and the link is only a comic strip from photobucket.com.--Dakota ~ ε 10:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I didn't know nn webcomic strips are encyclopedic. --Terence Ong 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. -- Dragonfiend 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The way the article says the comic's author's surname is "withheld for privacy reasons" is a dead giveaway that the article's author is, or is a personal friend of, the comic's author. A clear case of webcomic vanity. JIP | Talk 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nn. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:33, 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 speedy delete by Cnwb (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Jaworski

This article is a joke. I doubt anything in here is acurate, and if it is, we can't confirm it with our any external or internal links. This one is a clear Delete Tobyk777 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no joke here. I don't know anyone who finds someone's birthday and place to be funny. Your comment looks more like a prewritten request for deletion that could be used with any article. Paulwithap
  • Delete non-notable, no references. Maybe not a joke in that it's a real person, but a without further evidence seems a pure vanity article. JRawle 00:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per JRawle. Sango123 (talk) 00:58, 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 as per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Tomczyk

This is listed on WP:CP as a copyvio, but the site is inaccessible, so I can't verify it. Regardless, it's just a resumé (C.V.) so it's unencyclopedic as is. I'm don't even think he qualifies under WP:BIO anyway. howcheng {chat} 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic resume posting, appears to fail WP:BIO. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would support a speedy A7 delete. -- Saberwyn
  • Speedy Delete --Deiz 01:06, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feth

A fictional swear word from the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, in particular the Gaunts Ghosts series of novels. All that needs to be said about the swear word is located at List of fictional curse words#F.

I'd wealky support mentioning it in the Gaunts Ghosts article, or in the Tanith section of the History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), with a wikilink to the abovementioned list of curse words, but don't think the article really needs to be here, and have trouble seeing where it would serve as an appropriate redirect. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • weak keep. The article will be useful for the few people who actual care about the topic; it is slightly more useful than just the entry on the list.--ragesoss 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • When "Battlestar Galactica"'s Frack/Frak and "Star Wars"'s Sithspawn get articles, I'd consider it. Anyway, at the moment, the article says, in a really 'wordy' way, almost exactly what the entry in the list says, with the addition that the series is part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. -- Saberwyn
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a fan site for any specific topic. This article belongs in a fan site wiki. SycthosTalk 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect to List of fictional expletives per JIP. SycthosTalk 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Saberwyn and Sycthos --Qirex 05:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per sycthos WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I play 40K, and there is no way this is notable enough for its own article. Perhaps worth a brief mention in Gaunts Ghosts, but no redirect. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: not enough content to justify its own article. Turnstep 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of fictional expletives. JIP | Talk 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete from main space per nomination. -- Eddie 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This should be deleted, full stop, not just form the mainspace. NSLE (T+C) 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it, full stop. --Terence Ong 11:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of fictional expletives. Points users in the right direction without wasting their time over a not really notable word. --Pak21 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. fancruft Incognito 02:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Incognito. --Agamemnon2 12:29, 19 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 Karmafist 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth About Ebonics

Irredeemably POV screed. The title itself is enough to indicate the contents are not likely to be neutral. Nohat 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete POV. --Revolución (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. Captain Jackson 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV fork. Endomion 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. --Thunk 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hard to see how it can be salvaged from POV-dom. Crunch 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork --Bachrach44 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - utter POV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV,original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:22Z
  • Delete. Might have merit despite atrociousness if it describe a specific argument put forward by specific people, but as it is it has nothing worth saving.--ragesoss 04:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV, copied from [1]. Dbtfz 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as blatant copyright infringement per Ragesoss. Possibly offensive POV article. SycthosTalk 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV --CopperMurdoch 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for being a biased and unuseful fork Tuf-Kat 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research and POV fork. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitnews.co.uk

speedy deleted as non-noatable, but WP:CSD A7 does not extend to websites, so i have undelted and listed here. Notablity not clearly establsihed by the articel as it stands, so Delete unless notability established by verifiable sources. DES (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable website. No Google rank. Traffic Rank for unitnews.co.uk: 810,508 . —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:22Z
  • Delete unless notability can be established.--ragesoss 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. SycthosTalk 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Incognito 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not just fancruft and non-verifiability that are of concern here. Another reason is given here. --JB Adder | Talk 13:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination, fancruft. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Acyso 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only verified by the site itself --TimPope 22:41, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Form

This article, oddly named and rather barren, is rather redundant with list of sovereign states, where numerous variants of country names are listed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, made redundant per nomination, Unlikely serach term to justify redirect. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge to exonym. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:23Z
  • Delete as per nom --Deiz 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dbtfz 04:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as repetition. SycthosTalk 05:06, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wordnet.Net

Does not meet WP:WEB. Google finds 7 links to it, and the alexa rank is in excess of five million. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:24Z
  • Delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Dbtfz 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity advertising. SycthosTalk 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert Incognito 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Wordnet. —gorgan_almighty 14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Wordnet, remove advert language. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - WordNet.Net is only 6 months old so there are few google links. It is an open source resource used by developers and researchers. WordWeb is allowed to stay (linked from WordNet) and WordWeb is freeware/commercial ware, so shouldn't WordNet.Net as an open source project be allowed to stay? WordNet.Net is also linked by Princeton's WordNet project in their related links ebswift
    • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please taka a moment to read WP:WEB to get an idea of which websites are and are not listed here. Also note, WP:NOT describes that Wikipedia is not, among other things, a web page directory. Whether or not something is open source has no bearing on whether it merits an article. It's nothing personal, it's just a guideline being used to keep this an encyclopedia. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 22:00, 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 thank God the lunatic mentality of "keep all schools" didn't rear its head - delete! Johnleemk | Talk 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genius Home Collegiate School

This article remains completely unverified. At the last AFD (which was "no consensus") some felt there hadn't been enough opportunity for verification. Some votes were conditioned on verifiability. All agree verification is required. So, hopefully there will be consensus this time. I am hoping we can keep the discussion to the topic of verifiability, as that's something everybody agrees is required (no point in a rehash of the usual school debate). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius home collegiate school for the last discussion. I do apologize for another renomination, and will try not to renom in the near future, as they are something of a pain. Rob 02:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Just as I voted the last time, Not verifiable, NN. --Ragib 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Piedras grandes 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's probably not necessary, but I'll recap the history, and issues:
    • The article was created on September 3, 2005
    • The article was first AFD'd on January 3, 2006. This was also the first day is was tagged as "unverified", making some feel there was no proper attempt at verification. However, there's been ample time since then.
    • Only two sources exist to show the school exists: the school's own web site, which is a free web host; and a couple job adds like this, on a site which anybody can make an add themselves.
    • The school's own web site gives contradictory info on what grades they teach. It's not clear if they teach up to grade or eight, or wish to do so.
    • The creator of the article has a user name, that's remarkably similiar to own of the school's owners names, suggesting self promotion.
    • The creator of the article was asked two weeks ago to provide verification, and has not responded.
    • Finally, there is not even a claim this school is licensed, and could be a fly-by-night operation. There's no truly independent verificaiton of existence. --Rob 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertisement/not verifiable/not notable. Can't believe this survived the first vote. Kafziel 03:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mind you, wasn't that during the whole crazy "All schools are, by the fact that a group of us say so, totally, utterly, extremely, Pokemon-level notable, and if you disagree with us we'll murder you in your sleep" phase? Delete as externally unverifiable and potential hoax. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is not verified, is self promotion, and fails WP:SCH to boot.Gateman1997 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was just going to nominate this myself... is not varafiable WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable article. SycthosTalk 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the existence of the school can be verified. WP:V trumps WP:N and WP:SCHOOL any day. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 09:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and previous reasoning. --Malthusian (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unverified vs. unverifiable. Possible hoax. Ifnord 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see how this can be considered unverifiable. The article states: "Genius Home Collegiate School is a website that claims to be for a school which opened in 2005 in the Mirpur-10 Senpara Parbota Area of Dhaka, Bangladesh.". If you go to the website linked, you can see for yourself that that is indeed exactly what it claims to be. Now, as to whether or not that claim is correct is open to question--however, the article does not make the claim that the website's claim is correct; it simply states that the website makes that claim. Kurt Weber 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article isn't about a school; it's about a website that claims to be for a school. There's a difference. Please get your facts straight. Kurt Weber 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In which case, wouldn't this then fall under the realm of the WP:WEB guidelines, which it would also appear to fail?. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Everything that exists is worthy of inclusion; everything for which verifiable information is present should have an article. It's clear that this website exists; it's also clear that verifiable information about the website is available (all you have to do is go to the website itself); therefore, it should have an article. Kurt Weber 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Would you then support putting all their claims about themselves back in, so long as it was still qualified with "They claim" (or to be more accurate, "someone claiming to be on the staff of this self-proclaimed school claims")? Because an article that does nothing but repeat the subject's claims about itself is called an 'advert'. --Malthusian (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I certainly would, and your last sentence is incorrect. It is only an advertisement if it is done with the purpose of promoting the subject--the key thing here being "purpose". Kurt Weber 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • No doubt they're accidentally promoting themselves. So we have an article, which once we've pared away the non-verifiable, simply repeats what's on a webpage -- meaning that the article is a webpage repeating another webpage. Congratulations, you've once again mistaken the map for the territory:
              • In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography - "On Exactitude in Science" by Jorge Luis Borges --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host_or_webspace_provider WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No one's claiming otherwise. Kurt Weber 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this falls under WP:WEB as they are claiming to be a school originally, someone modified it to the current wording. And even if it is falling under WP:WEB it still fails that as it's Alexa ranking is non-existant and it gets less then 5 Google hits. I could easily replicate their site and claim my bedroom is a school... but that doesn't mean that it is. Also I would take issue that "Everything that exists is worthy of inclusion". If that were the case my jockstrap would be worthy... which is obviously isn't in any credible encyclopedia.Gateman1997 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a school article, not a web site article. Let's keep in mind the original version. Now, a couple editors (including me) removed as much unverifiable information as was possible. This wasn't done to save the article, but to avoid wantonly/knowingly spreading misinformation. I'm frankly a little PO'd that my good-faith attempt to avoid lies being spread, has been twisted into attempts to keep this article. This was actually used to justify the last "no consensus (keep)" result. Editors should be able to remove unverified claims, without it causing bogus articles to be kept. Core policy of Wikipedia demands this article be deleted. --Rob 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually if we. were to be bold we could pretty much blank the article because none of it is verifiable.Gateman1997 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No-brainer. Kill it. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may or may not be some pupils in rural Bangladesh happily unaware of this AFD, but in any case, their school is unsatisfactorily googleable.--Ezeu 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this smells like a promotional page for something that may not exist. Home school or something less than described? Who knows. David D. (Talk) 07:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable outside their own website. Stifle 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The rule is to keep verifiable articles about educational institutions, and unfortunately this subject does not pass that bar. Would support the recreation of this article if a verifiable source can be located at a later time. Silensor 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete After listing for substantial time, fails WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools delete due to the near-impossibility of covering from a WP:NPOV - either it'll be an advert for an unaccredited school or a kick in the teeth for the place. It's not like we need to keep its seat warm or anythign, let's wait until it's been around for a while and see if it gets accredited. Or closes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as last time --kingboyk 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. With due respect to all who have taken great pain to read the page or visited the school site and put their comments to keep or delete. I'll not put any request. However, I'd like to add that whatever was written in the school page was true - no less, no more. It's true that the school is not famous or very old. However, the school committee is trying to develop it as a low cost sustainable model for better education to the local cummunity. The school is not set to make big money. Besides academic activities, the school have successfully arranged several rounds of polio imunization and health check-ups for students and all the members of their families (all free of charge) and several fairs in its second year. This has been appreciated by all the people living in the community. In recognition to this, this school was placed in record by Prothom Alo, the most popular daily in Bangladesh, as one of the mentinable institutes of Mirpur, Dhaka (please see Prothom Alo [2], in Noksha, 25 July 2006). I'm really sorry if I have done a big upset to wikipedia. I'd rather suggest other renowned schools of Bangladesh to come forward and put information about their institutions. 09:07, 04 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "spring cleaning"

Non-encyclopedic. Andrew Levine 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, if this can be verified. Needs NPOV, new article Spring Cleaning (no quotes) and some general editing to conform to wikipedia standards. Jawz 03:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I totally agree with Jawz. - Tony 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this gets cleaned up. Right now it's really not encyclopedic, and just defining what the phrase means might be more of a job for wiktionary anyway. --W.marsh 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep; it's in awful shape, but it has content that could be useful if better packaged.--ragesoss 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to new name per Jawz. Content is atrocious, but it's a legitimate entry. Dbtfz 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but needs drastic Cleanup and Rename to Spring cleaning. SycthosTalk 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing preventing anyone from creating Spring cleaning. I don't see what the need to keep the article with the title in quotations is, those are routinely deleted. --W.marsh 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:34Z
  • Delete or transwiki to wiktionary without the quotes. This will never become an encyclopedia entry. Zunaid 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable custom, can be expanded to discuss range and origins. Kappa 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Spring cleaning and keep with (spring) cleanup tag -- Astrokey44|talk 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable annual event, per Jawz. Essexmutant 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Spring cleaning as per Astrokey44, then wikify, stubify and cleanup. —gorgan_almighty 14:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason given to delete a good article. -- JJay 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as Spring cleaning. Has the potential to be an interesting article. Zagalejo 16:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Spring cleaning. A clearly notable term. JIP | Talk 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Spring cleaning, then enhance (as per Sycthos). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as redirected. Close AfD. Ifnord 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: As there has been delete votes, a speedy keep is not possible. Stifle 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing more can really come of the article than a dicdef. I suspect once this article gets a good spring cleaning of its own, it will become more obvious that this is the case. Peyna 03:41, 22 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 14:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Anti-Game Game (game)

Is this nonsense? Does this actually exist? Andrew Levine 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Searching it Google four different ways produces less than 40 hits each time. Not notable. Anti-keep. Delete. Jawz 03:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Something I posted on GameFAQs as a bit of a joke on their temporary fad obsession with The Game (game). An individual who saw the topic decided to create this. It's unnecessary, get rid of it. Delete. Shadowlynk 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable parody of The Game. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:16Z
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. SycthosTalk 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Incognito 05:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. —gorgan_almighty 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to The Game of Anti-Game Game (game). Oh...wait...I mean delete. -R. fiend 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and quickly, before someone comes up with The Anti-Anti Game Game. JIP | Talk 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above reasoning. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Game (game), causing a logical conflict and mutual annihilation. Too dangerous: Delete instead, per Shadowlynk. Barno 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No merge, no redirect. Ifnord 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete. I enjoy the complicated (anti-)logic, but only in small doses. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle 14:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as complete bollocks and per WP:NFT. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While The Game (game) is relateively well-known, this one seems made up and not widely known at all. Unless verification emerges, then Delete. --W.marsh 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's my "verification" of it being complete and utter invented crap of my own that really doesn't need this page. Probably gonna disappear in a day or two, but for now it'll at least verify my story in the earlier bullet point. Seriously, this hasn't been deleted yet? Shadowlynk 07:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is this even up for debate anymore, just delete and spare us from this yet another dazzling example that fetid morass of retarded thought known as Internet "culture". --Agamemnon2 12:34, 19 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. Admrboltz (T | C) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwayna's kiss

nn move in online game. Possibly add a mention in the main Guild Wars article Hirudo 03:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we merged one move into Guild Wars, we'd have to list them all. Think of the poor readers. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 03:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. One central article for such skill information would be acceptable.--ragesoss 04:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:17Z
  • Delete as vanity. SycthosTalk 05:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into one central article for such skill information. Kappa 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way too little information to merge into anything. JIP | Talk 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as devoid of context. Tagged as such. Ifnord 22:22, 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 speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Flaming Angel

nn singer. Nearly all hits I could find are referring to the opera by that name instead. Hirudo 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn, not listed on allmusic.com, no prominent google hits. Dbtfz 04:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:18Z
  • Delete. NN. Cnwb 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete tagges as nn-bio, tempted to delete it but in the end AfD is in process so I'll vote instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:23, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew L. McBride

J. Random Candidate is not notable. James Howard (talk/web) 03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; per nom. I also should have noted article was written by subject of article. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Removed "vote for me" language from the article. In general I'd like to see candidates included, but could not find anything on google. Many local papers have poor web presence, so this doesn't mean his campaign hasn't been covered, only that it's not online. I can't vote to keep without some evidence that he's legitimate. - Jaysus Chris 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2006 Maryland House of Delegates election, 31st District and add similar info on opponents. Also see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Mwalcoff. See WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. Stifle 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Charles Matthews 09:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Candidates for State Legislature are not generally notable. Also see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates TMS63112 20:17, 20 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 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requiem (film)

Article (somewhat) about a movie yet to be released. Delete as not yet noteable. --InShaneee 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Transwiki dicdef if there's anything salvageable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:29Z
  • Delete as unverifiable. Probably not notable. —gorgan_almighty 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless you are planning to AfD all of these too. I don't really see how this is different to any of the other upcoming films we have articles for. - N (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. IMDB indicates it's already been shown at a Bavarian film festival, has won an award, and is set for general release on March 2. Article should be expanded by someone who can read the German-language media reports, not deleted. Monicasdude 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, fairly obvious that production is complete. Can claim notability.Bjones 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Film is complete, by notable director, about a notable incident, and will actually be released in less than two months (see [3]). Kusma (討論) 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think covering upcoming films is okay so long as we include only sourced speculation or details. This looks okay, although it would be good to know who's "announced" it. James James 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is verifiable enough for me [4]. Now if it were saying "rumor is this movie is being planned..." then yeah, crystal ball issues. But many "upcoming events" are based on announced facts, not backroom speculation, and this is one of those cases. Nice cleanup Nzd. --W.marsh 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. It'll definitely deserve an article when the film comes out, so deleting it now and readding it later on would be a bit silly. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, notable, what else can I say? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 12:36, 19 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 14:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiens Sans Frontiers

non notable, the only google hit is THIS ARTICLE, dead blog - 404 - blogcruft/spam Timecop 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Of course I saw those - but the problem is that they only really mentioned that the blog "played a part" in the thing - there is no way to expand the article from this now that it is dead and there is little varification in other places. Maybe it should be merged the tsunami page with just a one-line such as it played a part etc.? WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Hosterweis 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merge with Blog-- Astrokey44|talk 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's notability was temporary. Edgar181
  • Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and not notable due to external link no longer existing. —gorgan_almighty 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unnotable and moribund. Eusebeus 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as functionally unverifiable from reliable sources, and likely to remain so as apparently defunct. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete utter rubish. And no cookies for Splash for reinfesting wikipedia with this. --Doc ask? 11:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Stifle 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per JzG. Cptchipjew 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unnotable Aigis 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it existsDelete, no longer exists! Even the extreme inclusionists have no leg to stand on. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:18, Jan. 19, 2006
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Proto t c 12:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. *drew 05:18, 20 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 conditional and slight merges indicate overall lack of notability; other keep comment indicates temporal notability, which shouldn't be the case for an encyclopedia article; only delete voter makes loads of sense => delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Fellows

Bio of non-notable. Though he is candidate for governor of California, Google News search has zero hits. Only a few Google hits - for sites listing candidates names. WP:NOT for self-promotion/advertising/campaigning. —ERcheck @ 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably not a good idea as all the other names in that article are links to other articles. —gorgan_almighty 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & Cleanup. If he's a candidate for Governor of California then he's notable, at least until the elections are over. Remove NN content (there is a lot) then stubify. —gorgan_almighty 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional merge. If this guy meets the signature or deposit requirements to get on the November ballot, he should have his own (cleaned-up) article. If he's running as a write-in, he deserves only a mention on California gubernatorial election, 2006. -- Mwalcoff 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Independent candidates for Governor of California need only 150 signatures or $3,500 to get on the ballot. Being able to do that does not make you worthy of an encyclopedia article. Peyna 03:51, 22 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. Punkmorten 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squirel

Mispelling of the word for Squirrel. Almost an exact copy of the Squirrel page, sans photographs. Includes one erroneous link to a picture of a squirrel monkey. Delete Atrian 04:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Squirrel. SycthosTalk 04:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Squirrel. Dbtfz 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect (or delete and redirect) to Squirrel. Thezevster (talk • contribs)'s only contribution is this copy-paste to a typo. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:28Z
  • Redirect. Google returns lots of hits so it must be the correct spelling of Squirrel in some country. I see someone has already changed it to a #REDIRECT, but you need to remove the AfD notice in order for the redirect to work. —gorgan_almighty 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect per above --Bachrach44 15:42, 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; page was already deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven, I'm just cleaning up this AfD. Peyna 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Bishil

Non notable. She's 17. She's appeared on one soap opera. Come on. Not notable in the least. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Couldn't this have been speedied? TheRingess 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope, because the original version referred to notable roles, which is an obvious claim of notability. Disputed claims must go to AFD. --Rob 05:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable for now. — TheKMantalk 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Dbtfz 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable biography. I don't think age is relevant, but I agree that one or two unnamed uncredited soap opera appearances is nothign. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:25Z
  • Delete. MAN SHE'S HOT!!!. Not notable though. :( —gorgan_almighty 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is probably ad spam by the agency that employs her. Should probably keep an eye on the user who created the article. —gorgan_almighty 15:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Everything is possible, but one should be cautious about such a charge. The user you accused, tried, unsuccesfully to upload an image they took from imdb. Now, her agency has a good quality image of her, which they could easily have used, and would wish to use. They wouldn't need to take one from imdb (who have protection that causes the resulting image to be corrupt, see Image:Summer.gif). After all, its probably the agency that supplied imdb. If the agency "got it right" for imdb, they would get it right here. We can and should delete things that don't qualify, without ascribing motives. --Rob 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Closing admin, don't forget to delete the picture too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 14:37, 18 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 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScriptCrawler

nn site, alexa rank 1,668,255. reads like an ad Hirudo 05:10, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be Jenna

Delete - nn video game (if it even exists). Can't find any reference to it on the web. Dbtfz 05:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to BJAODN, then Delete. SycthosTalk 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable/non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:33Z
  • Just copied this to BJAODN. Dbtfz 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. Sounds like an interesting idea, but it's not notable. Daniel Case 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly a hoax. JIP | Talk 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Incognito 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense made-up game. I wouldn't have sent it to BJAODN even because it wasn't very funny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 19 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 with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

Delete, unless of course you include that homeless guy down the street with the tinfoil hat. The list tries to get around this by using the "notability" filter, but that's too open to interpretation in this case. Karmafist 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN, then Delete. SycthosTalk 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Move which one? The list or the guy with the tinfoil hat? Karmafist 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ (as has been tagged for a while), and remove the non-notable entries. The list of religious leaders who claim(ed) to be Jesus is significant (cult leaders and such). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:32Z
  • Delete/Merge this nonsense - the entry about bill gates is not good and telling of this whole list ("no one has been able to verify this") WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. Notability is not subject to abuse here; it's measurable in as much as whether or not the person has an article. If a person has an article, it's already been ruled the person is notable. The list will only reflect that; that is the purpose of the list, to be an index. Besides, this is no less encyclopedic than Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If the list is to include only people with wikipedia articles, wouldn't a category be more appropriate? --Austrian 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Referenceing is v important here which you would not get with a category. --Salix alba (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quarl. OhnoitsJamie 06:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quarl. That's some nice article formatting! Grandmasterka 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above and submit to extreme verifiability scrutiny. Keep fancy formatting if possible. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both articles, get formatter to help out with styleguides and formatting elsewhere! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quarl. Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quarl. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 18 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; userfication complete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Winters

Delete. Unverifiable/hoax/non-notable. — TheKMantalk 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This article is verifiable through the website http://www.gonzofilms.net, which is ran by Michael Winters. Although the website appears unfinished, it is still under ownership by Michael Winters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.15.246 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  • See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gonzo Films. All links to that website lead to missing tripod pages. Can't verify any of the claims from that website. — TheKMantalk 05:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is verifiable through the website http://www.gonzofilms.net, which is ran by me, Michael Winters. But, again, I am an aspiring filmmaker. This is my page. It is 100% factual. The reason why the Gonzo Films site is unfinished is because I have not yet updated it since working on "Kingdom Animalia" almost every minute of my free time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
    • Wait, what information are you speaking of? — TheKMantalk 06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nvm. Just keep my biographical article, okay? Plz :)
You might want to inform Network Solutions that they are flagrantly breaking the law you speak of. [5].

Oh, and Delete as non-notable filmmaker. OhnoitsJamie 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • TheKMan, they aren't breaking the law, you are since you have just posted all my personal information on this Wikipedia page. Now, please delete that Network Solutions link from your revision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs) 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
    • I didn't add that link (but it's still publicly available information). — TheKMantalk 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I posted the link. There are no laws being broken here. Domain registration records are public information, period. Someone can just as easily put the domain name in the search box on Network Solutions front page and get the same result. (Here's a tip for you; remove you address or change it to a general one (remove street name, etc.) after you've registered a domain. As long as your registrar has your email, they don't care what's in that record. It's a fairly common practice. OhnoitsJamie 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • K, TheKMan. But, still keep my page? I mean, there's nothing objectable and I don't know what Ohnoitsjamie's problem is, but non-notable filmmaker? Who is he to decide this? And who cares if I'm not notable. Nothing on any "rules" page on Wikipedia said I had to be notable in my field to have a page.
    Comment We are all participating in the decision process right now. That's how Wikipedia works. OhnoitsJamie 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Actually, Wikipedia does have rules about notability. See WP:BIO and WP:Notability. OhnoitsJamie 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, Jamie, but yeah it's not going to be a fair discussion if I know the people against me say unfair comments like "Delete, non-notable filmmaker." That is rude and very, very unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Non-notable doesn't equal "bad"; it just means non-notable. That choice of words is quite typical in "articles for deletion" discussions. OhnoitsJamie 07:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Later. I'm going to bed. I'll see your (Fair) decision in the morning. But yeah, I'm 18. If you're going by notability here, how much notability do you expect me to have amassed in the film industry in a mere 18 years? Do you expect me to have made a masterpiece like "Citizen Kane" at age 18? Hopefully, you are more lenient than that in choosing relevant article topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikejonze (talk • contribs)

DrinicommentOk, I see this is becoming ugly, so I encourage both of you to take a break. Some friendly reminders:

  1. AFD is not a vote, the result isn't decided by the number of votes on each side. It's decided by arguments, so everyone state their case, let other people ocmment, and wait until the period closes. Attacking or criticizing other people's opinions isn't going to change the procedure nor it's likely to help each cause.
  2. Entries aren't "owned", so it's not "my biography" or "your biography". Spikejonze, if you wrote an entry about yourself, please go and read Wikipedia:Autobiography to see if this entry fits, and if not, make the changes to improve it so it fits the criteria and you'll have a strong case about this.

And now a friendly warning: If I see anybody else attacking or namecalling (or other things mentioned on WP:NPA) I'll have to put some blocks her and there. So guys, play it cool . -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, possibly fails WP:NOR as no third-party verifiable sources are cited. Also fails WP:NOT a crystal ball. Zunaid 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. --Ezeu 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is not verified - Gonzo films is a personal website - as it says at Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Personal websites... are not acceptable as sources" -- Astrokey44|talk 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (and vote) - precedent suggests we could userfy this article, since Michael seems to be an editor on Wikipedia. BL kiss the lizard 11:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Spikejonze as per BL Lacertae. Michael seems to be new to Wikipedia so someone should probably do it for him. —gorgan_almighty 15:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Shouldnt he at least give his consent before that is done? --Ezeu 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think a speedy userfication is in order if User:Spikejonze wants it. — TheKMantalk 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Hirudo 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, please do a speedy userfication. I am new to wikipedia, so if someone could do this for me, please do it. Thanks.
Page has been userfied to User:Spikejonze. Don't hesitate to ask questions of your fellow Wikipedians via their talk pages. Good luck with your filmmaking. OhnoitsJamie 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support userfication, now delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 14:40, 18 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 G4 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wehatetech) Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WeHate Tech

Podcast whose homepage places 355,640 on Alexa. Non-notable. Daniel Case 05:31, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon's landing

Yet another non-notable podcast (Alexa rank: 1,297,463). Daniel Case 05:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of the hosts of this podcast, I take a bit of offense at it being called non-notable. It is currently ranked #79 out of nearly 12,000 podcasts on Podcast Alley. Last month it made it to #41. As to whether it is deleted or not, I don't particularly care. One of our listeners put the article up, and it doesn't seem to violate any of the 4 reasons for deletion listed in the Wikipedia deletion rules. It exists, it is verifiable, there is nothing currently in the article that shows any bias, and since it is released under Creative Commons, nothing about the podcast or any mention of it violates any copyright. I don't seem to recall "the opinion of one user of Wikipedia who finds the article irrelevant" being listed in the rules for deletion section. --Chuck Tinsley, Co-Host —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.115.252 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete unless we really need articles about the top 100 podcasts from every podcast page. OhnoitsJamie 06:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB inclusion criteria. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites)#Criteria_for_web_content criteria. No external links or references which prove such criteria. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as podcruft. Stifle 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whenever a podcast makes it big outside the podcast-o-sphere, it deserves a Wikipedia entry. Until then, back to the gutter with you. --Agamemnon2 12:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete This article is meant to reserve a place for the fans of Dragon's Landing to tell others about the podcast. It is not written in promotional language and is formatted to wikipedia standards for the most part. Please do not delete this article simply because one user seems to enjoy censoring articles who's subject matter does not agree with his tastes. JellyRoll713 13:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please re-read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:VAIN. The absence of promotional language is good, but not sufficient in and of itself, since by your own admission the article was created to promote the podcast. In the case of vanity contributions, many editors cleave to the beliefs listed in WP:N.-Colin Kimbrell 14:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per OhnoitsJamie --Deville 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of notability. -Colin Kimbrell 14:44, 19 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 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allun

No Google presence, when looking for any language information. Both a non-notable constructed language and looks like original research. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. Jawz 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Edgar181 13:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable constructed language. SycthosTalk 00:03, 18 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 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Events

Delete because it seems too self promotional HiFiGuy

  • Delete, not notable? Live Events is ambiguous encyclopedic title and this article doesn't help me figure out what this is besides a manga.....something?! .
HiFiGuy, Please Remember to sign your name when you vote with three or four tildes:) (I left this on your talk page as well.) Jawz 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so that's what four tildes mean! HiFiGuy 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The lack of context nudges it toward nonsense. OhnoitsJamie 06:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be promoting eigoMANGA without giving context or reason for notability.  (aeropagitica)  06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense -- Astrokey44|talk 10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. There were much more live events in 2004 of more importance. SycthosTalk 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a confused mess, misleading title, and advertizing. Stifle 14:42, 18 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 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of videos played on MTV Jams

Delete An enormous list without much encyclopedic value Allstar86 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP HIGHLY USEFULL (vote by User:207.200.116.13) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like listcruft rather than a useful collation of material.  (aeropagitica)  06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indisriminate collection of information. Zunaid 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. feydey 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Huge unwikified list, possibly cut-and-paste from somewhere, as it's hard to imagine anyone bothering to research this and type it all out. No encyclopedic value. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. tregoweth 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This article is 85KB long, far more than the maximum standard of 32KB. Even if this article was not to be deleted, it would take a long time to wikify. SycthosTalk 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I feel sorry for whoever made this, but I've never seen a more unmaintainable list. Grandmasterka 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a list of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gad-zooks! Delete! As per Grandmasterka! --Agamemnon2 12:43, 19 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 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knock on Wood (webcomic)

Delete: Not notable enough: see WP:WEB Grandfather Clock 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. An average of 65 views per month and only a year old. Best to leave this article in Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By TWC's listings Penny Arcade gets less than 5k views per month. I'm not saying the proportions aren't right (I have no idea if they are) but a meaningful comparison to other websites requires an increase by an order of magnitude or two. Nifboy 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle. Stifle 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:43, 18 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy Metals

Unencyclopedically trivial POV/OR speculation about metal in fantasy games. Not even factual (obsidian is, of course, a real substance). Delete. MCB 06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Incoherent musings, useless for research.  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Grandmasterka 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft Incognito 02:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fictional chemical substance, which covers exactly this topic. (And which I think would be better placed at one of its redirects, Fictional material, but that's another topic.) -- Jake 07:44, 20 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 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libyan Arab Airways Flight 388

Orphaned AfD nomination. Patent hoax; no references to any such event appear in any accessible source. MCB 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a complete hoax; total nonsense. Speedy? 07:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it appears to be fictional. - Axver 08:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot find any info that this shoot-down actually existed. I was able to find a source pointing to a 1973 shootdown of a Libyan 727 over Sinai killing 108 people, but that was on February 21 1973 and Sinai is not anywhere you'd fly over when going between Libya and Algeria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified must be hoax. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverified, hoax. No BJAODN. --Terence Ong 15:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the iBook of the Revolution 00:13, 19 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Holy Father

Apparently created as part of an ongoing dispute over Holy Father (talk · history · watch) which isshould be a redirect to Pope ever since this AfD discussion closed. Ought to redirect to God the Father but violates WP:NAME, and will probably just contain a POV argument about the impropriety of the Papal title. If it ever contains useful information on the history of the title, I would support a Merge to Pope, otherwise Delete TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father
I would like to nominate the article Holy Father for undeletion review or at least I would like a stub to be made for the article for Holy Father. The rcc's pope is only "Holy Father" to at least some rcc members, but not to everyone. Redirecting automatically to a their pope is not NPOV and more would agree if more knew about what was going on here. The article was doing fine for some months before TCC/Csernica blindside afd'd and had support from "other" people that didn't have much to do with the article. TCC/Csernica could have discussed about the page instead of afd'ing.

I would like the article to be protected from being redirected exclusively to their pope. I would think some people would like to know the history of the original use and the rcc title. --jeolmeun 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You want WP:DRV. This is about your other article. This kind of confusion is one reason we don't put "The" in article title. I'm also de-linking your section title; it made for a very confusing entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 17 TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What article title would you suggest, if not this? I would rather have Holy Father back and someone can add a link to rcc's pope instead of redirecting. I would like your feedback also at the deletion review. --jeolmeun 08:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this as a non-obvious search term (useless redirect), and a non-article. Comment left at deletion review. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. --Terence Ong 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Make it into a disambiguation page discussing the history and use of the title. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no reason that the article Holy Father cannot cover all of this, since we already have an article about the Pope. Peyna 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Holy Father as long as Holy Father stays as a disambiguation page or reverted to the full article. --jeolmeun 11:37, 22 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 14:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forex Brokers

Advertising spam, unencyclopædic  (aeropagitica)  07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. -^demon 07:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, and most likely a copyvio from their website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. SycthosTalk 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. spam Incognito 02:56, 19 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 14:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words of islamic origin

Makes no sense / bad faith. The word "Turkey", for example, has roots older than Islam. We do have pages listing English words of unusual origin by language group; see Lists of etymologies. Author has repeatedly vandalized that page along with many articles linked from it, and is probably the same person as the anon who has vandalized those pages dozens of times before. I don't know what the agenda is, but delete. Melchoir 07:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete because "Islamic" isn't a language, it's a religion/culture that has people of many languages. It'd be like having List of English words of Taoist origin or List of English words of Hinduism origin. Perhaps there are Islamic terms that became the basis of English words, but I'm not sure this is the best way to deal with that.--T. Anthony 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per t.anthony. 3 unverified, unreferenced examples doesnt make much of a list -- Astrokey44|talk 10:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - But expand to replace existing article (Which is terrible). There are a lot of words of islamic, rather than just Arabic/Farsi/Turkic etc. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What, pray tell, are some of these Islamic words without a country? --Calton | Talk 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Eh?--Irishpunktom\talk 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Article was created by:
It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet or impersonator of Enviroknot.
Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence. See block log

--Westwells 11:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, there's no linguistic status that can be associated with Islamic. Malaysia is an islamic country; does that mean Malay words in English (like amok) should be included? Undefinable, unverifiable. Also, I'm amused to note that the template above included by Westwells has placed the AFD log pages into the suspected sockpuppets category. Chick Bowen 15:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've gotten rid of the categories, but the template body doesn't do any harm. Melchoir 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nonsense listcruft per Anthony, Chick Bowen, and nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete linguistic nonsense. List of English words of Arabic origin and suchforth are fine and make sense. Morwen - Talk 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete as per the above ... existing list is more than adequate to this purpose as "Islamic" and "Arabic" are pretty much one and the same for linguistic purposes (Are there any Islamic terms not of Arabic origin? I don't think so). Daniel Case 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There are plenty, first one that comes to mind is mihrab. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per Chick Bowen. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morwen. David | Talk 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per T. Anthony et al. — RJH 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, linguistic nonsense as someone above said. Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Linguistically suspect, to put it mildly. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as rather tiresome. Opinionated too, and a list that appears to have been created solely for the purpose of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Incognito 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Islam is not a language --BadSeed 10:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --CltFn 04:38, 20 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 14:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If You Go Away

This is not an encyclopedia article but song lyrics, see Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry for guidelines regarding articles on songs and poems. Might be a copyvio even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I've removed the lyrics and am attempting to rescue the article. I'm in the process of editing it right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm done (for now) with the expansion. It's well past stub length and is definitely a notable song, with many versions that have been chart hits for several highly notable artists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten by User:Starblind. JIP | Talk 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Starblind. Jdcooper 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. SycthosTalk 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doc 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the rewrite Starblind! The reason for nominating this is now moot. I suggest that we speedy keep this now (nomination withdrawn and no votes to delete). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepGareth E Kegg 13:33, 18 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 by Andrew Lenahan (speedy deletion criterion ). howcheng {chat} 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcasts/We Hate tech

Spam for a nn podcast. Google search returns less than 1000 results [6]. ^demon 07:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Protect from recreation as well. This user continues to recreate this article under different variations of the name and using specious reasoning as he does above (Alexa matters for websites, not Google), despite previous deletion. As a result s/he has, IMO, waived any good faith he might have once been entitled to, and if s/he continues serious consideration ought to be given to blocking him. Daniel Case 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedied by me. Exact recreation of previously deleted material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Card Random

Page describes an individual card in a card game, with no apparent wider notability. (Also includes an attempted disambiguation for a Christian Rock Band with the same name, but no Wikipedia page exists for them.) --McGeddon 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. What needs to be known about this card at this time appears to already be contained in the article about the game (Fluxx). The band, from my brief squizz, appears to be WP:MUSIC-failing anyway. If the band becomes notable, they can move in at a later date. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and group info also. feydey 08:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Fluxx --TimPope 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Fluxx. The game is notable, the card isn't. Stifle 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Incognito 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Fluxx and then delete this, since it is not a likely search term. Peyna 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptre (Talk) 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it goes beyond just being a set of rules to play a card game. Ruby 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, Ruby? I think you got redirected. The original article is here [7]. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete after merging a bit, since as stated above this is an unlikely search term. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is currently a redirect to Fluxx - it appears to have been merged a bit so I think we should leave as redirect per the GFDL. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetOutOfJailFree.org

Does not meet WP:WEB. 7 matches on google, no traffic data from Alexa. The kicker: The article itself describes it as a new site that doesn't work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cute idea. Delete, because it is non-notable as of yet (seeing as the planned website doesn't function, per article), and I've got a bad feeling that this is going to be one of those sites that either flops or makes headlines. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please allow the page to remain for 30 days while the Wiki Software is ported. The site does function--it simply has little content at this time. Although the site may not have many matches on Google the matches it does have are ranked very high. In fact, when searching for GetOutOfJailFree the site is mentioned in the second result on the first of eight pages of results. I do not understand the statement about a "bad feeling." Yes, it may flop but we here at GetOutOfJailFree do hope that the site does make headlines. In fact, the article does NOT state that this is a "new site." This site is not new--it was started in September of 2004. Thank you for your consideration.- User:DanKilo
    • A note, if the site has been around that long, I would expect more websites to link to it. Also, Alexa would have traffic rankings for it (unless no alexa users had ever visited it, in which case it does not meet notability guidelines). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I wish you luck with your website, and this isn't ment to be an attack on your page. All this means is that we don't consider the important enough (yet) to be listed here. However, when your page starts to attract mass-media attention, feel free to re-list it with citations to news articals and whatnot. (Signed: J.Smith) 19:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB. Cannot be encyclopedic until the site becomes established and this looks some way off. Is there a Wiki listings site that you can submit this kind of thing to? - N (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN per WP:WEB and as avert/possible vanity (Signed: J.Smith) 19:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity website that contains traces of Libertarianism propaganda. SycthosTalk 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Incognito 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would not this site belong in the List of wikis and therefore wouldn't it be reasonable for there to be an article about the site in the Encyclopedia? CapitanCook is considered defunct and it is listed. It just made sense to me to write an article about the site before listing it in the List of wikis. Thanks, User:DanKilo
  • Delete. CapitanCook had a lot more to it in its day than this thing has now. Having once been notable and now no longer existing is very different from never being notable at all. Peyna 04:13, 22 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 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stella dawson

Probable hoax. Zero google matches for "Stella dawson" in relation to the comic book company named, the comic book itself, or any other reasonable search. No reference to 'Fern-eater' found in relation to comics either. Data suggests that it's non a wikipedia appropriate article, or it's a complete fabrication. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible hoax, non-notable, comiccruft, etc. Stifle 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, likely hoax. -- Dragonfiend 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Stella was a ligitmate comic book. I know because I own it

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q2-O

Pure original research: "There is a physical field, which was not discovered yet by physics.". Made up, "copyrighted", etc. feydey 08:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some kid's pet pseudo-physics theory. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyrighted original research. --Ezeu 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 10:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio and OR, not good enough to be called a hoax. From the dated-2003 article: "later will be finished". That was proven false; change to "later will be deleted". Barno 20:27, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Holy Father" (Roman Catholic Church Title)

Pope adequately covers this subject. This I believe is created to contrast the already AfDed and which is now under DRV article, Holy Father / Ezeu 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. MCB 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as violating WP:POINT. Stifle 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Incognito 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. You people are too quick to join in with the herd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptopbomber (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 January 2006
  • Do not delete pope does not mention the origins and controversies of the title. --jeolmeun 11:32, 22 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 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dangerfield

Article for a fictional character on a new show hosted online. Not notable and encyclopedic. feydey 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Uucp 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, probably intended for self-promotion.-Colin Kimbrell 14:51, 19 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 advertising --M@thwiz2020 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Gate Casino

Blatant promotion. feydey 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I like the way it starts - "Gold Gate Casino is yet another online casino..." - Delete as advertising, spam, and the like. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:48, 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 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freed Men Tenants

A relatively new system of beliefs. So new in fact that Google has not heard of them. Original research. -- RHaworth 09:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Some random person trying to start their own cult via Wikipedia. Delete until he achieves 'success' in promoting his new faith the right way. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Jesus—and the New Testament –is still chronicled but updated to point out the fact that his miracles were, in fact, modern science (i.e.: water into wine via condensed powder)" LOL this article is complete rubbish!! —gorgan_almighty 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Does he mean "Tenets"? Lame hoax, not encyclopedic. Delete. Barno 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully the Tenets will be linked to later tonightm possibly tomorrow. It actually emerged as a joke as a way of making fun of someone. I'll edit that in. Keep it up because it's pseudo-legit but a lot of this is just garbage. The "Tenets" are written on notebook paper and basically got endorsed by some peoples parents and speech coaches. Keep it up for now, but change the stupider stuff.
  • Delete. "It actually emerged as a joke as a way of making fun of someone." I think that says it all. MCB 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Incognito 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Peyna 04:14, 22 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 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brulines

Blatant advertising for a non-notable software company serving the licensed victuallers (pub landlord) trade in the UK. -- RHaworth 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 15:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as commercial ad spam. -Colin Kimbrell 14:53, 19 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 redirected' . -Doc ask? 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie swanson

There's already a Bonnie Swanson page that has capitalised her last name, thus this page is redundant Dekuu 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect. --Ezeu 09:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just Redirect. Edgar181 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was nominated to be speedy deleted for lack of content, but the creator brought it here. It is redirected now. --Ezeu 13:18, 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. JIP | Talk 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porplemontage Studios

Delete, as per WP:WEB. Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Grandfather Clock 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also a redlink farm which is liable to encourage people to create more useless articles. Stifle 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Gah, I should have checked about how notable a page should be before creating the page. I have no trouble with a deletion.. --YesIAmAnIdiot 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep unfairly put up for deletion. This is discriminitory, you can't say that some Flash related sites can have pages, and others cannot. --PoultryMan
    • This is not discriminatory. As per the Wikipedia notability guidelines for websites, Porplemontage Studios is simply not as notable as is required for an article to be written on it, nor does the article have the content required to be important enough for Wikipedia. (Also, be sure to sign your responses with four tildes.) --Grandfather Clock 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's obvious that the site is not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia page. All the cartoon and comic pages should be deleted, too. If we ever do get popular enough for a Wikipedia page it would be smarter to keep everything in one place instead of having many pages who's notability could be disputed. --Steve (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, come back later when people know who you are. Also, page creator acknowledges its non-notability. Peyna 04:15, 22 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 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Amazin

Tagged for speedy, does not appear to be a speedy candidate; said to be "real" (per http://www.christinamilian.org/) but that is still real as in crystal ball. Since it's not been released yet it's kind of hard to know whether it will be significant. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as crystal ball until at least release. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not yet released. Peyna 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep the album's first single goes to radio in 2 weeks. Why delete the page since it will only be added soon enough. Timeaftertimecl 00:58, 23 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: Nomination withdrawn and nobody argues for deletion. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-the-knot

Does not meet any of the three criteria at WP:WEB. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Could also be considered advertizing per the soapbox section of WP:NOT *Delete. -Halidecyphon 09:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) :Changing my vote to no vote per SciAm award just added to the article. It now could be seen as satisfying WP:WEB, although personally I do not believe the spirit of that guidline is to copy every tech magazine's annual "best of the web" to wikipedia. - Halidecyphon 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've researched this site better now and it's clear I was hasty and in the wrong. I'd like to change my vote to keep and withdraw my nomination. Sorry everyone for wasting your time. -Halidecyphon 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a fairly well know and long running mathematical website which has a useful focus for educational mathematics. Its referenced from about 30 wikipedia pages, it has 250,000 google hits (search for cut-the-knot.com not .org). It won a Scientific American Web Award in 2003. --Salix alba 11:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Over 100 articles link there. Edgar181 12:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Salix alba and Edgar181. I fully agree with Halidecyphon that we should not "copy every tech magazine's annual "best of the web" to wikipedia", but sometimes stuff gets selected for a good reason, and sometimes nobody's documented importance in other ways and such an award is the first verifiable distinction that gets added. Barno 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well-known and respected educational website, very frequently linked to from Wikipedia articles. Once upon a time someone misguidedly decided to consider those many links to be spam and started systematically deleting them, to the detriment of Wikipedia, until some of us stepped in and pointed out his error. Michael Hardy 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, keep. Dysprosia 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. If it doesn't satisfy WP:WEB, that means that WP:WEB is wrong. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to qualify my comment a bit. I think my conclusion that WP:WEB would be wrong if Cut-the-knot didn't satisfy it, is incorrect; the proper conclusion is that WP:WEB does not apply in this case. As a guideline, WP:WEB need not apply in all cases. Furthermore, I agree there is a problem of "webcruft" and I see Halidecyphon's nomination as an commendable effort to get rid of it. The nomination may have been a mistake in this particular instance but that is not so easy to determine for an outsider. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per all comments above. See in particular Jitse's comment. and the what links here for his page. linas 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I strongly support Wikipedia's many external links to cut-the-knot, mentioned above. But does it necessarily follow that we need an article about the site itself? —Blotwell 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • no vote I got a whiff of the current activity through the good services of Oleg the gatekeeper. I thank every one for their involvement and vote. I wish to add my two cents and apologize in advance if the result appears worth a nickel. First, with a deep appreciation for Michael's effort, I still do not care for the article. Neither do I plan on editing it in any way. Second, I think, you fellows have to decide whether the category of Educational sites belongs in an encyclopdia or not. It may be of interest to consider the difference between an "encyclopedia" and an "online encyclopedia." If the category is present then I would think that my site is as educational as a next one. Third, the web awards, traditionally made prominently available to the visitors are of no great value. A group of SciAm editors is not a Nobel prize committee, of course, but they can be as misguided as the latter. Thus I would not place a great score on their award. Perhaps, MERLOT is a little different. It's a volunteer organization and I assume there was a chance for a broad participation as is the case in the wikipedia voting. Fourth, while I did not write the cut-the-knot article, I added quite a few links to my site. I do not know whether anybody else did. Thus the number of links from wikipedia to my site may not be a trustworthy criterion for site evaluation. The suitability of the links may. I am rather proud that I had no difficulty supplying a great quantity of good quality links. Fifth, google became an unruly behemoth. They dropped cut-the-knot.org from their indices on January 6, I believe, the reason for which I may only surmise. The idiots left all the entries for cut-the-knot.com, which is a (secondary) domain parked on top of .org. Alexa's index of .com is in the 500,000s, that of the (primary) .org was in the 50,000s. On an online forum hosted by google somebody suggested that their maneuver was due to the fact that there was a 302 (temporary) redirection from one site to the other, not the expected 301, which means "permanent". The trouble is that the redirection is from .com to .org, and not the other way round. You may want to know why I have this arrangement. In the beginning it was a plain .com site. When it began breaking the bandwidth limit and the penalty gew excessive (there was a month when the site's upkeep cost me $400), I made a copy on a different server, dubbed it cut-the-knot.org and would switch to it before incurring unsustainable penalties at cut-the-knot.com. My efforts notwistanding, the site was evicted from its shared server, at which point I simply parked it on top of the existing .org. It was so long ago, that most of the links to the site are via .org, some are still to .com. As you see, google's behavior is just a smack under the belt. Well, I am sorry. It looks like a dime's worth - just do not know to whom. Thank you all again. Alexander Bogomolny
Alexander, I'm sorry, I stupidly didn't go to the page with the list of awards. This site is clearly notable (and fun, may I add!)-Halidecyphon 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment What I don't care for in the article is that it's (currently) too short. Michael Hardy 02:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Definitely qualifies under notability. Surprised that anyone even considered nominating this article. Keep up the good work, Alexander !Gandalf61 09:28, 18 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. JIP | Talk 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election

Tagged for speedy, but no criterion stated or evident. Since the inclusion of failed candidates for office is itself contentious, a list of failed candidates in one election (when other articles on that election exist, which are much broader in scope) might well be considered unnecessary duplication. Me? I'm just thje janitor :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Communist Party of Canada - Marxist-Leninist. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are several "list pages" already, and Wikipedia precedent is to accept them (we had a long discussion about this). More names will be added to this page in the future. CJCurrie 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Same reasons as CJCurrie. --GrantNeufeld 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: (currently) empty, even filled will be non notable (generally those elected are notable). The fact that there is other cruft in WP should not be seen as excuse to keep this garbage inside. Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The candidates may be non-notable on their own, but the information is still relevant. We already have several pages like this, the result of lengthy discussions. CJCurrie 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand or delete. I like the ideas of party-list articles for elections, as they allow us to get in information about individual candidates who probably don't merit their own articles. However, I think one line about one person is pretty much a joke. -- Mwalcoff 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The page will be expanded, in time. CJCurrie 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC
  • keep the page is under construction. There were 60-some CPC-ML canadidates that year. Homey 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A candidate for a national office is notable, IMO, regardless of the party. Karmafist 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if that candidate receives 60 votes out of many thousands of voters? I'm of two minds about this particle article, but I don't think Wikipedia really needs, say, every Freak Power Party candidate for Congress or every Monster Raving Looney Party candidate for Parliament, even in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If there is sufficient interest to create such pages, I don't see their proliferation as a problem. CJCurrie 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • When they're barely verifiable and often simply a promotion or vanity for the sub-noteworthy party in question? It can be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • In those instances, yes. But if verifiability and vanity issues can be taken care of, I don't see how list pages can be a problem. CJCurrie 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could become a good list of people representing the Marxist-Leninist voice in Canadian politics, could be a useful sub-page of Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). --maclean25 06:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... but only if expanded. A list with just one candidate is kinda pointless. Individual names might not each warrant articles, but a list of such candidates would be interesting... but please actually make the list, not just the title. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - can and should be expanded - max rspct leave a message 15:28, 19 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 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superstreng

Originally tagged for speedy A7, but this is not a group, band, person or whatever. It is, however, a podcast of no apparent importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 12:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think I'm going to have to modify User:RasputinAXP/FFINN to include podcasts and garage bands, but then it'd be PCGBAFFANN and that's getting a little too long for a personal policy page, isn't it? RasputinAXP talk contribs 12:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SuperDelete - non-notable, podcruft, useless advertising, whatever -- Femmina 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete this mess. non-notable, one-liner article about something nobody cares about. --Timecop 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Incognito 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable trash. Cptchipjew 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable podcast (can you say redundant?) --Hosterweis 00:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete podcruft of the highest order. Stifle 14:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn podcast who cares Aigis
  • Delete podcruft indeed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:13, Jan. 19, 2006
  • Delete this foolishness. NONCENSORED Popeye 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A terribly small article on a non-notable podcast. Spam. Viscid 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn podcast. *drew 05:05, 20 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soopermuse

Tagged for CSD A7, but notability is asserted, albeit tenuously. Seems to fail WP:CORP and WP:WEB so bringing to AfD. Have asked the user if he wants it userfied, which is IMO the best option. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Absolute rubbish. Neologisms, non-notable website... sigh. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails tests. Essexmutant 11:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Rubbish", per Blu Aardvark, sums it up nicely. PJM 12:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BALLS. RasputinAXP talk contribs 12:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 12:55, 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. JIP | Talk 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster (Lost)

Recommend Speedy Deletion as this article is original research into a minor element of the Lost television series. The element (not even a character) is already covered in the main Lost article as well as the Lost episode summary pages. Rillian 11:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 12:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above (no relevant speedy criterion) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary article. All info already included in episode and character pages. Danflave 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Lost-cruft jumped the shark a while back... --DDG 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, or Merge any sections not included. May be valid for a full article in the future when its purpose is understood more. Essexmutant 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I disagree that it's "original research", but it is redundant and unnecessary, and adds nothing to Lost lore. --PKtm 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Original Research is speculating the cloud of smoke is "the unseen creature" that killed the pilot (there's no way to know that); in asserting that "Locke came face to face with the creature" (again, unknowable); in saying it "attacks him for unknown reasons...using what appeared to be some sort of appendage"; and in stating that it makes noises like "moaning", "machine-like" and "growls." This is pure interpretation of whatever the smoke cloud may be, and is not (as yet) deserving of a separate Wikipedia article. —LeFlyman 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Some have suggested "merge" for this material, however, it's not been revealed as yet just what the "smoke cloud" is, and whatever we might say about it would be speculative in nature. There is already a note about its existence in the Lost (TV series)#Fan speculation section-- where previously the theory it was a dinosaur was dismissed-- which is the only place I can think of that it would belong (for the time being.) —LeFlyman 22:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's far too early in the series for such an article to be written. Any article on the "security system" would have to be full of OR at this point, and this will probably remain so until very near the end of the series (assuming, of course, it's not another MacGuffin like the numbers). This article should be removed at this time, regardless of whether such an article will exist at some later date in a few years. Baryonyx 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and policy on fancruft. --M@thwiz2020 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the parts that aren't speculation with Lost_(TV_Series)#Story_elements. The monster is a large enough presence in the series to deserve at least a small mention in the main article. The "numbers" have a paragraph there, and the monsther should as well.-Colin Kimbrell 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge non-speculative elements into main Lost article. The "monster" is still a pretty important part of the show, like the Hatch. Doesn't deserve a whole article, but definitley a big mention.-68.34.76.34 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Story elements, PER cOLIN Sceptre (Talk) 20:37, 19 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 E Pluribus Anthony disqualifies a merge, so no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS AFD IS A METRIC OF CONSENSUS NOW AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO GAUGE CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chief of operations

According to its history I created this page, but I have no memory of doing so. Reading it now I don’t think its notable enough. Philip Stevens 12:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see the usefulness of an article about a fictional job title / rank. Mention it in Star Trek, if it's so notable. PJM 12:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While of some note, this shouldn't be in the main article (which is already long) but in subarticles; see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/retitle or redirect. I'm sure such an article can be expanded to describe this fictional posting, also held by Data and Harry Kim (though both are referred to slightly differently). As such, it should be moved/retitled to chief operations officer (Star Trek). Moreover (if this is unworkable), I wonder if the article should be redirected to an actual managerial posting of chief operating officer for which there's an abundance of text and various redirects (e.g., chief operations officer). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek. Essexmutant 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. fancruft Incognito 06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say to merge per above. However, Philip Stevens is the only contributor to this page and can request its deletion by tagging it with {{db-author}}. Stifle 16:26, 18 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 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Slut

Tagged as speedy as a protologism, which is, alas, not a speedy criterion. Bringing it here instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Deli nk 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry 'bout that. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable nonsense --Bachrach44 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Incognito 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's not in widespread use.-Colin Kimbrell 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbustoo 04:05, 21 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. -Doc ask? 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sefa Denizoğlu

Pure vanity page Ben W Bell 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk
  • Speedy delete - nn bio / CSD A7. --Muchness 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nn bio, also POV. Essexmutant 15:44, 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 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Expression Company

Reason: Non-notable company created by grammar school children. Delete. Deli nk 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Edgar181 13:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Even though I commend the kids for starting up a "company" where nearly everyone is a director. Plus, I'm sure they really do need new covers for their cell phones. :) PJM 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. More appropiate as a section on the schools web site than an article in an encylopedia (also probably very hard to keep up to date). MartinRe 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 16:30, 18 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 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikerosion

The article title is a protologism -- that is, a word that has recently been invented and has not even gained enough linguistic currency to be considered a neologism. The article is also a POV personal essay, and covers much of the same ground as Criticism of Wikipedia. It had been turned into a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, but we generally try to avoid letting Wikipedia be used as a method to cultivate the usage of protologisms and neologisms. So I nominate it here for AFD. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Somebody needs a 'blog. And a few whacks over the head until they develop a less academic style of writing. And to have their article deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, OR/POV. --Muchness 14:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article subject is indeed a protologism, and the article contents are the personal opinions and analyses of two Wikipedia editors (possibly one and the same), being published directly in Wikipedia. The article is unverifiable and original research. See Talk:Lemnian language#Translation to see what spawned it. Ironically, the article text decries the fact that many things available on Internet (e.g. personal web pages, web logs, and Usenet postings) are not considered to be reliable sources, but doesn't actually cite any sources itself at all. Delete. Uncle G 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV from someone who sounds extremely bitter about not getting their way in an edit war and figures it's all Wikipeida's fault. Plus they can't even spell "bureaucracy" correctly. Daniel Case 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic personal POV essay; belongs in User space, if at all. MCB 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It appears to be hopelessly POV. I'm not so sure I'd vote to delete it from project space though. Stifle 16:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. I nomited ths on RfD, while it still was a redirect. —Ruud 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ...an average community of memes endowed only with average intelligence... Umm, people are not memes. I'm no guru of information theory, but I know that much. --Agamemnon2 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps he meant "mimes". Oh, and Delete for both of the reasons cited in the nom (POV and protologism).-Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I spiced it up a little but the main body is still rather boring. Ashibaka tock 07:46, 21 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 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agencyfaqs

Advertising article for a non-notable web site. A few quick web searches does nothing to enhance my impression of this site's notability. —Cleared as filed. 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Incognito 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Seeing the name correctly capitalized and exclamation-pointed on every occurrence makes me suspicious. Stifle 16:37, 18 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 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punters' Paradise

Non notable forum. originally tagged for speedy deletion as spam, but this is more than just spam, imo. Francs2000 13:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Contains useful information for anyone who considers the intellectual/investment (rather than just the visceral) aspect to betting. Linked and referred to in/by The Racing Post, BackAndLay among others. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.144.78 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete has beeen speedy deleted before as spam. --Bachrach44 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not spam, but not much more useful. PJM 15:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good stuff on betting theory and statistics but not so strong on football. You pays your money....—Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Addabbiss (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per PJM. Not a speedy delete, "spam" is not a speedy deletion criterion. Stifle 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I originally listed it as "CSD A7: Unremarkable group". Didn't mention anything about spam. — TheKMantalk 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really spam, but borderline in terms of adding value. On balance, as gambling, the web and free discussion are intertwined, probably deserves to survive as the stub it currently is. Doesn't deserve anything other than brief coverage, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.170.112 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 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 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tierney Weighting System

A personally devised system of rating football teams. Original research. Morwen - Talk 13:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research by non-notable individual. Qwghlm 13:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per nomination. Mariano(t/c) 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not request speedy deletion unless an article satisfies one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Being original research is not one of those criteria. Uncle G 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree, WP:NOR. --CopperMurdoch 19:09, 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. One merge "voter" provides no rationale. The other's rationale makes no sense, because the article provides no information other than raw data (i.e. when it's held, how many people attend), so how can it provide an insight into the community? And last but not least, because AfD is a debate and not a vote...Saberwyn wins. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bankstown Christmas Carols

A carol singing event, flagged for speedy as "lacks importance" - not a CSD criterion. Bringing to AfD instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Bankstown. PJM 15:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost every 'major' suburb in Sydney (Bankstown, Parramatta, Hornsby, etc) and possibly Australia, has some form of "Christmas Carols" or "Carols by Candlelight" event. All of these events attract a handful-thousand people every year. There is nothing here, or could potentially be here, that really warrants an article, or a merge to any other article. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, I'm going to elaborate on my reasons why this info is pretty pointless in the grand scheme of the Bankstown article, and an encyclopedia in general. Let's take another example of a time when a small few-thousand people get together to celebrate: Fourth of July in the United States.
Now, from where I stand, a merge here would be equevilant to picking a single article on a random American township, and then specifically saying that they have a celebration on the Fourth of July. Unless I'm highly mistaken, and I may be, most places in the United States put together some kind of shin-ding to celebrate whatever it is.
Bankstown is not made unique or different from the status quo by running christmas carols in this format, no more than Randomville, United State (population 18,000) would be made unique or different by announcing to the world that they have a Fourth of July event.
I still say delete, as per above, but would happily support a couple of lines being added to the Carols by Candlelight article - something along the lines of "This format has been replicated multiple times by the various local councils in Australia, who run their own, smaller events. These are in a similar format and style to, but not directly linked, to the larger events held in the capital cities.", but fancier. -- Saberwyn
  • Very weak merge though I am somewhat swayed by what Saberwyn has pointed out above. -- Francs2000 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete - have changed my mind -- Francs2000 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Bankstown. Not enough here to stand on its own, but knowledge of shared experiences can provide insight into the character of a community. -Colin Kimbrell 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the event is somehow highly significant to that area. (and per: Saberwyn, we don't have Springfield Independence Day Celebration, why have this article at all?) Peyna 04:20, 22 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 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BEML

Tagged as speedy {{db|no establishment of notability, advertising}} but that's not a WP:CSD criterion so bringing it here. Article as written is poor quality spam but company may meet WP:CORP in which case perhaps some kind soul will help out in the interests of systemic bias. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as advert, currently unverifiable. Stifle 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 61 Google news hits for "BEML"[8] (plus some more for the whole name[9]). According to this link, they are the second-largest Asian manufacturer of earthmoving equipment. -Colin Kimbrell 15:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the article as best I can, and I think it's a workable stub now. Maybe someone who knows more about finance than I do can build from here. -Colin Kimbrell 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten - a shoo-in, in fact, even without taking systemic bias into account. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is one of Asia's largest company of earth-moving equipment. This article should not be deleted because it one of Asia's top equipment companies. -Effer 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Effer and JzG --kingboyk 13:03, 22 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 13:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RockAbilly.US

This article was originally created as an objective synopsis, but now I ask for its deletion. An anonymous user has posted many comments, most of those being slanderous lies. This article is not the proper forum for people with personal vendettas writing false, damaging opinions, wasting the time of users who have to delete such bias. Idigworms 13:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep no different to many articles, just needs more people to watch the page for vandalism. (but its not really many comments - 3 or 4 according to the history - Im assuming this is the type of thing you mean: [10] ) The group gets 20k hits on google so it seems well known enough to keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete i dunno, who knows for sure that more people will watch this page for vandalism? if they arent obligated to, then more vandalisms will happen if the person who wrote them is believed, he said he would keep writing: [11]. this should be treated with as much care as the infamous john siegenthaler, sr. page, but only problem is, more people know about his history and what is and isnt true about him.... .with this music groups comparitive low profile, and since they doont have a nat'l platform (USA TODAY) to defend themselves, how will people know what is true and what is slander. with that i say delete. Ruinsdomino 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's not verifiable it doesn't belong in Wikipedia and will usually be very quickly deleted. I bothered to do a little research and could not find anything to back up some of the claims that were added to the article, so I removed them. Peyna 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as no valid reason to delete. This nomination is an abuse of the AfD process. If people are violating the NPOV policy use the dispute resolution procedure, i.e. WP:RFC, WP:RFM, WP:RFAR. Stifle 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, apparently one of the page's contributors was fed up with some vandalism, but such is the way of Wikipedia. Remove the vandalism, if necessary, notify people that need to be notified, but they appear to be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion [12] Peyna 04:29, 22 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 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Meyer

Non-notable website owner. The Hobo incident might be worthy of a mention on Wikipedia, but this bio is not needed. Searching for "Cody Meyer" with either RootCore or Hobo gives us absolutely nothing, so he doesn't seem to be notable in his association with the website or the incident. - N (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn-bio. Also all unverifiable. Peyna 04:33, 22 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 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galilei Consulting

Tagged as db-contact per WP:CSD but is more than just an external link or contact attelpt. It is, on the other hand, very remiscent of a certain spiced meat product from the Hormel foods company. Perhaps it meets WP:CORP, and then again perhaps it doesn't. I'm just the janitor. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete' per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP. Incidentally, Wikipedia is fortunate to have janitors like JzG. PJM 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the one who speedied it. Still believe it to be spam. --^demon 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. advert Incognito 03:06, 19 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 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellerock entertainment

Eh just seems like advertising to me. None of these sites have an Alexa ranking under 12,000... only a few are under 100,000. Wouldn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. But it's not nearly clear-cut enough for a speedy delete. W.marsh 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Operates some of the better known casinos and Prima Poker skins. Article isn't very good, however, and it should be 'Belle Rock Entertainment' (3 words). --kingboyk 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert and linkspam. Stifle 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. PJM 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam Incognito 05:51, 18 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 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtualgumshoe.com

  • Delete. It's an advertisement. Speedy delete? Uucp 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No ads on Wikipedia. Captain Jackson 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Essexmutant 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. It's funny how almost all ad spam articles look identical at first glance. —gorgan_almighty 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete spam --Bachrach44 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete spam. --Fresh
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XAT-ATx

This was accidentally posted at meta and transwiki'd here by a well-intentioned meta-user. However, I don't think the band meets WP:MUSIC if they only had a few shows, even if those few were somewhat well received in the local press. Chick Bowen 14:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}} (tagged) Stifle 16:41, 18 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. -Doc ask? 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Dorsey

Delete. Vanity Uucp 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A7. Should not be in AFD. Tagged. PJM 15:16, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucien Salandiak

Can anyone confirm this singer's existence? No real Google hits, and the 'official' website is hand-made junk (those CD covers look totally fake), although I haven't attempted to listen to the songs linked on the page since I'm in a public place without headphones at the moment. Hun which links to the page should also be removed. Osgoodelawyer 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He is indeed a singer who entered the charts in 2004. Just typing Gone Before It Happens Hun refers to official release dates, but his albums weren't released. I can't confirm the Unisong thingy (although I believe looking at their site that many people enter for each country). The official Beth fanclub site refers to their duet (called Ineluctable). Thaliafan

Could you sign your entry, please? I'm not convinced. Everything that I can find using your search terms seems to be on user-editable sites, or else the links don't work. The pictures of the guy also do not seem to match with his reported age. In addition, a search for "Lucien Salandiak" on Google gets exactly three results; two from Wikipedia, and one which is a copy of a Wikipedia entry, plus he does not show up on discogs.com as either Hun or Lucien Salandiak. I can hardly believe that there would be zero proper results for a search for his name on the web. Osgoodelawyer 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can't find on AMG, 648 hits for the search User:Thalafian suggested. Most of which were on a strange combination of shady UK DVD sites and Cheap Lyrics Sites. Dragoonmac 23:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I typed in Luciak (like the site), and I have found some fan sites for him (for example, www.angelfire.com/gundam/luciak/). Thaliafan

I bought his single in 2004. therefore, i confirm that he is real. The song was called Gone before it Happens but on the CD, it said that his site was hunweb.com, nothing to do with luciak. Benidict Wong

Sure you did, 'Benedict Wong'. Care to point out a website where it is available for purchase? Osgoodelawyer 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as functionally unverifiable. Stifle 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that I saw the single last year in Southampton I think. The writing on the front reminded me of Madonna's Hollywood. It was £2.99 in a bargain bin in Wallworths. Limelolly 15:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete (nominator's vote). Do you mean Woolworths, Limelolly? How do you account for there being no documented evidence to back up your claims? The whole world just accidentally forgot to put this in writing? Osgoodelawyer 14:43, 19 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; no need to transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catullus 15, Catullus 16, Catullus 17, Catullus 21, Catullus 22, Catullus 25

already on Wikisource.No other link to the articles Melaen 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not the place for source documentation. The English Wikipedia is not the place for articles written in a foreign language. —gorgan_almighty 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong keep and transwiki. The information about the texts could probably be combined into one article in WP. Then, the quoted texts needs to be moved to wikisource, since their notability is not in question. I am pretty sure this is the Latin wikisource, but this may be another language.--Esprit15d 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I took off the tranlation tags, since translation of works is not appropriate for WP.--Esprit15d 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Note the links to the text already contained on Wikisource by the WS Template. Please do not transwiki what already exists or put latin text on the english wikisource. If there are English translations you would like to move please be sure they are not copyright violations. Published before 1923 is a good rule of thumb, if in doubt don't transwiki--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Birgitte, was that note directed at me? Anyway, I'm in total agreement.--Esprit15d 14:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No I'm sorry if it came across that way I am just trying insert similar comments wherever I find these sorts of disscusions. We have a large backlog of Transwiki materials at Wikisource and a lot of them are unverifiable copyright (especially translations) or non-english [13]. And it is hard to contact the WP editors doing the transwikis as they don't sign up for accounts. So I am just trying inform editors to Transwiki responsibly as we don't want copyright material sititng in the backlog for too long.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mike Rosoft 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Central Internet Avenue

Spammity spam. Esprit15d 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete creative idea; also adspam, incorrect title. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • speeedy delete spam. --Bachrach44 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as ad spam. This idea is so pathetic it'll probably catch on and make loads of money!! —gorgan_almighty 16:02, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duran Duran Duran

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it was tagged db-band, but isn't a speedy candidate. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Album reviewed at Pitchfork Media [14], and the webpage shows the album being featured rather unflatteringly in Vice Magazine. Close enough to WP:MUSIC for me. --badlydrawnjeff 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 16:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

duran duran duran is an established member of the breakcore community. the deletion of this article would be to do harm to the preexisting breakcore article. please keep in mind that breakcore as a genre is underground, and therefor, most media does not keep up with it- it is a self-contained subculture. Notsleeping 09:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If it's underground, why should Wikipedia, a mainstream encyclopedia, bother to cover it? --Agamemnon2 13:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because even underground acts can meet WP:MUSIC, even with WP:MUSIC's numerous failings. --badlydrawnjeff 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Definite keep What kinda BS is this? Only mainstream music should be covered by Wikipedia? I hope this isn't a policy of WP 'cause that would make all the work I've put in the WP the last year obsolete. This article should not be deleted. Duran Duran Duran is an important artist in Breakcore and if you delete this you might as well delete the whole breakcore article and why not the comple electronic music part of the WP. psi36 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, media coverage. Kappa 08:59, 22 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 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Moore and the Distance

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was that it was tagged db-band, but isn't a speedy candidate. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge to Geoff Moore. Looks like the band is doing a national tour of various religious venues according to their website. I don't know how worthwhile their record label is in the Christian Music biz, though. All info *could* be worthwhile in the Geoff Moore article, but I don't know if that's the best move. --badlydrawnjeff 14:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think merge is a good option. I'm pretty familiar with the artist and the band, so I can work with the article later. Thief12 11:53, 23 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, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pivot stickfigure animitator

Delete as non-notable program and advertising. --InShaneee 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author too incompetent even to provide a link to his website. -- RHaworth 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Author appears somewhat poor at spelling and linking. Stifle 16:46, 18 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. Enough with those damn merges that don't make sense. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schulz-Prager Controversy

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was not notable, not worthy of wikipedia. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the articles for each person. The controversy article itself has nothing to make it worthy of a separate article.
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and something that's virtually certain not to be entered into a search box. Stifle 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not worth even putting in the main entrys for the respective individuals. Brimba 17:31, 18 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. Barno's reason to merge doesn't wash; I've read half a dozen full-fledged books on the browser wars and none of them even touches on this. Besides, this wouldn't fit in the article, like at least 2/3rds of all merges from AfD that either throw the size of the article devoted to trivial matters out of whack or cover something all but tangentially related to the article. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seineew era sreenigne epacsten

Not an Internet meme. A very obscure catch-phrase, on par with (or below) "The magic words are squeamish ossifrage" or "You are not expected to understand this." There's nothing to say about it except "one Microsoft engineer put it in a DLL once," so it's not encyclopedic. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic — maybe even a speedy delete.

  • Delete (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this bit of trivia into browser wars. Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a strange comment found in program source code is very non-notable. As a computer programmer myself I have written much stranger comments. JIP | Talk 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into browser wars. This was a widely discussed bit of trivia that was often used to characterize the tone of the Microsoft Internet Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator battle, which led to one of the biggest and most noted government antitrust actions ever. Barno 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would consider All your base are belong to us as the baseline for inclusion of nonsense phrases. This doesn't pass it. Stifle 16:50, 18 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; default keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NO CONSENSUS NOW AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. ANYONE CITING THIS AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER SHOULD BE TWHACKED ABOUT WITH A CLUESTICK. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All or None

dicdef Melaen 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Stifle 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable type of security order. Kappa 08:59, 22 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/List of places where The Game is known to be played

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASTPP Voip Billing

advertising Melaen 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Not 100% certain it's advertising, but it appears non-notable. — RJH 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Incognito 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert, probable copyvio too. Stifle 16:53, 18 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. -Doc ask? 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School

Delete - I am the author of said article and have decided to pull my work. Drmike 15:56, 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 speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1). howcheng {chat} 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantis Phase I

Atlantis comes from another galaxy, yeah... Melaen 16:02, 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 Speedy delete. -Doc ask? 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRUV

Delete I am the author of this artecle and no longer wish for it to be used. Drmike 16:03, 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 delete. No valid reason given to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aylandria

no google reference found Melaen 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — appears to be game-related, although I could find nothing notable mentioned about Darkwind. C.f. [15], [16] Also related to this page is Cullen (Character in fantasy lore), which is vague about it's origin. — RJH 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If this had some type of context regarding which fantasy world it fit in it probably could be merged with another article. Although, it is very compelling that I didn't see a single non WP reference to it at Google. Hmmmmm...--Esprit15d 16:37, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Powers

no reference found Melaen 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

maybe merge to Arthur (TV series) --Melaen 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Article just trashes person in question --Drmike 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sub-character in the "Arthur" the aardvaark universe, and he is already discusssed there.--Esprit15d 16:52, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Assault Traders

Delete I am the original author of said page and no longer wish to have this article listed. Only changes in history log are with external links and catagories. Drmike 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment — Do you have a valid reason why it should be deleted? Thanks. — RJH 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment — I gave one. I no longer wish to have my work used here. If you wish to have an article on AAT, feel free to write your own. Program is also not notable and only has a small fanbase. --Drmike 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep — I don't believe that being the author of an article is a valid reason for an AfD nomination. It should only be based on the content. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thanks. :) — RJH 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. People come and go, but we can't delete what they've done when they decide to leave. And by contributing, an author automatically agrees to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, so one can't argue use without permission. So I see no reason to delete. The page looks pretty good too. --Esprit15d 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. People can't request their work to be deleted because they feel like it. According to CSD G7 the page can be speedy deleted "provided the page was (...) mistakenly created". This is not the case here. Punkmorten 17:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was mistakenly created. I have found too many places on the net where my work is being used without credit. I thought you folks respected copyright. My mistake. --Drmike 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We respect copyright, but all Wikipedia contributions are licensed under GFDL, to which you agreed to by submitting said content in the first place. I'm going to vote Delete on non-notability, though. --Agamemnon2 13:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia isn't responsible for the actions of other sites. You should have read the warnings. Golfcam 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Esprit15d and Golfcam, but rewrite to wikify and to remove Drmike's direct phrasing, fix misspelling "accumilated", and expand to demonstrate notability. (Delete if notability can't be shown.) I don't see any POV material surviving that needs to be deleted. Barno 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Stifle 16:54, 18 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, no content. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrot jam

already on wikibooks Melaen 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge. With jam, or jelly, or carrots.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger E. Moore

Delete I am the author of said article and no longer wish to have my work ripped off by others. Only changes made to the artecle have been minor and with categories. Drmike 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ripped off? Care to explain? -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the bottom of every page it states : "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)." And, under each editing box, it says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." By contributing, the editor has agreed to these terms. So, yes, he should stop contributing to WP (as is his right), but what he has already contributed is already under free liscence.--Esprit15d 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. People can't request their work to be deleted because they feel like it. According to CSD G7 the page can be speedy deleted "provided the page was (...) mistakenly created". This is not the case here. Punkmorten 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Esprit15d. WP:CSD G7 does allow for speedying if:
Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created."
but I hardly see that this can be claimed as "mistakenly created" when the original author has taken the trouble to make cleanup edits, then add information and a picture after some four months! Tonywalton  | Talk 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was mistakenly created. I have found too many places on the net where my work is being used without credit. I thought you folks respected copyright. My mistake. --Drmike 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're not getting credit, they're in violation of the GFDL. Report them. Night Gyr 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Drmike should have read the disclaimer. Also, who feels the need to be credited for a five line Wikipedia entry? Osgoodelawyer 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While I agree that Drmike can't just have his contributions removed because he no longer likes that they're here, I'm not sure that the subject of the article is really noteable enough for an entry. Just having worked on some RPGs doesn't really make you noteable NoIdeaNick 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC). Seems I was a little hasty here. He certainly has a fair number of Google results. I'm still not sure that he's really noteable enough, but I think it's probably better to keep an article when there's some doubt. I change my vote to Abstain. NoIdeaNick 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You don't WP:OWN articles you create. Moore sounds like a notable bloke, and thus the article won't be deleted just because its author (or even Moore himself) asks to. JIP | Talk 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not because of the author's request, but because Roger Moore is not-notable. Refer to this line "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Captain Jackson 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A Google search for "Roger E. Moore discovered roleplaying games in the late 1970s while writing gaming articles" returns 15 results, including one from Wizards of the Coast, which is quite similar. Either you copied it from this page, or this page copied it from you. If the first case, it is a copyvio. If it is the second, they are not specifying the source as, in example, Answers.com entry. -- ReyBrujo 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Esprit15d and JIP, assuming no copyvio. MCB 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't sound very notable. Being a past member of SFWA is not really enough to be notable. In fact there are many many current members who I don't think would be notable enough. The other stuff sounds minor. Also, even if it's not policy, if the creator/autobiographer doesn't want it I think that matters. If this person is important enough another person can create an article on him when/if that becomes obvious.--T. Anthony 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above arguments about article ownership. He is notable as the editor of two well-read magazines and a RPG designer so I see no valid reason to get rid of this. Keresaspa 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nomination makes no sense. Gazpacho 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up, both because writers don't own articles and because Roger Moore is a notable RPG author. A partial bibliography can be found here.[17] and he was a longtime editor of Dragon Magazine, probably the most notable RPG magazine.--ThreeAnswers 18:32, 22 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 keeping. Morwen - Talk 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brae

nonsense dicdef Melaen 16:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unsalvageable.--Esprit15d 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to Keep, per changes.--Esprit15d 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: An earlier version which stated that Brae is a town on Shetland was reverted as vandalism. However, Brae is a town on Shetland [18]. If deleted this should be created anew as a geo-stub. Punkmorten 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now expanded into a respectable geostub about the Shetland town. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Finlay McWalter.--Mais oui! 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Valid geo-stub. --GraemeL (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Good job! MCB 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the new version -- Francs2000 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nice geostub by Finlay McWalter Cactus.man ✍ 08:50, 19 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 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Downloads

all this info is already on List of Google services and tools Hirudo 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant, and spam.--Esprit15d 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. SycthosTalk 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Stifle 16:57, 18 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 13:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30Gigs.com

Delete. Not relevant. This is an advertisement for the company. Fresh 16:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable company. -- Egil 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to Abstain because I cannot really tell if it is notable enough. The entry bears the scent of spam, though. -- Egil 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Incognito 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Doc029 21:43, 20 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 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anselmo Heidrich

geography professor: no claim of notability Melaen 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable vanity. Google test specifies 651 results. SycthosTalk 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speedy if possible, WP:BIO. Stifle 09:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No published books that I can find, and only one cite on Google Scholar. He does appear to write a column here and here, but I can't determine the notability of that one way or the other, since I don't speak Spanish and don't trust machine translations. -Colin Kimbrell 17:07, 19 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 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-telligence

Term as defined appears to be a neologism invented by two people, one of whom is the author. One Google hit on "Inter-telligence" though "intertelligence" does appear to be a trademarked term used by a Canadian marketing company to mean something completely different. Neville Langley (one of the co-inventors of the neologism) may or may not be the author of film notes on Pulp Fiction per Google; without context it's not possible to tell who the other author may be and whether either is notable in a WP sense. Delete as unverifiable neologism and/or OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom --Esprit15d 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. SycthosTalk 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense Incognito 06:06, 18 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 honestly, why the hell would this fit in the Opera article? It's a delete, plain and simple. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WIR

Not notable abbreviation, hard to justify an entry for it (Neologism?) -- Egil 17:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could be included in the article internet slang.--Esprit15d 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Opera (web browser). Stifle 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd leave it alone as it is. Or if that's impossible, at least Merge it to Opera (web browser). Anonymous. 19 January 2006.
  • Add to internet slang or Opera page
  • This is not in any case open for deletion. May be merged into "Internet slang" instead (Opera Browser is definitely not the right place to put it; the term itself hasn't got anything to do with the Browser, except that it is its official release date), but redirections have to be kept intact. Grey 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I say keep it as it is.
  • I'd add to internet slang, and maybe add a link from the Opera (web browser) page to it Ant 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd keep it as it - I only managed to figure out what it meant because someone in the forums linked to the Wikipedia page
  • I say leave it (since RSN has its own page), or add it to internet slang and redirect WIR to the part on Internet Slang, so people looking for the article don't just get a blank page. Of course, link to it on the Opera page. -- Louis C. 18:45, 20 January 2006 (EST)
  • keep it as it is, thanks.
  • While the origin of the abbreviation was from Opera development (and most commonly used among Opera users), it isn't limited to it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care of living organisms

it has been transwikied Melaen 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Gazpacho 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Tim Pierce 05:48, 20 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 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arisia

Tagged for speedy by User:86.1.111.124, but asserts notability. With some justification: a convention over 25 years old with upwards of 2000 attending. Tempted to just remove the speedy tag, but in the end someone wants it deleted so let's let the community decide. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, convention over 25 15 years old with upwards of 2000 attending. Kappa 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Listed as a notable event by [[19]], which is (in its field) a well-known, well-respected magazine with general bookstore distribution. Monicasdude 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per the actual article, Arisia's "first year of existence was 1989". Did previous voters RTFA or just read the nomination? Barno 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, I read the article but I didn't do the math, LOL. Kappa 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, 16-year-running annual convention of 2000 isn't generally very notable, but is notable in its field per Locus magazine and Monicasdude. I think SF fandom and its conventions are just barely enough of a widespread field (rather than just a fringe niche) that long-running cons like Arisia squeeze within the "notable in its field" part of the importance criteria. Barno 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Google search shows various mentions of this convention, but most relevant hits in the first few pages are niche websites or fan activity. Did the Boston Globe ever do an article on Arisia, especially one that discussed community tradition rather than holding it up as "look at what the silly nuts in their Darth Vader costumes are doing"? Such a citation would help the article and the Keep votes. Barno 23:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Barno. I can confirm that Arisia is well-known in sf fandom outside the Boston area; it's not just a local phenomenon. MCB 00:11, 18 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 not verified, so delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kr

this is an article worth of Wookieepedia Melaen 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

the article doesn't make clear if the battle is fact or fiction --Melaen 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like a major fictional battle, no reason given for deletion. Kappa 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete being fictional, all the more reason to questions its notability. It has none. -- Egil 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (if verified) into some appropriate Star Wars battles list or article, per WP:FICT and whatever the Star Wars project's current standards are (excluding where fanatics might change standards to overrule WP:Importance). Article does not establish context; I had to see "The Milleniun Falcon" {sic} "was able to land on Kr" and names "Luke" and Leia" to understand that the very bottom of the page was right to include "Category: Star Wars battles". Reads like fanfic or fan synopsis rather than encyclopedic content; needs editing if kept. Could someone verify whether this battle is canon, and whether it's critical or minor in the actual movies? If minor, merge to the List of Minor Star Wars Battles. Barno 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and not encyclopedia worthty. Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki merge. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a fan site. SycthosTalk 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fan synopsis of the main battle in The Joiner King, a Star Wars novel. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. fancruft Incognito 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as swcruft. Sorry. Stifle 09:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Joiner King as this is a major battle in that novel. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge if verified. Snargle 05:22, 22 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 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad heterosexual

Original research Endomion 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- No references to use of the term; it's an apparent neologism not in common use. -- MatthewDBA 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, no evidence that it is encyclopedic yet (if ever). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. SycthosTalk 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. incog 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. —ERcheck @ 00:41, 23 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 (speedy deletion criterion G4). howcheng {chat} 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We.hate.tech

This has been deleted and speedy deleted several times before, all under different names. (The author is most likely trying to evade people's watchlists. 1 2 3 4, however it has some claims of notability in this verion, so I'm going the slow route. (Also I can't see the older deleted versions not being an admin, so I don't know if there are some differences between the versions). Bachrach44 17:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It's still the same. Speedied. howcheng {chat} 19:41, 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 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naughton's Hotel

Non-notable bar. Mikeblas 17:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete non-notable --TimPope 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable location. SycthosTalk 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Nach0king 20:41, 18 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 sigh...no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS IS NO CONSENSUS NOW. IF IN THE FUTURE CONSENSUS IS OBTAINED TO MERGE, REDIRECT OR WHATEVER, THEN DO IT. THIS AFD CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED TO BACK UP SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Non Notable film, added by pov pusher. Less than 12 Unique Google hits, including some Blogs with enlighting titles, such as "Jihad Watch" and "dhimmi watch" (From the same makers as Jihad Watch, mind) also "news" sites, such as "world net daily" and "Feeds Farm".. and some encyclopedia called "Wikipedia"! Irishpunktom\talk 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Pusher? Look who is talking. For your information JihadWatch , Dhimmiwatch and World Net Daily and other such websites are simply sources of information on current events deserving of public attention.--CltFn 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion because the movie is not notable or famous. Would you please comment on how NPOV is relevant?--Esprit15d 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well , the wikipedia NPOV policy actually states that all POVs should be presented, this being a far cry from the belief of some editors that anything that is controversial should not be presented under the guise of being POV. Its not me saying this , just read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?. So in a nutshell let all voices be heard dude.--CltFn 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, that's not why this AfD was brought up. The movie is, according to the description, not notable. He, I believed, called you a POV-pusher, however, which might be where you got the idea that this has got to do with the NPOV policy. I generally disagree with Irishpunktom's statement that the movie is not notable (barely), but NPOV this article is not. Which means it warrants a clean-up, not outright deletion. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I was answering Esprits request for comment.--CltFn 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Esprit15d asked what NPOV has got to do with this AfD. I'd like to know, myself -- the issue of contention right now is that the article references something that is "Non Notable", to use Irishpunktom's words. Why bring up NPOV anyway? Saying that this article should be kept as per Wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't going to save this article, because someone can just come up and say, "Okay, so it's a point of view. That doesn't mean that all points of view should be given equal validity in Wikipedia." — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 06:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems the movie has recieved some media attention. Also the article seems to be NPOV & does provide the reader with some genuine information. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with reservations. It's had some media attention, so it's no longer not notable. It's going to need some serious cleanup to keep it NPOV, but that's assuming this article survives this AfD. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've given it some thought, and frankly, if it's only being seriously reported by two news agencies since its release, and has only been released once and not been distributed, it's really not notable. Come back when there's a DVD or something. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete while its notablity is borderline, I doubt anyone can find an editor who could NPOV this. --BadSeed 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I keep thinking about that. I mean, it has Google pages referencing it -- but most are from similar sources -- maybe half a dozen unique sources, tops. It has two Google News entries around the time I'm posting this... and I keep thinking: where's the conversation? Where's the interest? Does this thing really deserve a page by itself? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The only news sites referring to it that I fund where from WND, and considering several of the "stars" are contributors to WND, this fails any concieveable notion of notability. Thus far, this film has been shown once and has not been distributed. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a guideline somewhere saying "Will anyone remember/care about this in 10 years time? If not it's not notable." I don't think having some google hits is realy relevant, it's not exactly hard to put something up on the internet. --BadSeed 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable POV magnet. Stifle 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Although the article describes the point of view of the film, the article itself doesn't express any particular point of view. Wiki's NPOV rule is meant to prevent articles from being written with a particular point of view. The NPOV rule does not preclude having articles about subjects that represent or possess a particular point of view. As for it being a non-notable film, there are hundreds of wiki articles on films, TV shows, comics books, etc, that aren't particularly notable. The film exists, thus it has as much right to be written up in a Wiki article as any other film. Simply the fact that it was premiered at the American Film Renaissance Festival in Hollywood makes it notable. Its not just some home movie of unknown people. Its obvious that the person wishing to delete this article simply finds the film offensive. This consideration for deletion is nothing more than an attempt at suppressing information that some party dislikes. Take a look at IrishPunkTom's user page - it clearly states that he is a member of some group called the Muslim Guild. Obviously, he would dislike this subject matter. Nortonew 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem with this issue is it's considered not notable, not POV. Let's not just automatically assume that the AfD was made because the initialAfD poster was a member of the Muslim Guild and he would automatically offended by this movie. Assume good faith, folks. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I googled it and got 159 hits from a wide variety of sources. For something that's not notable, there sure are a lot of people talking about it.Nortonew 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's what held me up at first as well -- it had a fairly significant amount of links in Google, so I voted for keep. But Google News only uncovers two news links to it, and from what I can see, it has only been shown in one particular film festival, and there's no talk for getting it distributed. That kind of clinched it for me, so I changed my recommendation to delete. I do note, however, that the film festival that it appeared in, the American Film Renaissance, doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. That, IMO, is more notable than this film, and should be added. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Try going to Category:Documentary films and start entering the titles into Google's news search. You'll find that most of the documentary films in Wikipedia score zero hits on the news search.Nortonew 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the article remains, it definitely needs some NPOV work. Right now it sounds like an advertisement for the film, not an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The most promotional thing I see in the article is that it claims the movie is "unflinching" and "sober", those terms are definitely debatable and should be removed from the description. The rest of it seems like nothing more than a description of the film's contents in a fairly mundane fashion. If there have been any Islamic groups, (or other groups), that have issued statements condemning or criticizing the film, it would be appropriate to add a section in the article documenting those statements.Nortonew 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator--Bob 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Attempt at censorship by Muslim editor: Nominator is a POV-pusher himself from previous experience, this is an attempt by him to censor criticism of Islam - He is Muslim himself and a member of the POV-pushing guild "WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild", the counterpart to WikiProject Islam which dedicates itself to NPOV coverage. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. *Very* obscure film. It'd be one thing if it were a well-known or influential book, but it's pretty clearly not, and to say that this is about censorship is patently ridiculous. --Improv 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that saying this is about censorship is at all ridiculous. If one compares the obscurity of this film to all the other documentaries at Category:Documentary films, this film is probably actually more notable than many of them. A lot of them get fewer hits on Google and didn't get showings at film festivals. Also, there is good motivation for this film to be censored. Its really close to being a hate film aimed at Muslims, (maybe beyond just being close actually). It claims to contain information that people need to know about Islam, but it documents massacres committed by Muslims against people of other religions over a thousand years ago. Those incidents are not exactly pertinent in todays world, unless you are trying to just scare people and stir up negative feelings about Islam. If this film had been aimed at Jews or Catholics, I would be willing to bet it would have been a Jew or Catholic nominating it for deletion. Sorry, but assuming the best intentions in this case is simply burying your head in the sand. Nortonew 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Man, this is embarrassing. I'm beginning to see your point at this rate, and my opinion's wavering... again. Damn, I'm a Swing voter. This bites. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Screening at a major film festival is sufficient for me. Durova 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure film appears to be a biased look at islam rather than a documentary on islamofacisim. --128.2.225.185 03:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 6 edits at time of vote. gren グレン ? 06:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was deleted on a 6 to 3 vote and it has confused me very much. I don't particularly care if we have a policy that keeps or deletes non-notable books that are critical of religion... we just need to have criterion set so that we don't get huge amounts of variation. That book was more popular on Amazon than The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book) with every other sign showing that it was just as important. Wikipedia is not paper but along with that Wikipedia should not be systemically biased. So, that is my major worry in all of this. I have historically voted keep on this type of thing but I am worried when it seems to come to different notability standards on books critical of different religions. gren グレン ? 06:09, 23 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 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guard (Bionicle)

Delete The article is too short to be useful and the information is covered elsewhere. The only things that link to it are the category listing and someone's "untagged stubs" list. I'd rather not clutter up the category listing with unnecessary articles. Drakhan 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Bionicle --TimPope 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or weak merge to Matoran. Please kids, don't dump the sub-sub-sub-articles on the main page in a merge - try and find somewhere more appropriate. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per User:Saberwyn. As with all of the (many) long-dormant Bionicle stuff, there doesn't seem to be interest in expanding these beyond stubs or even de-orphaning them, so a merge seems good to me. --W.marsh 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as bioniclecruft. Stifle 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Matoran, per Saberwyn.-Colin Kimbrell 17:14, 19 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 to Minor Mortal Kombat characters. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inferno Scorpion

From speedy as "nonsense", but appears real (although not notable). Delete r3m0t talk 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A Mortal Kombat thing. Not notable if real (I haven't cared to check that part). Merge (if verified) to the MK article's Characters section. Barno 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mortal Kombat. SycthosTalk 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to MK.--nixie 03:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Mortal Kombat (or ideally whatever MK game he's from). Stifle 09:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry about the speedy; I was too hasty. --Phronima 10:31, 19 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 speedied as attack page. r3m0t talk 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] District Six Council

Delete. Repeated attempts by this user to insert this nonsensical information into District Six has been reverted by multiple editors. Now the user has created an article for it. dewet|™ 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete This is just nasty and not at all funny. I've proposed it for speedy as an attack page. Obina 21:11, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony M Henry

From speedy as "not notable". Raised $2m and not notable? Then again, I had difficulty verifying it on the internet. r3m0t talk 17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably a valid speedy really. He raised $2 million. Whoop-de-do. -R. fiend 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He helped to raise $2M, according to unknown sources. This (raising money) is good. But for Wikipedia, it depends on what his role was, and if this made him notable. For now there is no reason to believe he had a notable role in this effort.Obina 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The poor guy might have wanted to remain anonymous anyway. SycthosTalk 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-verifiable. Definitely notable though. Stifle 15:22, 19 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 14:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Videogirls

I'm not entirely sure this one, but it strikes me as a neologism / original research and google seems to return mostly porn rather than the hip-hop meaning used in the article. Unless someone can substantiate this, I would recommend deletion. Dragons flight 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • keep, notable phenomenom. Rename to "hip hop models" or something as appropriate. Kappa 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your input Dragons flight. I was surprised, when I checked out the page, that someone requested it be deleted. At first, I had no idea 'why' it was put up for deletion. If anything, I would expect a comment on improvement, or the like, but not a deletion. Well, after I read Kappa's comments, I do believe I was probably mistaken in naming the article "Videogirls." It would probably be more appropriate to name it Hip Hop Models. The more I think of it, the more appropriate it sounds. I'll go ahead and change the article title, but I'll first wait a response from you. I'd appreciate if we could come to an agreement rather than you taking the drastic measure of having the article entirely eliminated.
    • In response to you saying I possibly invented the phrase "videogirls," that is not accurate. It has been used in the media (e.g. VH1) and elsewhere, but it is not as popular, of course, as the word model. Nevertheless, I am now leaning towards using the word model instead.
    • By the way, I am the person who created this article, and further articles of the same nature. I went through a lot of trouble and used up quite some time, so, obviously, it's not easy seeing it go, as Dragons flight recommended. If you have questions, let me know.

Stiles 04:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion that this be deleted, noting both the much improved name and the expansion of content. In addition the strange name, the original item I tagged had fairly little by way of content that didn't feel like someone's opinion piece, i.e. the original research remark above. There are still some things I'd like to see addressed. In particular what is the foundation for the list of "Successful Hip Hop models"? Following the links, some are identified as hip hop models but others are described as singer/actress and other broader categories. In some cases there is very little evidence presented to associate with hip hop at all. I would note that to be a successful hip hop model one would need to both be identified (or self-identify) as such and then be successful at it, noting of course that one could be a successful singer/actress without having had success at hip hop per se. I'd like to see this list substantiated with trade publications or something like that. Otherwise it will be something of an open invitation for anyone to add their favorite music video actress regardless of quality.
Another issue is one of categorization. Is there really such a thing as a "hip hop model" as a well-defined category? I'm noting that the phrase gets even fewer hits than videogirls did. Do these women really view their careers as defined by the hip-hop genre, or are they more generally seen as models/dancers/actresses/etc? I have really no expertise in this area with which to say, but I am suspicious, as I imagine most entertainers would be glad to get work wherever they can get work. For example, would these women really refuse to work in a music video that wasn't hip hop?
Lastly, and this is really a minor point with no bearing on the deletion discussion, I find it surprising that an article like this makes no explicit mention of the role race plays in this issue. If it is almost entirely constrained to black (and latino?) culture, as is my impression, then that should be mentioned. Are there any white hip hop models? Not apparently from the list of successful ones. Dragons flight 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Women in hip-hop videos. The phrase videogirls is one I've never heard, and I've MC'd in England, Midwest US, Eastcoast US. And most the hits are for porn. Important that we have content on this, but that we rename it.--Urthogie 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I also support renaming this article rather than deleting it. For those who have never heard of this phrase, I should mention it is not that common, but it is used here and there. I believe most of us have agreed on renaming this article, so how do we go about removing this article from AFD? Stiles 04:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the line about the result of this debate. The article will remain on AFD for five days, as is customary. My vote is to delete as unverifiable/non-notable. Stifle 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already set it to redirect, which is why I posted the result. And women in hip-hop videos not being notable? Do a search on google news, or any hip-hop site, or any collection of feminist info, its very notable.--Urthogie 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep notable.  Grue  18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am changing the title from Women in Hip Hop to Hip Hop models. "Women in Hip Hop" is much too broad and vague. How do we know this phrase does not include female MCs as well? Stifle said that this article is unverifiable, as well as non-notable. I should mention that is completely not true. First, I have cited everything I've mentioned in the article, with quotes to back up several things. Second, the demand for Hip Hop models is very strong. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise. The only person who is not familiar with the Hip Hop modelling industry is the one who has absolutely no interest in Hip Hop. Stiles 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Im fine with new title-- needs punctuation fix tho. (Ill do that)--Urthogie 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Insubstantiated, superficial, and lacking in importance.

My former position:Rename. Women in music videos aren't just confined to hip-hop music videos. The title is too specific. "Music video models" would make more sense. --Modulatum 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but there's a lot to say about female models in hip-hop specifically-- when a subject is wide enough it gets its own subject.--Urthogie 10:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
No, there isn't. A few shining borderline softporn stars like Melyssa Ford have made a name for themselves, but there's frankly very little encyclopedic to write about this topic. --Modulatum 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot to say about it because it relates to various gender-related issues. Melyssa Ford deserves to have her own article, and perhaps a mention in this article.--Urthogie 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
From Melyssa Ford's interview with AHH:
"AHHA: Everyone talks about the men in industry and casting couch. What’s your advice for women trying to come up right now?
Melyssa: Oh god, spare yourself - go back to school! That’s my advice. I would never get involved in doing videos right now. It’s not the same. The dynamic has changed so drastically. You could hold the argument that women were always objectified, but now they are really objectified. Now it’s about body parts and how well you can shake them. It’s not about the female. It’s not about appreciating the female." [20]
There's nothing positively feminist about their careers. For Melyssa Ford herself, her career as a model was a stepping stone to bigger and better things, not an end in itself. This profession isn't as glamorous and as imbued with civil rights as is implied. --Modulatum 12:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about their careers. I'm talking about the issues of gender-equality, objectifying women, etc. that are talked about in the mainstream press(im not saying i hold these ideas as relevant, but an encyclopedia is representative of modern day thought and discussion on an issue). Thanks,--Urthogie 18:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


This discussion is not going where it needs to go. The only issue that is being addressed here is whether this article should be deleted. The majority believe that it should not be deleted provided that there be some changes. I have made drastic changes to the quality of the article, and hopefully others will add to it. For those who don't believe this needs to be part of an encyclopedia, what about an article on cheese? Do you remember the last time you had a conversation about cheese? Well, there was a lengthy article on cheese on the frontpage. I really don't think it is fair for people to mark a topic that they are not interested in as being "garbage" or non-notable. If you don't think it is worthy of being in an encyclopedia, trust me, there are others who do believe it should be. Don't force your opinion on anyone, and don't threaten a deletion. That is not right. If you have people question what should and should not be part of Wikipedia, the only topics that will be left are those of serious historical value such as the Holocaust. Yes, the Holocaust should be part of Wikipedia, but does that mean anything that is less significant should not be? Please consider the fact that you may simply have no interest in Hip Hop or modelling. That could very well be why you don't think there's any signficance to this. Let me ask you this, though. Why is it that this industry probably is worth several million dollars and has big names such as Playboy joining it if it is not worthy of mention? Also, why is there an article on pornstars on Wikipedia when there should not be an article on Hip Hop models? Stiles 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The following is a response to Dragons flight. You have questioned whether this article should be entitled Hip Hop models. The answer is that it should be. You have seen, by following links to several Hip Hop models, that some are not considered Hip Hop models in their own articles. All models in the list I created have done 'other' work, in addition to work they have done in Hip Hop music videos. That does not mean that they are strictly Hip Hop models. I never suggested that, and perhaps as a clarification, I should mention something about this in the article. Furthermore, there are some models that are better known as being something other than Hip Hop models. That does not mean they should be eliminated from this list, because their value as Hip Hop models is well appreciated, and they are, nonetheless, recognized by many as being models from Hip Hop videos. Should a model indentify herself as a Hip Hop model to be on this list? No. That is simply not a reasonable requirement for this definition. They may call themselves models who have done work in Hip Hop, but they may not take on this particular title. Consider the fact that President Ronald Reagan could be listed on a list of actors as well as a list of presidents. I may put him on a list of presidents, but that does not mean he wasn't an actor. If you asked most people who Ronald Reagan was, you'd probably hear "president," although he very well deserves to be on a list of early 1900s actors. I realize you wanted the list substantiated. That is not a problem. Simply take a look at interviews that these models have done with magazines that are considered strictly Hip Hop magazines. I think the fact that these models did an interview with a Hip Hop magazine shows that they know they are popular amongst Hip Hop fans. I cannot take credit for every article is linked to from this list, but the articles I have created have reference to these models having done work as Hip Hop models and interviews they have done with Hip Hop magazines. I cannot be expected to keep track of all articles and make sure that each article has a reference to their Hip Hop work. Stiles 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"Is there really such a thing as a "hip hop model" as a well-defined category? I'm noting that the phrase gets even fewer hits than videogirls did." If you go from one Hip Hop fan to another, most will not call these models "Hip Hop models." They'll use slang terms such as "eye candy," "dimes," "Hip Hop honeys," etc. The problem with slang is that it changes all the time, and that it is not exactly appropriate for an encyclopedia. That is why this article is titled Hip Hop models, and not "Hip Hop honeys." There is really nothing that can be done about this with the exception of having all these slang terms re-directed to Hip Hop models. Most models see themselves as being models, perhaps to further their careers rather than tying themselves down as being Hip Hop models, but they do this, like I said, for furthering their careers. They know very well that they have strong ties to the Hip Hop modelling industry, and that it would be more appropriate to call themselves Hip Hop models, but they won't do so for obvious reasons. You generally won't hear an lawyer say something like "I am an Intellectual Properties lawyer" at a social gathering. That lawyer will likely just say "lawyer", for the sake of ease. Stiles 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dragons flight, as for the race issue, I'll make sure to add that as soon as I get the opportunity. Like I said before, I appreciate if others could contribute to this article while maintaining a consistency, and not being radical with changes. I generally encourage adding to the article rather than taking away from it. Perfect it, but remember the time others have put into it. Thanks to all. Stiles 20:40, 21 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 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Gear

From speedy, but not a candidate. Not notable. r3m0t talk 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who on earth is speedy? Oh well, it's a rather popular site, I've seen it around many motorsport forums--Rob.James 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    • "From speedy" means that someone thought that this was such a useless article that it doesn't even deserve discussion about it's presence in an encyclopedia, per WP:CSD. It doesn;t qualify, so it has to go through normal deletion. -- Saberwyn
  • Delete Online newsletter with only one issue. Possibility of a second issue is questionable ("God willing," if you quote the site). Website hosting the newsletter has 430 hits as of my visit. Website is hosted on cjb.net, so an alexa rating for the newsletter itself is impossible. Google doesn't even believe the site exists, and a search for "no gear" motorsport newsletter gives 70 hits, absolutely none of which refer to the newsletter. In summary: externally unverifiable, and failing WP:WEB. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Saberwyn's excellent analysis. Stifle 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not meet WP:WEB criteria. Samw 15:01, 21 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 even ignoring those possible sock/meat puppets, this is a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Philo

Delete. Post mortem article of a life and death both seemingly unremarkable. Newsmare 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this is a keeper then - which is strange as he wasn't important enough to warrant an article when he was alive. Would this have happened if he was an unremarkable scientist who, although he'd graduated and had recently been accepted into a small, unaccomplished team of researchers, died before achieving anything in his field? I doubt it. If he'd written an article on himself while he was alive it would have been vanity, and if it'd have been created after his death because he'd spent a few weeks in a lab and then crashed his car people would have scoffed. If a sportsman does it though, it's fucking legendary - put it down in the annals of time lest we forget that which we didn't think enough of to record at the time. What an absolute crock of shit... still, thanks for voting. Newsmare 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I always hate deleting the ones where poor souls have died, but this just isn't notable enough for WP.--Esprit15d 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per precedent for professional footballers. Punkmorten 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why delete something from Wikipedia because it's "unremarkable" or "not notable enough"? There are many articles on professional footballers on the site and it's no worse off because of it. Surely it's good to have as many articles as possible, so long as the articles are factual, which this is. I don't think that there are valid grounds for this article to be deleted. Christophee 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So we should basically ignore and get rid of WP:BIO? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Christophee who speaks the truth. -- JJay 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This person was employed as a professional footballer by a club who compete in the 4th tier league in England, Wycombe Wanderers. He played 17 matches with the first team, and evidently was contracted to the club at the time of his death. Although not a member of the first team/current squad at the time of his death, it was noted by national media [21], and local media [22] (January 17th issue). Keep. Sliggy 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Professional sportsperson Jcuk 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If all professional footballers at this level are considered notable enough for that reason to warrant an article, then by all means keep. But if not, the article should not be kept simply because he died in a tragic manner. MCB 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree that this is a marginal case, but WP:BIO implies (my emphasis, because I am unsure) that professional sports people who have played at first team level are notable. This man's club is definitely at a professional level and he played for the first team. However, I also agree that the manner and fact of his death (though, of course, regrettable) is not apposite. Sliggy 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all footballers of his level should have an article. Jdcooper 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - despite being a professional, he only played 17 Football League Two matches, which (despite the name) is the fourth level of English football (68th-92nd place); I don't think that really is enough for notability. Qwghlm 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough bio for me. Youngamerican 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Qwghlm. Stifle 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a proffesional footballer and once a bright talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.120.246 (talk • contribs) 17:41, January 19, 2006
  • Keep If we delete this, we'd have to open it up to others who have articles created for them who died tragically.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyt02 (talk • contribs) 20:01, January 19, 2006
  • Keep Please don't delete this article, the poor footballer deserves some respect for making it through the professional ranks. I can't begin to imagine how great an achievement that is, let's show some respect for a true professional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.39 (talk • contribs) 20:12, January 19, 2006
  • Keep per Christophee -- User:Ade1982 10:48, 20 January 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep per Christophee, there's a lot of other similar articles like this on footballers from the same level. Mark272 14:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:BIO. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:54, 20 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyfuca

nn trojan/virus/malware Hirudo 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Internet Optimizer, it's the same thing. This is one of the more prevalent bits of malware out there. Could be interesting to expand on both the technical aspects and, if possible, the people behind it. - N (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per below. I'll create a new rediect once it's deleted. - N (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as blatant copyright infringement. See the original article here. SycthosTalk 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a speedy delete. Criterion A8 (speedy deletion of blatant copyvios) is only applicable if the article was created in the last 48 hours (this one wasn't even in the last 48 days). The reason for this is that Wikipedia mirrors are unlikely to cache the copyright violation in the first 48 hours of a page's existence. However, after that, the copyright violation procedure at the copyright problems page must be followed. Stifle 09:46, 19 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 13:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scancodes

Delete - Plural names are against Wikipedia naming guidelines; I've already moved the contents to "Scancode" Gennaro Prota 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect seems plausible... no need to delete it. PJM 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect.--Esprit15d 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure I can add to this page without interfering with the voting system. Anyway: where you draw the line? When you will have both the singular and plural form and when the singular one only? I think we should maintain consistency.
    OTOH, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_naming_convention is clear: no plurals if the singular exists. BTW, this is what every encyclopedia does.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gennaro Prota (talk • contribs)
It's not a question of "having both" or "drawing the line", in my view. A redirect is a tool to help users find articles. I think it's likely that many people will type in the plural in this case...why not assist them? There are certainly cases where a redirect might be superfluous, but this is not one of them. PJM 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to nominator: existing policy is not to move pages during AfDs. (I found out the hard way myself, and ended up having to close one AfD early and re-list it, and inadvertently caused all sorts of problems.) If you need to move a page, it's better to do it before nominating it, and then nominate it under the new name. MCB 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. Redirects are cheap. Stifle 16:59, 18 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 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flex Wheeler

un-notability Melaen 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, clean up, and expand. Seems notable to me. [23]. PJM 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean up, and expand per PJM - why do you feel he is nn, Melaen? Essexmutant 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Incognito 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A professional body builder with several first places in competitions so the subject is notable. I paused a little because the article is poor, for instnace "many agree that Flex is one of the best bodybuilders ever in history" is a weasel term, and is burdened with way too many warning templates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a very well-known figure in the world of bodybuilding. I also agree it should be cleaned up and expanded. ErikNY 04:04, 21 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 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fohrok

term used only on BZPower (bionicle fasite). Melaen 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism dictdef with a very minor sphere of use. If you really have to merge into BZPower. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft Incognito 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and material only of interest to dedicated fans of the topic, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 09:47, 19 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.
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolgorithm

Fails Google test (one hit). Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete, no evidence of widespread use. Kappa
  • Delete. Per nom and Kappa. - Liberatore(T) 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite not being widely accessible over the Web, the phrase has gained popular status with many game developers in the North East of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.70.231 (talk • contribs)
    • Please provide evidence that "the phrase has gained popular status with many game developers in the North East of England" per WP:V. Kappa 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The word is now commonly used in code written by Teesside students, which is not publishable because of licensing issues. However, the term has also been used verbally (and possibly within source code) by certain games company employees, generally those employed by companies with strong University of Teesside connections. (Blitz Games, Fusion Digital, Halch, and Mere Mortals are a few examples.) The article would benefit from an explanation of its current (and previous) usage, rather than a description of how it was coined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.70.231 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-17 23:51:29 UTC
        • If the only way for readers to verify what a lolgorithm is is to read the copyrighted and unpublished source code to various computer programs, then this article is unverifiable. Please have this concept documented and published in a reputable computer science journal and then come back to Wikipedia with cited sources. Uncle G 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I would not be at all surprised if the word was to be found in various open source projects. Lord knows I've seen evidence of Lolgorithms in action judging by the way some of them run. If that was the case, the source code would be publishable (in fact the publishing would be enforced). Would this, or a collection of these, be judged an appropriate source to cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.18.191 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 January 2006
  • The article cites no sources. I can find no sources. 80.5.70.231 explains above that there are no sources. This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And all of the "keep" opinions below explain that there aren't any sources, too. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. SycthosTalk 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable neologism. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom abakharev 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I work for a respected mobile-phone games company in London, having left Teesside two years ago and obviously I have many contacts from my time there, namely one of the 'creators' of the Lolgorithm. The term is now used in many of the programming circles i frequent both verbally and in code ( namely comments) and I fail to see how anyone can conceivably 'prove' its existance when it is used in copyrighted code. This doesn't alter the fact that it exists in (albeit) small programming circles and it demonstratably will become increasingly more widespread. I feel that many of the negative comments displayed here are from people that have no link to the industry that has coined the phrase and therefore will never use it. I feel that these aforementioned views carry no more weight than unsubstaniated claims either. I suspect that I will come under scrutiny as I cannot explititly use the company name without prior permission I would quite happily give details to contact myself, so as to supply 'evidence' of this phrases extended use.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.49.63 (talk • contribs) , and is the user's only edit.
    • I fail to see how anyone can conceivably 'prove' its existance — In other words: It is unverifiable. Unverifiable articles are deleted. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This word is gaining a rapid expansion in the field of Computer Graphics and Games programming, it is an underground word that is gaining an increasingly popular status by software companies around the world. While tangable evidence of this word is difficult to provide, for the aforementioned reasons, a simple survey of use of the word found several members of the United Kingdom games industry are aware of the word's existance, and use it in verbal discourse and written source code on a daily basis. While legal licencing issues make verfiying this word difficult, as it has such a wide scope across all aspects of Software Development, there is an absolute guarantee that the use of this word will become exponentially more prevalent in the future. Keep this word! It has received a warm welcome from the software and graphics industries, and deserves the same treatment here!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlistairParr (talk • contribs) , who is the author of the article.
    • Comment: before voting "keep", please read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Every piece of information in the encyclopedia must be independently verifiable. If this word does become widespread in the future and sources become available to prove it, you are more than welcome to re-add this article then. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • tangable evidence of this word is difficult to provide — In other words: It is unverifiable. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have come across this word numerous times while working in the games industry. I've noticed the word has become very much common place and has spread mainly via word of mouth and through working code. I would personally like this word to stick, although not known globably, it has become a valuable means of describing ones code which is notably messy and funny while producing unexpected, yet pleasing results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.80.71 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2006
    • I have come across this word — Wikipedia does not accept personal testimony of editors. Please cite sources. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - For an encyclopedia that freely includes nonsense, fictional articles concerning such topics as Gundam and Zoids this article seems by comparison to be a far more worthy contribution. Deleting articles and then inviting users to write them again due to their own good will is a disgraceful manner in which to act. This article should be kept and all discussion pertaining to its removal ceased or expunged.
    • Wikipedia doesn't freely include nonsense. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This word is used widely by tutors and supervisors all over the United Kingdom when they refer to the work of their underlings. It's a slang term, and not easily verified, as it will not be written in formal reports, papers, or other. The only type of paper that would have this published would be a general socialogical paper discussing how supervisors and leaders discard their work as not "industry standard".
    • not easily verified — In other words: It is unverifiable. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* Many of my friends at University use this word frequently to describe comical outcomes from programming errors. This may not be a word in the dictionary but it is still used by many people. The word bug for instance, to describe odd errors, is not a proper word, as it describes a small insect like creature, but was coined when a moth caused a computer problem back in the days of the beginning of computing, but now it is as commonplace a word as any. Maybe someday this word will too acheive this status.
    • This may not be a word in the dictionary — Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you think that you are adding a word to a dictionary, you have come to the wrong place. Uncle G 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've recently find out about the existance of this term and the great programming practice about it - to give the source code a new, better, funny look. Since that day I intend to use this practice resp. the lolgorithms intensively in all my source code with the hope that others will do it as well! Thank you for developing one of the most interesting programming instruments I've ever saw! If you want a verification of my words or of the term, just follow my source code around the net in the next months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihail121 (talk • contribs) Kappa 09:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe after enough people notice this new phenomenom, someone will write something verifiable about it in a reputable publication such as Wired. Unfortunately until that time it won't be suitable material for wikipedia. Kappa 09:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as unverifiable and serious sockpuppetry/anons. Stifle 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable protologism. -Colin Kimbrell 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: As a software engineer for an internationally known mobile phone solution provider I can verify that this term is used extensively not only within computer games programming (as I did my degree at Teesside in graphical programming), but all over the software engineering community. Its not a word I would choose to use at a board meeting or as a formal term, but within the engineering community it is extensively used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.119.175.147 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 January 2006
  • KEEP: I am a Computer Graphics student, and my lecturer is locally well known for his work. I have come across this term on numerous occasions. And personally, it would seem that it is only two or three beauracratic people who want this deleted. Lighten up. "Please provide evidence that "the phrase has gained popular status with many game developers in the North East of England", "Maybe after enough people notice this new phenomenom, someone will write something verifiable about it in a reputable publication such as Wired".. You people need to lighten up. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.201.184 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 January 2006


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; defaults to keep. STANDARD WARNING: NO CONSENSUS MEANS NO CONSENSUS NOW, SO IF YOU EVER GET CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN KEEP FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD. THIS DEBATE IS IMMATERIAL TO DISCUSSIONS OF WHETHER THERE IS CONSENSUS TO REDIRECT OR KEEP, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T CONSENSUS TO DO EITHER. CITING THIS DEBATE OR MY DECISION TO BACK UP A KEEP OR REDIRECT DECISION WILL RESULT IN MAJOR SMACKDOWN. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Do you smell what the Jmk is cookin'? Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saugeen Stripper 2

After a disputed first nomination, this article was closed as a no consensus, but deleted out-of-process by another admin. As the first close was controversial (the closer, for example, counted two accounts with very few edits, which is almost always a bad idea, and there was a clear majority for deletion that was borderline rough consensus), and there was support for a relist at DRV, I am relisting this now. My vote is delete, as its basically a news story that isn't even really newsworthy, much less encyclopedic. Although there is support for a merge/redirect to the residence hall where the even took place (Saugeen-Maitland Hall), which I can live with (the merge has already been done). -R. fiend 17:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • SPEEDY KEEP. This article has already been through AfD. A consensus was not reached. There has been no change in the status since then. The exact same arguments can be made for deletion. The exact same arguemnts can bemade against deletion. Nothing new can be brought to the table. Tokyojoe2002 17:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
More eyes on the article can lead to a better consensus. A no consensus result the first time through is the perfect reason to relist IMO, although it probably should not have been done while we were discussing it actively on the talk page. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Just for the record, the result of the previous AFD was "no consensus," and actually had 11 delete votes vs. 7 keeps. --Naha|(talk) 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So? 11 vs 7 is no consensus which is exactly what DES said. 70.21.144.18 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, most admins would have discounted 2 votes, making it 6 to 10, and remember it's not just about the votes. Some admins don't give as much credence to users who say exactly the same thing on every AFD. Sometimes one must wonder if they even read the article. -R. fiend 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No need to be defensive or rude. I was merely stating that it was kept because thats what happens when there is no consensus, NOT that the former consensus was to "keep." --Naha|(talk) 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Saugeen-Maitland Hall (the merge of data has been done, but the redirecting of this article has been undone as of this writing). This vote should not be counted as support of a straight "keep". -- nae'blis (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Saugeen-Maitland Hall. The article on its own is not encyclopedic, but it is useful as an example of "The Zoo" (though, it is not the first time something like this has happened in a college dorm room). Also, this is a new AfD, so please make decisions on the merits of the article. (Is voting to keep because the previous AfD was "no consensus" really a valid reason?) — TheKMantalk 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm changing to Delete, because I don't want my decision to be counted with the "keep" votes. — TheKMantalk 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Apparently, the moral of this story is if you don't like the result keep trying till you get the one you want. I don't buy it. 70.21.144.18 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete, per WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of info or not a newspaper). I don't see any encyclopedic or significant historic value in the article at all. PJM 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Mild interest as a salacious news story, no lasting intesrest, hence no encyclopedic value. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Very minor incident, no real basis for notability, will be forgotten by history. Deserves at most a minor mention on the Saugeen-Maitland Hall page. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Saugeen-Maitland Hall, though that article could have a bit more information on this. Got a lot of traction on the net (apparently short-lived), though not perhaps a full-fledged Internet phenomenon. --Wrathchild (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per R.fiend. It was marginal as a news story to begin with. College student gets drunk and strips, photos show up on internet. Big deal. Hamster Sandwich 20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per result of previous AfD. Story still has legs as an internet meme, and should remain an active Wikipedia article. Phantasmo 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per rationale by Rob in the last AfD: this is a non-event, a story that barely made the news. Let alone having an encyclopedia entry. - Liberatore(T) 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adam Bishop 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We clearly need more great stories like this here. I also see no need for a renom so soon. -- JJay 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the media attention, many people will cherish this event for years to come. -- JJay 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article was relisted per decision on Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Also, amusing stories are fine and all, but not necessarily encyclopedic. This event has no lasting value. — TheKMantalk 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encycolopedic. Also, this article has already been merged into Saugeen-Maitland Hall. --Naha|(talk) 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many undergraduates on this planet. Undergraduates do stupid sex-related things; this is just one unexceptional example. It's salacious, but not encyclopedic. Sliggy 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Big deal--Porturology 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete content and images have already been merged into Saugeen-Maitland Hall.  ALKIVAR™ 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete better in Saugeen-Maitland Hall. NicM 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep as per previous AfD Jcuk 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who cares?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. Forever young 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial and ephemeral college dorm incident that made the news for about 15 minutes, and then receded into well-deserved obscurity. Not an encyclopedic topic. MCB 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this story and event is more notable than the hall itself and also because AfD already spoke on this and it is not appropriate to Afd this again at this time 70.21.144.18 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This topic has no encyclopedic or historic value. --NormanEinstein 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. So, if I rent a stripper, take a few photographs, I can make a wikipedia entry all about it? I thought not. Delete. This article is not notable. --Dogbreathcanada 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonencyclopedic. Should it somehow survive the vote, a redirect is the next obvious choice. DreamGuy 02:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial, transient, of limited interest. Just plain not encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per User:A Man In Black and others. --maclean25 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep because other internet phenomenoms are on Wikipedia like Rachelle Waterman. She gained media attention through bloggers as well. That should be a prescedent setting case. --Sarnya 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're comparing a stripping college student, to a murderer... — TheKMantalk 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Six of one, half dozen of the other. -R. fiend 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm thinking that committing murder has a tad more impact on the word than taking off your clothes in a dorm room. But maybe it's just me. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Waterman should be deleted too. Adam Bishop 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • There's still a ton of other articles on here to do with people who have been made famous because of the internet. This topic was covered by a national newspaper and generated a great deal of word of mouth. --Sarnya 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • But she's not famous. No one knows who she is. Do you know her name? Anything about her other than that she's had a boob job? I thought not. She's not famous in the least. --Dogbreathcanada 08:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • She's obviously famous enough to the degree that people feel she deserves to be on Wikipedia and what do you define as fame? Paris Hilton has never "done" anything, yet she is famous. Her sex tape scandal made her famous because of the internet and word of mouth. Between being covered by a national newspaper and having thousands of bloggers write about you, that justifies your fame, whether it be for the right reasons ot not. --Sarnya 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • There are certainly many levels of fame and for that very reason; fame in the general sense is not enough to justify inclusion, IMO. Incidentally, I don't think a media staple like Paris Hilton is a relevant comparison, in any way. PJM 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • We must absolutely keep this article. Look at all the rediculous stuff on Internet phenomenon!! If that stuff can stay than why can't the Saugeen Stripper. There is no reason why this should be deleted since we allow other internet phenomenon's on here. Case closed. --Sarnya 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, I don't think we 'must'. Why follow a bad precedent? Other unfit articles will eventually be exposed via AFD; so the case is not closed. PJM 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment: Paris Hilton acted in a major Hollywood motion picture, House of Wax, as well as an adult video that won three AVN Awards. This girl, to the best of my knowledge, has done neither. -Colin Kimbrell 17:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I followed the links and carefully viewed each and every photo. I still could find nothing notable or encyclopedic about this episode. The article doesn't even mention how much she got paid... Atrian 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. Trivial, non-encyclopedic, ephemeral. Though, of course, I will do further careful research of the photos when I get home tonight, just to be sure. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep—not out of any real conviction about the article, just because deletionism scares me. Let this be discussed and a solution hammered out on the article talk page. Deletion shouldn't even be considered: we should be thinking about either keeping or redirecting. Everyking 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that the information has already been copy-n-pasted to the residence hall article, so a delete w/o redirect would have minimal effect. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable internet meme, says this deletionist vandal. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:21, Jan. 18, 2006
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. Choess 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. This was a short-lived news story hardly even appropriate for WikiNews. The story has now had its 15 minutes of fame and is fading it to the either. I guarantee that if this stays as a Wikipedia article over lack of consensus, that if it is nominated again in a year there will be overwhelming consensus to delete it, so why don't we just put the article out of its misery now instead of later. BlankVerse 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete. Pffft. This happens ALL THE TIME on university campuses. Definitely NOT encyclopedic. --OntarioQuizzer 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. No doubt. But why did this one get national press coverage and generate so much buzz on the net? --Wrathchild (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply: I never heard of this incident until I saw the AfD. I wouldn't call this particularly noteworthy. --Dogbreathcanada 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply to comment. And the incidents at Brock University the past two years didn't? --OntarioQuizzer 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • shrug. Never heard of it, so, I guess not. --Wrathchild (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per (wisely made) nom. BD2412 T 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I was the admin that closed the previous AfD). I've previously stated my reasons on the article talk page. Mindmatrix 19:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • BTW: I think the article's talk page should be kept - there's plenty of reasonable discussion about various issues there. Mindmatrix 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Mark1 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable  Grue  20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. Wikipedia is not paper, and we should record as complete an account of contemporary culture as possible, including case studies of interesting events and people. Imagine the archives of every newspaper in the world reorganized and refactored into an encyclopedia so that the events of each and every story were put into full historic context. This is what we should strive for. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I could not disagree more. I think Wikipedia should be more prudent than that about what it keeps. Nevertheless, I do like Rush. PJM 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How can you justify deleting this when stuff like Dog poop girl is kept on here?! --Sarnya 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Tokyojoe2002 changed Sarnya's comments to a "keep." I've reverted it. If that's what Sarnya meant to put in, I'm sure he/she would have. Don't try to stuff the ballot. And don't edit people's comments. --Wrathchild (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Not trying to stuff anything. Clearly need every vote I can get here and while the sentiment there is clearly keep, the lack of the word will most assuredly be used here in not counting that one as such. Oh well. Tokyojoe2002 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • But it sure looks that way, since he voted once already. Please let things proceed cleanly. PJM 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • As I indicated above, it was not my intention so my apologies. let's not throw stones here. This whole process has been a joke start to finish. Tokyojoe2002 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not throwing stones at you; just pointing out a fact. Also, calling this process a "joke", no matter how much you disagree, doesn't help a thing. PJM 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • There's a lengthy history to this article. Process has been blatantly disregarded. Not referring specifically to this AfD or anything on this page but rather the existence of this page top begin with. Regardless, I'll drop the tone. Tokyojoe2002 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Note that Sarnya has already cast a keep vote far above. -R. fiend 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Noted with apologies again. Tokyojoe2002 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Sorry. I didn't mean to screw anything up. If I accidently erased somebody's comment, it wasn't my intention. This edit page is just full of so much stuff, I guess I got confused. --Sarnya 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, naked girls aren't notable per se. Also, this is not wikinews.

Radiant_>|< 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Hamster Sandwich, Charles Stewart, et al. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not merit unique space in an encyclopedia, and already merged anyway. Moriori 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While we certainly don't want every concievable blurb about naked women, once a topic is raised to the level of a talking point in mainstream newspapers, I think it is notable enough to warrant a historical record in the encyclopedia that is not paper. Also, I find the whole second bite of the apple here to be atrociously bad form. Dragons flight 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and if not then redirect to the hall, which seems to have the entire entry in it now. -Andrew 21:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note- I am hoping that this AfD will result in a keep or at worst a non-con (uphill battle, I know...I have faith in my fellow wikipedians, what can I say). IF that comes to be, I will delete the content from the main Hall entry. Tokyojoe2002 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. definatly notable -Chris (UTC)
    • Note: user's only edit. -R. fiend 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even disregarding whether this is notable or not, we have to look at what we have here. No names, no dates, no specifics (can the age of the girl even be substantiated?). We have some photos and a hell of a lot of speculation and (I assume) outrage by people who know nothing of the incident either. It may have been a birthday party; is that the best we can do? How can we justify this in an encyclopedia? -R. fiend 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Somebody (an anonymous editor unfortunately) made an update today in the Saugeen-Maitland Hall entry that the girl's name is Nicole Martucci. Who knows if this is true but it's the first mention of a name that I have heard. --Sarnya 22:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing that out. I have reverted it, as its certainly not the sort of thing we can print without a source (and a good source at that). I'd like to think we've learned something from the Seigenthaler fiasco. -R. fiend 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You have GOT to be kidding me. You argue that the article is delete worthy because it lacks specifics, then when those specifics are added you delete them. Looks like this situation is just going to be manipulated to get the desirable result. Tokyojoe2002 02:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • And if those specifics had a reliable and verifiable source, it would be in the article. However, if you Google said person's name, there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that this event was correlated to this person. We don't need another Seigenthaler here. --OntarioQuizzer 04:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Is this really a notable event? --Sunfazer (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge. I wouldn't normally have any opinion on this kind of thing but it was listed only a short while ago and there seemed no great urgency to delete. Nothing's changed. James James 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This artice was the most read article on the Toronto Stars web site. Read more than the war in Iraq, Government Controversey, or the Toronto Plane Crash. If thousands of people read that, I think it is noteworthy. Sarnya has it right on the button! —The preceding unsigned comment was the first edit by 64.229.228.203 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Should we be worried about meatpuppeting now? --OntarioQuizzer 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a notable event, pretty much speculation. If I was to post about strippers in Merseyside would that count as a notable event? Not at all, why should this be here? --Sunfazer (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • People are saying that this has received more attention than most strippers. And how is it speculation? Everyking 05:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable event.-gadfium 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. See WP:V, WP:NOT, and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. No compelling arguments for keeping have been presented. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We really don't need one-two day news stories in the encyclopedia. In 2 months, people will be going "Who?". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Hall page somewhere. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Saugeen-Maitland Hall, since the content has already been merged there. -Colin Kimbrell 17:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not treat this as a straight "Keep" vote. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic, should be a mention in the hall and maybe a wikinews story. I've already forgotten about this event until now. This kind of thing happens all the time, do you want to document everytime someone sees a female in the nude? Specialbrad 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's sixth edit. -R. fiend 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: much confusion between encyclopedic and notable. The former is a slam-dunk, and anything which has generated this much controversy (and I'm not simply talking about inside Wikipedia) must fulfil the latter. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that it didn't generate a lot of controversy. It was something mentioned for a couple of days as "wacky" or "offbeat" news in the media and blogosphere, and then disappeared. That's not a "controversy". MCB 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Remember Lindsey Marshal, that dancer for the Raptors who got fired because of her naked pictures? That was in the news. Does anyone remember it now? Not particularly... --OntarioQuizzer 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Good points. It's not a major controversy, in fact, not so bizarre in the world of college dorms. For people who are living vicariously through its images, maybe it's a big deal, but in the broad scope of things...not really. JMHO. PJM 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets notability guidelines, with several articles in reliable sources on the event/individual. Given current Wikipedia guidelines and standards, this is a clear keep. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (already done) and redirect. I am sure people will come searching for this phrase "Saugeen Stripper", and they should be redirected to the Saugeen-Maitland Hall. Frankly, the section of the dormitory's article about this incident is better than this article. Cmadler 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sufficent coverage at Saugeen-Maitland Hall. Gamaliel 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with a redirect to Saugeen-Maitland Hall, since the content is already merged there. Do not count this as anything other than delete, please. Although this didn't happen that much at MY college (more's the pity), it is not notable, and the incident itself is not encyclopedic. No compelling arguments for keeping have been presented. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep, delete, merge, redirect, any of the above. Will Wikipedia be worse if this is kept? Not by much. Will Wikipedia be worse if this is deleted? Not by much. Will the subject be better or worse if this is kept, or deleted? Not by much. Is this a horrible abuse of process? Maybe, but it's utterly unimportant. Go add something of undoubtable notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said. check this link as well, if you're interested. -R. fiend 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The question is not whether "will this article change Wikipedia much" but "will all articles like this one change Wikipedia much". If we start having 1 article for 1 event that makes a national newspaper, that will hurt Wikipedia (note that we have Wikinews for things like this). Keeping an article is a precendent that will affect next AfD discussions. That's why I think we should delete this article and move to writing articles that we really need. - Liberatore(T) 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Seconded. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thirded (as I said above)... next thing you know people will want to have an article for every minor porn star and every minor school, and every visit by a minor porn star to a minor school. er wait, bad example, since we have 2 out of three of those already? ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous AfD. Notable event (where notable is used in the NPOV sense), merging not appropriate as this event is more well-known than the hall. I also don't like articles getting renominated so soon after surviving an AfD, but at least it went through DR first, so proper process was at least partially observed. Turnstep 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge-redirect as has already been done quite nicely. End of story. Technically, a delete also results in the merge-redirect since it's already been done. Barry Wells 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The incident itself is marginally notable and worthy of mention in other articles, but it's not worthy of its own entire page. I disagree with having a wikipedia article for every temporary headline, and this is obviously just a short-term story that got passed around because it had pictures of a naked girl. The only way I would vote keep on this would be if the incident turns out in the future to have longer-lasting repercussions, such as being the subject of a book, or leading to a major lawsuit, new legislation or some newsworthy change to school policy. For example, Rosa Parks did a small thing by just not giving up her seat on a bus, but it had large consequences and was definitely encyclopedic. As it stands though, this article does not meet that standard for me. Keep its history, but redirect the page. Elonka 04:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Turnstep and others. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly non-notable incident, totally unencyclopediac.--Sean|Black 12:44, 23 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 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thewarp.net

Non-notable gaming website, one in a million. King of All the Franks 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. What is the name of that website which shows how many links or visitors a website has? Alexi, or something similar? Captain Jackson 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Alexa, and the Traffic Rank for this site is 691,102. --King of All the Franks 19:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • As a long time hobbyist I can vouch for there being far more noteworthy gaming sites out there. The entry reads like an advert more than anything else. --Non-member (but not for long) 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • as a long time warper i have to say that A;exa has it all wrong, or that their info is slightly out of date. the site has been updated and is home to close to 550 members WORLDWIDE. not to mention MOST members post twice per day. -CB
          —The preceding comment was actually by 70.82.248.197 (talk • contribs).
          • 550 is a very, very small number when it comes to forums. --King of All the Franks 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Notable forums tend to have around at least 5000 users. — TheKMantalk 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. — TheKMantalk 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also as a long time warper and after reading the alexa entry on the site i will add that their information is a couple of years out of date. i might also add that a number of other non noteworthy sites are on wikis lists. also, the article is not finished yet, i am sorry to some it reads like an advert, but then again most adverts for websites on wiki read along the same lines.also, bear in mind that the site has just gone through a rebuild, so many of its former users have not yet returned. User:TW Pikachu

Yes, somebody on your forum stated that there were Wikipedia articles for websites they had not heard of. That's no argument for them being non-notable. And FYI, the Alexa information is updated weekly. --King of All the Franks 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable forum (club), with the standard vanity forum history and clan listings. SycthosTalk 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily if possible. thewarp.net is a noce site, but very, very small fry in the Warhammer 40,000 online community scene. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

well since its considered such a "small fry" why is it listed under the external links in your warhammer 40000 article? -CB

—The preceding comment was actually by 70.82.248.197 (talk • contribs).
Because, at the moment, it's 'big fry' enough to be considered a useful resource for those seeking further knowledge about the hobby, but not big enough to warrant an article about the website. I believe that the soon-to-be uploaded rewrite of the article is a little stricter on the external links list than before, so don't be surprised if it vanishes from there too in the near future. -- Saberwyn
  • The Warp.Net's Wiki page should be deleted as it is very misleading.
--Former Warp.Net Denizen - Black_Rift 01.40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding comment was actually by 217.113.64.10 (talk • contribs).

all im seeing so far are a bunch of people who have obviously never been to the site, or read the article, or even allowed it to be actually FINISHED before condemning it, and the rantings of a troll who was banned from the site for being a moron....yeah, please delete this, then apply the same standards to the entire wikipedia site itself. also, i have made a copy of this text written on the back of a fag packet in crayon and i will not hesitate to stamp my feet and tell my mummy if anyone tampers with the text as it is now.pikachu

—The preceding comment was actually by 84.64.199.247 (talk • contribs).

actually, ive just taken note of the url black rift has supplied for his text of the discussion. that webspace belongs to angelis mortis, a now banned user who as well as attempting to blackmail the site owners, spent about 3 years doing nothing but being a boring gimp who as well as starting various flame wars and posting troll bait, eventually got banned because everyone just got sick of his constant posts about northern ireland. i knew he would be behind this in some way, he is bitter because his own site got canned and when he came back to the warp he forgot that everyone remembered what hed done last time around. nice try A_M, if this wiki entry gets deleted, ill just keep on putting it back.pikachu

—The preceding comment was actually by 84.64.199.247 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: If this entry gets deleted in AfD, any reposts of the deleted content will result in speedy deletion. — TheKMantalk 19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: lets look at this objectivly shall we...
  1. 1. the article hasnt even been up 3 days, and is in the process of being finished, but yet people who know nothing about the site etc are being allowed to have a say.
  2. 2. already, 2 (former) users have reared their heads in one form or another and added their $0.02 to the discussion. comments they have made bear all the hallmarks of sour grapes. FYI, the users in question were banned from the site for being unable to exersize the MINIMUM amount of self restraint the warp asks for.
  3. 3. comments on theawrps current status being used to justify the deletion are to be honest, pretty irrelevant, as the site is going through a series of major changes and is not yet back up to 100% operating capacity. as one of the site administrators, i can vouch that site visits are slowly climbing back up to the amount the warp had before its troubles, and every day we get more members, either returning users or new members.

in short, condemning the site and the article before its had chance to get on its feet is nothing more than snotty elitism. pikachu

—The preceding comment was actually by 84.64.199.247 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete as per nomination --Pak21 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Black_Rift for informing me of Pikachus bullshit. My god Pikachu you do tell a lot of crap and retell stories changing things.
-Firstly my site was never canned, my mate who hosted my account ended his business attempt when he moved to work at Intel. I also never left the Warp to come back to it. I frequented the Warp as i ran my site, my site was once part of the Warp don't forget till i realised to move away from it would be better for my site overall and it was. Haven't you noticed Pikachu how NON of the runners of sites on the Warp Network frequent your forums? They used and abused the 2MB free space and advertising the Warp offered.
-Secondly i was never banned for troll bait or Northern Ireland or anything like that, i was banned for being passed on staff forum postings. I was subsequently unbanned by the site owner when he realised i didnt hack the site and that one of you mods passed me info especially about your slander and libel. I was only banned afterwards by BrotherDrake the former owner for no reason other than his loathing of me.
-Thirdly even your site boss and several other mods agreed with me on this; i defended myself in those flame threads, i didn't start them, i only defended myself to which more assault was poured onto me when the other person couldn't admit that they were wrong.
-Fourthly i didn't blackmail BrotherDrake, ask him did i ever demand anything off him. I only stated to him that i didn't sign a confidentiality form, he automatically assumed it was a blackmial attempt. Yet no such threat or demand was ever made so technically no blackmail.
-Fifthly BrotherDrake hated me because i wasn't scared to stand up to him and his demands for money. He demanded money for the site when he did nothing for it other than let it die, i challenged him on this. He loathed me due to my frequent shows of fearlessness whe i tcame to talking back to corruption of the Warps heirarchy. I love the Warp and was sad to see it in the sorry state as he left it in.
-Sixthly the Warp is so shitly run by you and the others that you let morons roam around the site. I've had no problems on any other forums on the net, in fact on some i am very respected for my input, on the Warp the only problem was my standing up to Drake and a few corrupt mods who abused their powers such as you. Did you know i was going to be made a mod on the Warp? Yeah i was so much a badguy that i was gonna be alongside you in the ranks. Yet my promotion was canned when Drake assumed i was attempting to blackmail him.
I personally don't care if this wiki page gets deleted or not, i do however object to the bullshit you seem to keep posting on the article and here. Shall we leave me out of this now and return the point of this debate; the deletion of this wiki article? Trying to make other debaters here look bad when your own history is very dubious isn't a good thing. My $0.02 on this wiki page is as follows:
My vote on this Wiki page is reserved as its a 50/50 decision for me; Its a yes for deletion when it comes to the behind the scenes backstabbing that plagues the site. However its also a no for deletion as the site was once great and i beleive that under Nekiel it can become great again and that LordBunny's vision can come back stronger than ever. I'm only posting here primarily to refute the libel being posted against me.
--Mabus, aka Angelis Mortis 00:55 18 January 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding comment was actually by 81.154.95.110 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete it is not notable. Yamaguchi先生 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB and causing too much trouble. Stifle 09:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

seeing as someone has seen fit to delete the articles text, please remove the article in its entirity and let it lie. pikachu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.215.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Note:Someone (81.144.215.70|IP 81.144.215.70 blanked the article, replacing it with a very short not to delete the page 'now that its blank'. I have restored the page to it's unblanked form. -- Saberwyn
  • comment: thanks for restoring the page feller, but after we have talked about it we have pretty much decided to host the "history of" page on the warp somewhere, firstly to stop people tampering with it and secondly because of the surprisingly snobby attitude of wikipedia users who seem to judge a site on its alexa rating as opposed to its content or user contribution level.I, as the original author of this article, hereby request for it to be removed as soon as it can be. anyone wishing to view the finished thing is welcome to come and have a look at it on the site once i get it finished off. pikachu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.64.4 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: If you wish to request that a page be deleted, the way to do it is via an AfD vote like this; please do not blank articles as that is considered vandalism. --Pak21 09:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: The Alexa rating Pika does give an indication of site popularity and as you can see on Alexa the Warps traffic has dropped considerably over the last 2 years. The Warps traffic rating is boasted by its more successful affiliated sub-domain sites such as Tigers of Veda (which is advertised on the GW Gateway) and Liber Astartes (which is scheduled to depart your network). On Alexa as they are part of the www.thewarp.net domain they are included in your traffic ratings.
In fact Pikachu a great idea for your redone version of the Warp.Net Wiki article would be including sections on the networks affiliated sub-domains seeing as they supply most of the sites traffic. In fact they supply most of the Warp networks substance and meat Mabus, aka Angelis_Mortis 23.40, 19 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 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcom

Not notable (only 10 valid Google results for "welcomsuite"). Not encyclopedic (it is no more than a corporate "about" page). Created just to link to from List of project management software Renesis13 18:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. See also WP:SOFTWARE. --Perfecto 01:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Welcom is actually a rather established company of 25 years now and one of the leaders in project management. It is used in thousands of sites worldwide. WelcomSuite is a relatively new branding name (<<1 yr.), hence few Google hits. Products have been externally profiled, per WP:SOFTWARE. Corp. website is www.welcom.com.
  • Delete as non-notable advert, currently unverifiable. Stifle 09:50, 19 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 ☎ ) 03:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frater Velado

unencyclopedic. copyed from pdf the author states it isn't copyvio Melaen 18:56, 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 ☎ ) 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frothy mug of water

neologism Melaen 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fan neologism / saying. PJM 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've heard of visual edits like this, but a single instance is not deserving of an article. --King of All the Franks 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There are web hits as old as 2001, so neologism isn't exactly the right term. Needs cleanup to be a valuable article certainly. -Jcbarr 19:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete useless fancruft Incognito 03:05, 19 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 ☎ ) 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lambert - The Blue Robot With Style

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Deville for being nn-bio, but it's not a real person, so it doesn't qualify. However, as of right now, the web site that hosts this Flash animation just says "Back soon." I suggest it doesn't meet WP:WEB. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 09:52, 19 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 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lilly Greenough

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Chairboy as nn-bio but IMHO does not qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead. If kept, it certainly needs a rewrite. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe it meets WP:CSD as there is no claim of notability, but no worries. It'll get worked out in the end. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I could see keeping it if a legit claim to significant sales of the stories (WP:BIO) is put in there. -Jcbarr 19:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A Google search reveals 12 hits, none of which refer to comedy or eroticism. The one link that work that referred to her was in regards to playing percussion in a Grade 10 band. This page is pure vanity. Atrian 04:13, 18 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; the company article was deleted too. Johnleemk | Talk 13:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Andrews (I)

Delete. Not notable. Vanity. Linkfarming. -- Krash 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge a little of the content to the article on his company. It can go where that goes (including deletion if necessary). -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 143.239.138.63 Stifle 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (I somehow got randomly signed out)
  • i disagree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.188.143 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 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 13:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic FX

Delete. Not notable. Vanity. -- Krash 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree this should be deleted. Not notable. Current information about the company is at www.dynamicfx.co.uk


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose album also contains a recorded live counterpart

Delete - I'm not sure I even understand the title of this article. If I do, it seems like a pretty non-notable, non-important way of classifying albums. MakeRocketGoNow 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, items are too loosely associated. Also the shortness of this article, although created back in November, tells a tale of lacking interest in the topic. Punkmorten 19:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a severe case of listcruft, i.e. a list created specifically for the purpose of having a list, and/or a list of interest only to a very limited group of people. Stifle 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. From one of the tags on the article: "This is an incomplete list of songs, which can or may never satisfy any subjective standard for completeness." I also agree with the previous voters. Barno 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:38, 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.
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ☎ ) 03:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tangst

Non-notable blog; Alexa Traffic Rank is over 3 million (3,027,360). --King of All the Franks 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a highly notable blog in a variety of circles. Do I need to explain why the Alexa Traffic Rank is worthless, or can the esteemed editors of Wikipedia determine that for themselves? 71.65.223.142 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll let others contribute to this discussion. I wouldn't go so far as to act unilaterally. --King of All the Franks 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. The point here is that there is insufficient information provided by other parties, that is, other than the blog itself. For example, nobody appeared to care to link to this blog [24] nor to talk about it [25]. It may become more notable in the future, but for now there shouldn't be an encyclopedia article about it. - Liberatore(T) 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The blog itself is only a half year old and doesn't actively advertise its presence since its a student-run community. However, the blog records 300-400 hits daily, and encompasses a large quantity of visitors from different geographic regions of the United States. From what I've seen, the article is worth keeping, due the the noteability the site receives in certain high school circles. And to Liberatore: you incorrectly cited Google for showing linked page statistics. You showed only a search of cached pages within the site. Here's the link you probably meant. Raleighwikiauthor 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Article author with 48 Wikipedia edits, none unrelated to the article. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment; yes, that was the link I meant. Thanks. - Liberatore(T) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but, maybe this article should be marked as a stub, or have a request for additional information placed on it? I think its a good history and description for the community it portrays, but it seems the complaint is primarily centered on a lack of neutrality or quantity of information. If this is the case, there are less drastic means that could be used, such as a "stub" marking or "neutrality" notice. 71.65.223.142 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but, like the others have said, as a stub. The blog is 5 months old. After a rocky start with one administrator doing everything, it's experienced increased growth in the past two months. Because it's community based, the growth stops and starts depending on current events in those areas. Obviously, neutrality is an issue. I'd bet that the creator of the article is an ardent fan of the site. By the way, there are a couple of sites that link to the blog, it's just that there aren't any notable sites that link to it. KnightHawk 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

23 edits to Wikipedia, all but 3 to the article in question. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and Liberatore; currently nn. --Muchness 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as currently failing WP:WEB policy. You guys are more than welcome to come back when the blog gains some widespread community attention, and I personally appreciate that you guys are being calm in your reasoning, and not coming in here screaming "ALL HEIL THE ALLMITY TANGST!!!1!1!! Tose fools demanding the deletion of our leet-foo article will rot in hell!!" like some blogger communities and forum groups do when their article ends up here. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing from the discussion, and apologising for using a mildly-stardardised template, which I have also removed. I was in the wrong to do so after reading the discussion up until the time I added the template, and noted directly above in my comments that the members of the tangst community posting here had not behaved as most people whose favourite site appears here for deletion would, and attempted to compliment them on their calm behaviour and well-though out reasonings. I was wrong. I am sorry. -- Saberwyn.

I think we can all agree that deleting tangst would be, to quote Oscar Wilde "gay as fuck." Also, I have it on good authority that Bush is a frequent contributor (username: rootinshootintexan)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.13.236 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 January 2006

  • Delete --NaconKantari 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and W.marsh. Also the redirects Tangster, Tangsters, Tangsting, and Tangsty need to go, too. And throw in The Walls Have Eyes while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep you need to keep this. a lot of teenagers (myself included) need a place to vent anonymously, and the Tangst site linked from this article is the perfect place for it. a lot of the Tangsters will be really upset with you if this is deleted. please, it won't hurt anything to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.176.200 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 January 2006
  • You know someone is scraping bottom when reduced to arguing, "What's the harm in keeping an article?" --Calton | Talk 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep personally, I agree. there are other articles within wikipedia, some referenced from this article, that discuss sites with a near-identical intent. also as noted earlier, it is growing very rapidly in most recent weeks. if anything, keep it as a stub, or an "ongoing update" current event-type thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.223.142 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 January 2006
  • Comment Um, wow. The lines are rather clear. Per policy, it seems pretty obvious that it shouldn't be an article, it doesn't met notability standards. Stub status I'm not that sure about. As the creator of the site (not the article), I'm starting to not care about the outcome, but I'm still terribly biased so I'm going to refrain from declaring. I just ask that Calton stop taking potshots at the supporters (mentioning how many edits someone does or doesn't have isn't valid - there are numerous ways to make thousands of edits without being accredited any, like getting a new computer, not bothering to get a Wiki account, or using different computers at the library). Looking at the history of this discussion, he tried to delete something, which I think isn't allowed per Wikipedia deletion policy. Am I right about that? I'm sorry if this is causing too much trouble. -- Heather Sit 06:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A QUICK NOTE
It looks like the article is pretty well gone, but just so I have my two cents: Apparently the editor who splashed the notice at the top of this discussion did not read the link that they referenced . If you read the post on the Tangst blog, and discussion that followed, you'll notice that it was well thought out, and not a call to "stuff the ballot box," as you so eloquently put it.
That's ok. Its the same deal with the Wikipedia editor who posted the links earlier about the site's popularity. They simply didn't bother check their source.
But hey, its Wikipedia, nobody has to have a credible source, right?

-- 71.65.223.142 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I thought this wasn't a vote Stifle. Are you proposing to change our minds with your comment in the discussion edits history? Regardless, if you actually bothered to read the information pertaining to this discussion, you would have realized no one is calling for a stuffing of any ballot box, and that you're simply perpetuating a false stereotype. I do, however, appreciate the threats you made to my posted IP address. Very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.223.142 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was worthless hoax. DS 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Christ

One of a series of articles on this author and her (unverifiable) books. Two articles on the books have been speedied as nonsense but the author may exist, so AfDing for mature consideration. Can't speedy as notability asserted. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax. For an American author, not generating any relevant Google search is a meaningful sign. - Liberatore(T) 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jane Christ has been verified through multiple sources including books on amazon and articles for TIME and Newsweek. She has made many contributions to news networks CNN and Fox News over the past decade. Her most recent article was written for The New Yorker in Jun. 26, 2004 concerning the impact of Micheal Moore of the election.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DeSantisKJ (talk • contribs) 20:28, January 17, 2006 UTC

Comment; that's interesting. I am willing to change my vote as soon as proofs of the above are provided. - Liberatore(T) 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find evidence either, but I am being cautious (newbie admin and all). I can state with some confidence that the claim she is on Amazon is this: complete bollocks. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Google search for "The Last Best Thing" "Jane Christ" returns zero hits. Potential hoax. FCYTravis 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. No hits on Google, no information available on New Yorker article, which is very surprising. - Dharmabum420 02:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, investigate and block author for hoax/vandalism. No reference on Amazon.com. And, when it comes to The New Yorker, I happen to own the entire set (through February 2005) on DVD, and (1) there is no June 26, 2004 issue, and (2) neither the June 14 nor June 28 issues have anything by a "Jane Christ" or "J. Christ", and (3) in fact, the complete index 1925-2005 shows nothing by that name. This is an unmitigated hoax. MCB 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MCB beat me to it (I've got the same DVD set). --Calton | Talk 04:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: The creator is a hoaxer. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marl J. Pierce III. Hu 16:49, 18 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 12:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ponsse

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Blnguyen as having no assertion of notability, but (a) it's a company and (b) it claims that the company is a market leader in its industry, so bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Though other than of NY Times type publicity, there is no agreed cut off for companies, this one seems notable. They have 700 employees, and (according to their own website which I know is not a valid source but a starting point) 16th November saw the release in Helsinki of the 2005 reputation survey conducted by Arvopaperi, a Finnish investor magazine, and Pohjoisranta, a PR consultancy. In this year’s overall ranking, Ponsse climbed to second place, from fourth place last year, among the over-100 largest Finnish listed companies. Could tag for "sources needed".Obina 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, and they are listed on Helsinki Stock Exchange.--Ezeu 10:07, 18 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Artisson

Non-notable, possible vanity —Ashley Y 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've just recived an email on the helpdesk from someone claiming to be the subject of the article. They said that they wanted the article deleted. They also stated that the photos are copyvios. Something we will need to sort out.Geni 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete
  • Strong Delete Relatively insignificant internet persona with a diminutive and derivative literary contribution to the genre, but obviously a legend in his own mind. -HroptR 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per HroptR —Ashley Y 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book is self-published, the articles are "upcoming" (i.e., I can't find them anywhere) and he's well-known on LiveJournal. Madame Sosostris 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Robin Artisson is a well-known troll and troublemaker who has spammed, mailbombed, and harassed dozens (if not hundreds) of pagan-oriented mailing lists, usergroups, Livejournal communities, causing many of them to shut down. But being a first-class asshole is not notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. --Modemac 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vertigo 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wingedelf. Kusma (討論) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Madame Sosostris. Notability not established. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and per Madame Sosostris. Jkelly 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per above, fails WP:BIO and not encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Non-notable bio. Tom Harrison Talk 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Whateley23 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity Page, or close enough as makes no difference. Kd5mdk 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and per Madame Sosostris, Modemac and Kd5mdk. Kathryn NicDhàna 04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until such time as there is sufficient mention of the man from respectable (and identifiable) sources in the literature. Currently he only has faceless internet entities vouching for him. If however this article is kept, it will need a lot of editing. The whole thing reads as if it has been posted by Robin himself or else a very uncritical fan of his. Too much waxing lyrical; too many relatively unimportant details that serve only to bolster his image; not enough hard facts. It all smacks of POV. Personally, I would like to find out more about Robin Artisson, to find out whether his information has any good sources or whether it is invented. I remember emailing him a couple of years ago trying to find his source (and a tune) for a song (Dick Darvall's song), but receiving no reply. There's plenty of other stuff that really grabs my interest, like his mention of "Dame Hyldor" as a name for the Goddess in (Northern England? I forget... he mentions it somewhere on his Meadows of Elfhame site). I would like to know whether these are his own inventions/intuitions or whether they pre-exist him. Given his claims of not believing in oaths of secrecy, we should be able to come up with a bit more concrete information to tie him down. Also, I note that many of the posts in the anti-deletion camp have remarkably similar wording and language patterns. I think I might pop over to one of Artisson's sites and compare with some of his writing there! (This is partly copied from my post to Talk:Robin Artisson, but I've changed my conclusion a bit since then.) Fuzzypeg 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
going by the emails I'm getting it isn't Robin Artisson.Geni 13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof of any real notability. LiveJournal fame is not sufficient. Despite claims of widespread fame/notoriety in the neopagan world, neither myself nor my neopagan friends have heard of him. —Matthew Brown(T:C) 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment to Matthew Brown: You've heard of him now. And that, I think, is the point. For someone who is called "not notable" by the "delete" crowd, he seems to have the power to cause quite a ruckuss, and invoke quite a lot of emotion out of quite a lot of people. And for someone who isn't known or notable, a lot of people here seem to know him- and even know enough about him to tell us all what multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, etc. Yeah... he's well known for being "not notable"- notable, after all, is a rather neutral term, to "be of note" doesn't imply anything automatically positive or negative, nor is there some objective standard for who is "notable" when it comes to fringe communities and alternative communities like the heterogeneous neopagan world. jontelpo
[edit] Do not delete
  • Do not Delete This man has a large online presence, and thousands of people have purchased his book. He has contributed to articles upcoming in "The Cauldron", one of Britain's most read occult magazines, as well as "Pentacle" in the UK. He is published in the "Pagan Awareness Network" journal in Australia. He is a well-known personality in the neopagan world. Despite the clear attacks of the people who don't want to see him here for their own personal reasons and vendettas, his name and writings are well known in neopagan circles, and I thought he deserved an article. The user who called for this deletion is "Ashley Y", a person who also uses the Wikipedia rip-off and trash site "Encyclopedia Dramatica", where she has made countless libelous statements against Robin Artisson. You can see them here in the history page of the article made against him there: [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Son_of_art&action=history] The user "Swisscelt" has also tried to smear him at that site, and you can look at that history page and see his name, as well. Both of these users have personal grudges against Robin. They are not objective. Many authors and artists choose to self-publish for reasons of creative control. Being self-published is still published. People voting against this article- like Modemac have already made personal attacks against Robin, calling him a "troll" and an "asshole". This is a violation of Wiki's rules, and troll-like behavior, evidence of the true motivations of people trying to remove this article. There is not a shred of verifiable evidence that Robin has spammed "hundreds" or even "dozens" of groups, anywhere. —Ravenflight
Comment: You can plainly see I've not voted on this motion, nor will I (it appears my vote will be unnecessary anyway). I'd appreciate it if you not attempt to turn this into a smear campaign against me. Thank you. -- SwissCelt 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Do Not Delete Robin Artisson deserves to be represented here as well as any other author without being attacked. Toadsboon 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes from new users

[edit] Delete
  • Delete The only thing Robin Artisson is well-known for is trolling pagan communities, harrassing journalists in their own journals, and the ever infamous photoshopped picture of Christopher Trottier to include a Nazi symbol. The only thing Robin Artisson has ever been noted for is his detatchment from reality. Savara
  • Delete If the bar is set so low as to allow self-published authors to use Wikipedia as another one of many channels of self-aggrandizement and bully-pulpit we've served no public good. At very least, it should be deemed unacceptable for the subject to be author and editor of what amounts to his own mini-biography, and Artisson seems unlikely to allow others to pass judgement or comment negatively upon himself. —Wingedelf
  • Delete PLEASE This is written solely to bolster RA's ego. —mysticalyon 16:28, 17 January 2006 (EST, Canada)Above vote by 69.196.234.252 (talk · contribs).
  • Delete - as he has in his own Son of Art group "secret supporters," in various groups to keep an eye on anyone speaking against him. He has a severe messiah complex, and if you ask for resources, he'll attack you with such immaturity that he isn't taken seriously in the pagan community. Most of the "Do not delete" are his sock puppets, or secret supporters. He bases his work on Nigel Jackson, whom his history is as mis-guided as Margaret Murray's, and the "mystically inclined" is as much nonsense as his "recovery" of ancient lore. In otherwords, he's making stuff up. I've seen him troll, and his Michael Quirke that's "a traditional pagan" is in fact, a christian, who tells the old stories. So, added on, is liar. He is self-publicized, meaning no publisher would take him seriously more than likely. Also, he bases his work on R.J. Stewart, whom is a very new-age author. His online group is only an ego boosting, and his "wealth" of knowledge is shotty, poorly researched, or just plain off. DELETE him, and let him get a dose of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.96.243 (talk • contribs)
  • User's seventh edit. What's our threshold for new user votes, ten? Madame Sosostris 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
If the closing admin does the right thing, it is not a pure vote at all, and a well-reasoned argument by a first-time user is more important than an unexplained vote by someone with five thousand edits. That aside, there is no hard-and-fast rule about "AfD suffrage". Jkelly 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, just don't read his work. It's not meant for the spiritually desolate agnostic anyway. It must be horrible to not believe anything unless it's been on National Geographic thirty plus times. I also don't think being an armchair anthropologist such as RA dissenters are qualifies one to say what is true and what isn't just because they haven't had the blessing of learning outside of their Google searches and Ronald Hutton books (who actually likes Robin's work! !gasp!). Toadsboon 07:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And currently, he has only faceless internet entities trying to get him banned! How dare you insult those of us who actually are quite intelligent by the way, with the same old rhetoric and lies about not being real people? Everyone who has posted here for Robin is indeed genuine and our IP's can be verified. Take your mudslinging elsewhere.If you do not know where Hyldor comes from nor what it means, you really show your lack of knowledge regarding the subject of witchery. Go back to school or do a Google search.Personally, I have noticed many of the posts for the pro-deletion camp are remerkably similar. Hmm. One might wonder why! Marilyn, Moonflwr_13@yahoo.com --Moonflwr 13:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that you aren't real. We're only saying that you are not an established Wikipedia user, and therefore your vote does not count as much as those from people who've been here for a while and contributed to the project. I regret that you find this insulting, but these are the principles upon which we operate; I humbly suggest that you find another encyclopedia if this one is not to your taste. Madame Sosostris 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I was simply responding and referring to various comments made by someone here, not to Wikipedia policy. So, let the article on Robin be edited and "polished up" if you wish, but please do not delete it. Thanks. --Moonflwr 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do not delete
  • Please DO NOT Delete Robin is a gentleman and very well known to every neo-pagan that I personally know. His self-published book has sold tons of copies and I believe that he is more than notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. He is already weighing offers from several mainstream publishers.—Rivethead28
  • Please do not delete. Robins works have been enjoyed by many these past few years and he certainly IS a notable character in the pagan community, whether one agrees with his discussion style, or ritual methods and history or not. Both his internet writings/poetry, and now his hard copy full length book have proved to be workable or at least inspiring to many. Ashley_y has stated in her own entry that she is nothing more than a "fiddler" and corrector, and not noted for originality. Swisscelt has been whining in blogs now for ages about Robin,and now has come here for another unprovoked attack. These negative votes seem to violate all the criteria set by Wiki for manners on deletion. :unrulywitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrulywitch (talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE! I have seen this "Ashley Y" attack Mr. Artisson relentlessly in several other on line communities, as well as the rest of the "deleters" This harassment includes libelous and false information to this Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, to spread vicious lies about him across the internet, to anywhere they could find to spam the link. I am forced to wonder if others of the same mind such as Swisscelt, have been asked to help in the deletion of this valid article, for the sole purpose of causing drama where it is not appropriate. Mr. Artisson is a very well respected Pagan author in my community, and several neopagan bookstores are currently carrying "The Witching Way Of The Hollow Hill" , which has been heralded as one of the most profoundly meaningful works, rivaling that of the Masters. I do hope the Wiki Staff recognizes the extreme conflict of interest in regards to these "pro-deletion" comments, and takes swift action to prevent further vandalism to this wonderful article. I fail to see how and "Pro-Artisson" camments can be catagorized as personal attacks, when the sole purpose here of all of the people that want this article deleted is a misguided personal vandetta/attack. If you don't appreciate Mr. Artisson's ground-breaking work, then you are free not to view this article,and voice your opinions about him in your own blog, or whatever it is you have. I attend many Pagan gatherings and nearly every person I meet for the first time is aquainted with and acknowledges the importance of Robin's work, and he is quite notable, I assure you. I do hope the Wiki staff sees these personal attacks for what they are. This man has sold a great deal of books, and has been authoring many on line articles for years. To even consider he is not "notable" is laughable, and an obvious attempt at censorship. AGAIN:DO NOT DELETE... --Lupinespirit
Comment: A well-reasoned argument that the article meets our inclusion guidelines would, in my book, get someone somewhere. This is supposed to be a discussion... Jkelly 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a sockpuppet of the article creator, and it doesn't provide any proof. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) You mention that Artisson's book "has been heralded as one of the most profoundly meaningful works, rivaling that of the Masters". I suggest you give us a reference for this, if it is from a source that is at all reputable, because that's exactly the kind of fact that if established could help to save the article. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't operate based on a show of hands, but based on documentary evidence. Fuzzypeg 12:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the perosnal attacks. I saw the announcement in Mr. Artisson's Son Of Art Yahoo 500 memeber discussion community yesterday, and saw the deletion notice today and was shocked. Yes I joined today, so what? Is it so unreasonable that a reader of Mr. Artisson's would come in here and ask the article not be deleted? I thought this was a discussion on that very topic, and did not realize that one had to be a ling time member such as swisscelt to vote. That seems to be a wee bit prejududical to me. I read the article, I joined to vote, end of story. Please pedal your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Lupinespirit (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This edit shows that you are a sockpuppet of banned user User:Ravenflight. —Ashley Y 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We are "prejudiced," if you must call it that, in favor of those who have made significant contributions to the Wikipedia project. Those who have not will not be taken seriously. Madame Sosostris 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I was using the edit feature for a templete. I don't even know who ravenwhatever is! Here i wont put anything but text...Do that help you any? I thought this place banned by IP anyway? Why is my account still here? Is that how youplan to carry out your censorship, by pointing fingers at people and calling them 3 grade names? This is a valid article, get over it. User=Lupinespirit
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE, I enjoy reading the articles that Robin Artisson writes and was very pleased to see a short bio of him here on Wikipedia. Please don't delete this..Tezcatlipocasgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezcatlipocasgirl (talk • contribs)
  • User's first edit. —Ashley Y 00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (from Talk:Robin Artisson): ANYONE that could possibly want Robin off the list couldn't have possibly read one of the Newest True Masterpieces of Traditonal Craft "The Witching Way of Hollow Hill"! I've been reading and practicing our Austrian Family brand of Traditional ways for year and have read not only most of the mainstream fluff but those that most would believe are factually researched and historically correct! Many who have read his book, as new as it is, are already calling this their Pagan brand of Bible(for lack of a better word)! I AGREE! Robin is one of the Best writers on Spiritual Mysteries in our Modern era attested by his Fast growing fan base! Even if it is taken off, Robin will be a continue to be a Major Player and Occult Author long after his removal! He's a true survivor and one that many are green with envy over! To Remove Robin would be giving in to the mainstream popular new age authors! UNFAIR Indeed! I VOTE KEEP THIS ARTICLE on WIKIPEDIA! Crowshifter / John K January 17, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowshifter (talk • contribs) .
  • Please do NOT delete! Robin is a very wonderful and talented man with a vast wealth of knowledge regarding European paganism as well as history. I have been on this heathen path for over thirty of my forty years and have learned quite a bit myself. I can say with all honesty that Robin knows his subject extremely well, more so than 99% of the pagan authors out there. I find it sad that a few naysayers who do not like him because he dares to disagree with them are allowed to harass and slander him wherever he goes. It irks such people to no end to see the truth about Robin and be brought face to face with their lies. Talk about a detachment from reality! Leave him alone and go find someone else to bully. Robin's work, writings and websites can and do stand on their own. If you don't like it, don't read it! But please do not try to censor him and spread lies. It will only come back to bite you in the backside. Also, Wikipedia can validate my IP if they wish and see that I am a real person, not a puppet, thankyou very much. Marilyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonflwr (talk • contribs)
  • User's first edit. —Ashley Y 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete: he does some wonderful stuff, well researched. I enjoyed his book and want to see him write more. thepixeltypo (Morgy)*—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepixeltypo (talk • contribs)

Comment. You've heard of him now. And that, I think, is the point. For someone who is called "not notable" by the "delete" crowd, he seems to have the power to cause quite a ruckuss, and invoke quite a lot of emotion out of quite a lot of people. And for someone who isn't known or notable, a lot of people here seem to know him- and even know enough about him to tell us all what multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, etc. Yeah... he's well known for being "not notable"- notable, after all, is a rather neutral term, to "be of note" doesn't imply anything automatically positive or negative, nor is there some objective standard for who is "notable" when it comes to fringe communities and alternative communities like the heterogeneous neopagan world. jontelpo

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, for an explanation of why we cannot yet conclude Robin Artisson to be a notable figure. We need mention of him from a reputable published source (and not, of course, just from his own books). If he is well known to a large online community of witches then there's a good chance that at some stage soon he will appear in someone's book or article on the subject, however we have to wait for that primary research to appear first (see Wikipedia:No original research). Now I've always felt that magic and witchcraft are essentially esoteric activities not suited for the mainstream anyway (learning about magic can only be done by learning to dig deeper than the surface, searching for more than what's presented up front). I know well the fringe community of magical New Zealand, and some of the communities of parts of England and Australia. The most proficient occultists (and those who have been most influential in the magical and pagan scenes) tend not to enter the spotlight. How many pages will you find doing a web search for Michael Freedman? How many for Paula Jacobs-Wedo? How many for Jack Taylor? Very few, although their influence in New Zealand, through their orders, schools and students has had a huge effect in shaping NZ's occult community. (They do however appear in a few reputable books on the subject.) So don't worry too much if there's currently not enough documentation on Artisson to support an article. It should be forthcoming fairly quickly if he has such a strong following. In the meantime, unless you're hoping to convert a whole load of people, I wouldn't worry too much. Fuzzypeg 12:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that this is "quite a ruckus" -- you didn't see the multiple GNAA deletion votes. By Wikipedia standards, this is a tiny, tiny little dust-up. How many votes are on this page, anyway -- fewer than fifty altogether? I wouldn't call that "quite a lot of people." Hell, everyone keeps mentioning that 500-member Yahoo group, and I wouldn't call that "quite a lot of people."
Internet phenomena and personalities show up on Wikipedia, of course -- look at Something Awful, for instance -- but generally they have to be very well-known, to where they're mentioned by multiple large media outlets (print or online). Artisson fails the Google test, since most of the hits you get on his name are from his own sites or those of his friends.
I'm not saying that he won't be notable, someday in the future. However, right now he's really only "well-known" to the people who've encountered him personally. The fact that those people have strong opinions about him isn't really news. Madame Sosostris 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE He puts out some wonderful stuff. More researched than most of the 'wiccan' authors. Keep the entry like it is. ¥ Bird* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckoo bird (talk • contribs)
  • User's first edit. —Ashley Y 06:39, 19 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 ☎ ) 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of Fighters XII

It's a hoax - however, it may be salvageable into a real article after some time, from a few months to a couple of years, when information in the actual game surfaces, as a sequel to King of Fighters XI seems likely; until then, BJAODN seems adequate if this isn't deleted Loona 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, started out as fancruft and speculation about what the game could be about (a comment from the developer said the game's development has just begun), evolved into random additions from people who thought they were funny. - Bobet 16:45, 21 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 ☎ ) 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of Fighters XIII

It's a hoax and should be deleted or BJAODNed - there's the possibility after some years and actual game may surface under that name though Loona 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • BJAODN as hoax. Stifle 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's just someone's fancruft about what the game could eventually be about, without being verifiable. And it's not very funny. - Bobet 16:42, 21 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 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Feed Trix are due to set off on a tour of Australia, Antartica and Brazil! Stay tuned for more!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flood Of Red

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable band. Has the main hallmark of non-notability: a myspace page. Stifle 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable band.  (aeropagitica)  21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Incognito 02:52, 19 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 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Romantic Empire

Article based on original research from an exceedingly non-notable website, which has only 1,000 Google hits on "Post Romantic Empire" and doesn't even have an Alexa rank. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research, and a lack of non-primary sources. Stifle 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as self promotion with no encyclopedic content. -- parasti (talk) 08:47, 21 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; standard disclaimer: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP BUT IS REALLY IMMATERIAL AND THIS AFD SHOULD NOT BE CITED BY EITHER SIDE IN CASE AN EDIT WAR BREAKS OUT OVER "KEEPING" OR REDIRECTING THIS ARTICLE. Oh, but since I see this is a duplicate of Post-romanticism and has less information, I'll just make it a redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postromanticism

Neologism, only "real" reference is in the non-notable website listed above. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is false. --Nikitchenko 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Since when was Neologism a criteria for deletion? --Nikitchenko 03:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please take a look again Stifle, it is verifiable and to academic sources. --Nikitchenko 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Post-romanticism unless that is also bogus. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Post-romanticism is also bogus, or at least of unverified notability and should not squat on the main title. The common use of the word "Post-Romanticism" is as a synonym of Late Romanticism, especially (but not only) in music. I suggest redirecting all these to Romanticism, as we don't yet have an article on Late Romanticism. u p p l a n d 09:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Tapsharru's non-vote. It appears to me to be just a comment containing opinions and a suggestion to REDIRECT. --Nikitchenko 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify: my previous comment suggested deleting the current content and redirecting the title to Romanticism. Votes to redirect are quite commonly made in these discussions and are completely legitimate. u p p l a n d 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You maybe say the same if Late romanticism is ever created. --Nikitchenko 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/REDIRECT to Post-romanticism. It is not bogus, Tapsharru, just because you say so. And the philosophy is notable. It is NOT the same as Romanticism and the movement/philosophy is backed up by many artists and a university professor. --Nikitchenko 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Post-romanticism exists as a concept synonymous with late romanticism. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2002), p. 292, mentions Mahler and Richard Strauss as composers who can be called late romantic or post-Romantic. James Hepokoski, in the Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Music (2001), p. 456, points out that either post-romanticism or late romanticism in the context of musical history is to be seen as pejorative expressions coined by the the "high modernists, supporters of the dissonant, 'new music' in the years before and after the First World War" and that composers such as Mahler and Strauss (and a few others) are better defined - and saw themselves - as [early] modernists. Regardless of the pejorative nature of the term, that is the use of "post-romanticism" that the author is referring to as established. Any other usage so far still seem to be a late idiosyncracy. However, if you have academic references (or even notable non-academic references, such as some coverage in magazines or newspapers with a non-negligable circulation) which back up your claim about the notability of this "post-romantic" philosophy, Wikipedia can have an article on it too. In either case, the current Post-romanticism "article" doesn't tell us anything about the philosophy in question. It is not even a whole line. Actually, it is just an excuse for an external link. u p p l a n d 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Your research would be more productive in the article then here. If you favor for all that info about post- to be in Romanticism then you can do it, if you donot then somebody else will have to do it. What is put in the article is all thats had been contributed so far... Thank you for the information. --Nikitchenko 11:05, 21 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 original article removed; now a redirect. r3m0t talk 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The shot heard 'round the world

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Shot heard 'round the world, which is about the extremely notable beginning of the American Revolutionary War. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable band, then recreate as a redirect per Cyde. That way, it's less easy for the article creators to revert it. Stifle 21:10, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Sun Union (demo)

Non-notable album by a non-notable band which doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia. A Google search for "Clay Sun Union" yields only 2,700 results. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 21:09, 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 01:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Goulden & Hugh Schieler

Nn obituary, WP:NOT, sorry BadSeed 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unfortunately. Wikipedia is not a memorial. My condolences to the bereaved. Stifle 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A sad loss, but inapropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:39, 18 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 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fnatic

  • Delete vanity piece/non npov/WP:CORP, straight copy from own website --Djith 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This was originally blanked as a copyvio but Zro and 84.228.184.131 reverted it. I have restored the copyvio tag. Stifle 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, it's not a copyvio per new postings on the talk page. Delete as non-notable and advert instead. Stifle 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I believe that it's not a copyvio, I do think it's non-notable wikispam. --Whouk (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, author claims to own the web site, but appears determined to fill the article with promotional fluff rather explaining what the company actually does. If the company's own web site can't explain it who else can? Gazpacho 07:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. Incognito 02:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Vanispamcruftisement -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:04, 20 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 ☎ ) 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TruSim

nn game developer Hirudo 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete division of a notable company, not deserving of its own article, nothing to merge. Stifle 21:03, 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 move, merge and redirect; delete cycle synchrony. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cycle synchrony

This article is

  1. misleading, as the common scholarly use of "cycle synchrony" is something else [26]
  2. essentially a one man's theory
  3. short enough to be merged into Edward R Dewey.

See also this TfD.

After reaching consensus on this article, more articles, like Cycle studies and War cycles may need our attention.

Proposed action: Merge, no redirect.

Alternative action: Move to Cycle synchrony (Dewey), deleting the redirect at Cycle synchrony. Then merge and redirect to Edward R Dewey.

Pjacobi 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect as per nom.--nixie 03:32, 19 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 ☎ ) 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short People

Comprised solely of the lyrics to the song. Nothing here to merge. Might be a transwiki candidate, but isn't a Wikipedia article. --Wrathchild (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete copyvio. Johntex\talk 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete non-encyclopaedic if nothing else. -Drdisque 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource if it isn't a copyvio. Delete from here in any case. Stifle 21:02, 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 ☎ ) 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ekalanyana

dicdef Melaen 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I doubt there is a Wiktionary in Ateso or Oshiwambo. As such, delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef Incognito 02:33, 19 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 redirect to egg salad. -R. fiend 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egg salad sandwich

not encyclopedic Melaen 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If no one objects, I'll just redirect this to Egg salad. -R. fiend 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No objections yet, doing a speedy redirect. -R. fiend 22:26, 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 speedied. r3m0t talk 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Maislen

Doesn't seem notable. Google gives not much[27][28]. NicM 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as CSD:A7 biography with no claim to notability. Stifle 21:00, 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 I'm going out on a limb and saying delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramifications Thereof 2

Renomination. The last AFD was closed as a keep, with the only keep votes being cast by new users (one of whom is the creator of the show). I think it needs more examination. Googling "Ramifications Thereof" is tricky, as it's a pretty damn common phrase, but "Ramifications Thereof" "cable news" -wikipedia got me 15 unique hits (most not related to this). "Ramifications Thereof" zen master -wikipedia got me 36 (again, most not related). By "cable news" I think it means "public access", which is usually not encyclopedic. At the last AFD one user said "From what I can tell, this show does have a following in Northern California" but didn't give any evidence, and I can't find any. -R. fiend 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • aloof to the relevance police this is my program. that is my true and legal name. it airs on public access stations just north of san francisco. it certainly has merit in my opinion. find me another program in the united states that airs photos of war casualties, which i do, respectfully, for a few minutes at the end of each program. honestly, i think its the most relevant cable information source from san francisco to seattle but i will certainly lose no sleep over its deletion from an information pool which could equal ably be attributed as possessing questionable significance, also.

i don't know how many people watch it. it's unverifiable and i'm philosophically opposed to polling. polls are used to influence opinion rather than reflect it. please don't participate in them.

not that its really anyone's business... i spoke with james s. as a result of a conversation we had concerning a three hour interview i did in berkeley with leuren moret, a former whistleblower at lawrence livermore national laboratory and renowned scientific specialist on depleted uranium munitions.

in summation: i dont give a shit what you do. life must be good if this is all you have to worry about. you know you've arrived when you have nothing left to prove. peace out.Zen Destiny 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as an unverified TV programme that currently has no information on notability. Tricky one, though. Stifle 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for now Article is completely uniformative. Maybe if it had some meat it would be worth keeping. Like links to streaming videos or transcripts or something. As it is it doesn't even say what city it's in, what channel, what time. If it's trying to inform me, it's failing. GangofOne 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Among other things, I find it difficult to believe that a real news program would be unprofessional enough to be produced by someone using such a silly pseudonym. At best, it's somebody's cable access show, at worst, it's a deliberate hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on my conversations with producer, the show does play on cable access but I believe it exceeds the 5,000-audience notability threshold. I have invited Zen to expand the article. Sorry about the apparent unfamiliarity with name styles in California. --James S. 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But can you verify any of this beyond conversations with the producer, which are hardly sufficient? -R. fiend 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified and (so far) unverifiable. "Because I said so" is not verification, especially if you don't explain how you came to be talking with him in the first place. And since, as I understand it, the 5000-audience threshold means 5,000 people actually watching it, not just potentially, you'd better have the ratings book to demonstrate audience share. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I still say keep on this. The show may or may not have a following in its home market. I believe it should stay. Secondarily, I dont agree with renominations so quickly after an intial AfD.Phantasmo 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton, though if verified I may change my vote. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:01, 20 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 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faggetry

Possible nonsense, unable to find reference. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Jawz 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Vagodin 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The word is faggotry dumbass. Incognito 02:44, 19 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 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felicity Fey

un-notable web porn star Melaen 20:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Taking your clothes off and being photographed/filmed is not a claim to notability. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Incognito 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:59, 19 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 ☎ ) 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forumspotting

forumcruft the article says also It's unknown if ForumSpotting is truly popular Melaen 20:59, 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 ☎ ) 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International PHP Magazine

Non-notable magazine. r3m0t talk 21:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Incognito 05:41, 18 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 ☎ ) 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I could care less

Dicdef. Delete. r3m0t talk 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it fails totally to mention that in the UK we still DO say "I couldn't care less" for one thing. Jcuk 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant to the question we are evaluating, namely whether this title is inherantly inconsistent with an encyclopedic article.
      --Jerzy•t 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Del. While this is more than a dicdef, it is hard to believe that it is more than original research at this point, nor that established knowledge could bear it out. IMO, this reeks sheer speculation about linguistic change, and while i can imagine verification that would chg my position, i am quite comfortable deleting based on my sense, until we see it, that we won't see it.
    --Jerzy•t 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article needs work (sources!), but it's a topic that has attracted quite a bit of attention by linguists of late, and is being seriously studied. For a (light) introduction, see here: Lots of linguists caring more about caring less Lukas 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Change my vote to delete. Part of the text is actually copyvio from here [29]. A pity, really. Now, could I care less? or more? Lukas 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The content might be useful as a liguistics example, but it does not belong in a separate article. Arcturus 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the first place, I am Mike Delizia. The text from my Stumpers e-mail message is original with me, and first appeared on a BBS called Grex ten years ago. There is absolutely no copyright violation here. As to sources, the process I describe is one that I witnessed myself, as it was happening. It is not my opinion or speculation, it is simple observation. (It took place over the course of a generation -- that is, the people saying "I could care less" in 1970 were the children of the people who were saying "I couldn't care less" in 1950. The older [i.e., my] generation continued, and in many cases continues, to say "I couldn't care less.") To my knowledge, there are no sources and can be no sources for this information apart from the observations of people present at the creation. In any case, my description of the change is original with me and is absolutely accurate. Mystery solved. I would love to see it remain here on Wikipedia. If you want to cite my Stumpers e-mail or my Grex post as "sources," you have my permission to do so. No hard feelings, whatever you guys decide to do. Btw, if you want to see my original posting on Grex, go to http://www.cyberspace.org/. Find your way to the Grex conferencing system on that site, then go to the Language conference, then read Item 72. My post is Response #25, dated March 22, 1995. All the best, golaud (mdelizia@aol.com).
  • Whatever. Lukas points out that my article now falls under "original research," which is not allowed on Wikipedia. There was no research involved, just paying attention and reporting, but I do understand the problem: I'm not a professional linguist; why would anyone take my word for this? But would it be possible for somebody else (Lukas?) to write the article using my e-mail to Stumpers as a source? What I'm wondering is, how the heck do you get something like this out there if not on Wikipedia? --Golaud 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The point of the OR prohibition is that we record accepted knowledge, and what constitutes "research" is not important. Questions like "how the heck do you get something like this out there if not on Wikipedia?" are handled at WP:RD, but have you participated in the forum Lukas mentioned? Those folks are likely to have indexed recordings and transcriptions of casual conversations dating back at least to the 1950s, much more persuasive than your informal memory of the sequence -- even tho your insight into this (IMO plausible) process may be the sort of germ of academically publishable study that some PhD candidate is waiting for the chance to sharpen her linguistic tools on; you may eventually be the subject of a footnote thanking you by name for your role as an "observant amateur-linguist informant".
      --Jerzy•t 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep. I could handle being a footnote, I think. (I would've entered all of this anonymously, in fact, as I've entered a number of titles and edits on Wikipedia, only Wikipedia made me create an account this time.) Anyway, the thought of researching "indexed recordings and transcriptions of casual conversations dating back at least to the 1950s" gives me a migraine, so somebody else will have to do that part. In the meanwhile, why can't my entry stay here as a goad to serious scholars willing to undertake the drudgery? The sequence I've outlined is indisputably true, and I would think anyone with an ear for language will recognize that fact. I am a living relic of that era, and as good a source as any transcriptions you're likely to find. (Harrumph.) Still, as I said earlier, no hard feelings if you decide otherwise. --Golaud 03:17, 20 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 12:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandi_Gibson

This person is not sufficiently notifiable or famous for inclusion in Wikipedia, being a partipicant in a USA reality TV show is considered not notifiable enough, absolute minimum would be a winner.Kreb Dragonrider 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment we have various Big Brother contestants with their own articles, is Ms. Gibson any less notable than they are? Jcuk 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • All the Big Brother articles I can find either concern the 'winners', or people who have found later fame (as soapie stars, minor show hosts, etc) because of their appearance on the show. This girl came fourth in her 'reality' tv series, and has a pending legal case concerning possession of drugs. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Would not be fair to delete this but not all the others. Just leave it, its notable enough. Forever young


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cazash

Spam for internet company --NaconKantari 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Legit slang and should be kept. Relevant contribution.

Found worthy of keeping. mn


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLX

Nonverifiable game. There are many Google hits for MLX, but I was unable to find any reference to this game - except for the Wikipedia entry (about two or three pages down). Full disclosure: I created MLX (software) and I'd like to move it to MLX if this article is deleted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I find myself in agreement re this being a nonverifiable game.Kreb Dragonrider 21:35, 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 ☎ ) 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown64

Seems to be a just an article about a little known program, designed to drive traffic to its developer's website. Delete. Deli nk 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree that this constitute an on-line advertisement.Kreb Dragonrider 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Edgar181 14:44, 18 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 ☎ ) 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mise zines

Whatever this is, it doesn't seem notable[30][31][32]. May be WP:NFT. NicM 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

  • Delete or Userfy to article creator. It doesn't seem any more notable now than when I put the potential vanity tag back on it in december. --Syrthiss 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Omega3burn or delete, nn per nom. --Interiot 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The zine is unverifiable, independently published, and the article makes no claim of notability or wide distribution. I hope Omega3burn will consider preserving the content on his user page before the article is deleted, as suggested above. ×Meegs 07:45, 18 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 ☎ ) 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oberster Reichsführer

This article is nominated for deletion as it is non-existent SS rank made up by a user with a history of adding incorrect ranks to WWII articles. The user in question (User:Tt1) has already been blocked once for numerous additions of non-existent ranks on Comparative military ranks of World War II. There is no source that such a rank as this ever existed Husnock 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of rank's existence. Creator seems to have extrapolated from the fact that Hitler was Oberster SA-Führer. -- Necrothesp 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. - Bobet 16:47, 21 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 ☎ ) 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savannah Baker (singer)

Found this while cleaning out the AfD for Joey Webb. Derrty Ent. IS a real record label, but I can't view it as their Flash coding doesn't work on Firefox and I'm on Win AS 2003 and I can't seem to see any ActiveX controls. Anyway, AMG has never heard of her and according to the article has had only one song on one CD. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 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 ☎ ) 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story Wars

Non-notable party game a long example of a story. Delete. r3m0t talk 21:27, 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 this is the part where i abuse my admin powers and delete! Seriously, it's a two-sentence stub of questionable (at the very best) notability. It's not much of a loss to delete, and listing every monster truck ever created would be crazy. Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Storm Warning (truck)

Storm Warning was not a well known truck and is not notable compared to other monster trucks. User:Joeystuff has been adding several articles to Category:Monster trucks of questionable notability and without proper formatting and as such it has been difficult for me to keep up. Arenacale 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge all of these articles into List of monster trucks or something similar. Almost none of these trucks should have an article of its own. Kusma (討論) 17:56, 19 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dieselpunk

Neologism invented for a RPG (Children of the Sun). Seems to have had no real use outside that, despite this voluminous article, which is as far as I can tell wholly original research. Delete —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a tough one. This doesn't really fit in to either steampunk or cyberpunk. --King of All the Franks 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't have articles on genres that should exist. Create the movement first, make the Wikipedia entry only then. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, where should we put the material in the article? --King of All the Franks 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The material that isn't original research is a single paragraph. Place information either in Children of the Sun or Steampunk, which is where all this started. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I've taken another look and it appears you're right. There seems to be no professional evidence for this, so I guess I'll go with you on this one. --King of All the Franks 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator, Google only returns hits about this RPG, this is a whole genre created ex nihilo possibly to promote sales. Endomion 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --King of All the Franks 07:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this with the others punk pages. Flyboy Will 09:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with other punk pages Sceptre (Talk) 12:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as being a literary genre is concerned, there are no citeable sources and the content is not verifiable. Some of this information could be placed in the Children of the Sun article, but it does not warrant an article on its own. Avogadro94 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The non-original work here and with the other literary punk genres up for deletion might have a place in a section of Cyberpunk. --Ccranium 15:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable science fiction genre that doesn't seem to exist outside of a role-playing game. Its application to literature, film, and other media is a clear case of original research. - EurekaLott 15:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with all points made. --Daveadams 15:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed -- the portion of this article that is not original research belongs under Children of the Sun. redfox 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Google search seems to show it gaining currency, and it's a valid descriptor.Bjones 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a joke that has gone very wrong. --J13 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep But the list of movies needs to be removed completely - "punk" is not a synonym for "era." A lot of those movies, maybe even the majority, have little or no "punk" theme whatsoever - the original author claimed that Night Of The Living Dead was dieselpunk, for crying out loud. - Anonymous 12:14, 23 December 2005
  • Neutral on this one. rodii 20:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Being the author of this article I wish it to be deleted. Piecraft 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all this punkcruft. We should have listed all of these into a consolidated AfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at least merge with cyberpunk or Children of the Sun. The concept has merit beyond the RPG that introduced it. Google reflects its growing use. ScottHardie 02:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just becasue some punkcraft articles are nonsense doesn't mean there are only two genres Johhny-turbo 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dieselpunk

From speedy. "Reposted content". I can't find the original. r3m0t talk 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I do not see why this article should be deleted under the particular circumstances given by r3m0t - as far as I can say the article is relevant in considering the term which is perhaps new but as can be seen on the net is a popular term. E.Deranged 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to Children of the Sun (game). Unverifiable & non-notable per previous deletion debate. NicM 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Speedy delete. This version is close to a word-for-word copy of the deleted article and is the sole contribution of User:E.Deranged. - EurekaLott 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge per NicM. --Terence Ong 10:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, though some information can be moved to Children of the Sun (game)- See previous deletion debate. Avogadro 14:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - I have added the relevant sources and information and merged into the Children of the Sun (game) article as per Avogadro's suggestion. 87.80.126.226 00:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, consider a redirect. Radiant_>|< 20:21, 22 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 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10eastern

Non-notable website. r3m0t talk 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn Incognito 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep strong cult following and has been in major art circles and publications. JohnRussell 05:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep 10eastern just suffered a ddos (hacker) attack last week, the server was taken down and none of the previous content is back up yet. While it may appear 'non-notable' now (considering all of the content is offline due to the attack) it has been featured in a column by Pamela O'Connell in the New York Times concerning the Found Photos project ( http://pam_oconnell.tripod.com/72904.txt ) and in a Reuters column on filesharing - ( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5614116/ ), as well as multiple websites and blogs and generates a considerable amount of traffic daily. The FoundPhotos archives and the drawing community boards are both down until this friday or saturday, so not much to see at the moment. Zorkiii 17:35, 18 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 12:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassica (truck)

A little known previous identity of a UK truck (Swamp Thing). I am not as familiar with the UK scene but if an editor would like to add those trucks this could become a redirect. But until that happens it is not notable. Arenacale 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn Incognito 03:18, 19 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 ☎ ) 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Helsinki

this article was redirected to "helsinki ICT media scene" which has very little to do with Helsinki's economy in total. before that it consisted of one sentence, nor does much link to it anymore after "Helsinki" has been edited and cleaned. Pretty straightforward case. Gillis 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It was one sentence for six months, then someone redirected it because it lacked content. The word Helsinki is not even mentioned in the article Economy of Finland, so i guess no one will quarrel if this one is deleted.--Ezeu 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Economy of Finland, since Helsinki is part of Finland. Doesn't need an article on its own. --Terence Ong 10:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom Incognito 02:31, 19 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 12:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bat-embargo

original research on an ongoing topic so unencyclopedic : This is a current topic of discussion which may end up being a very obscure footnote in a rather specialist area. Any reasonable article at this point will be original research, difficult to verify and quickly outdated. I suggest cleanly deleting; at least for the present moment. Mozzerati 21:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: This was voted for merger previously into Justice League Unlimited, and this was done. No need for this level of info ona very minor point that is already adequately covered. Dyslexic agnostic 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: While I sympathize T-Man's desire to be bold, there simply is not enough encyclopedic information to justify its own wiki.--Gillespee 23:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: and help me by providing more encyclopedic information. And please, lets try to hear different opinions besides dyslexic, Khaos, myself and Gillespee for a change.--T for Trouble-maker 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
this entry unsigned by the creator of this wiki, T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (sorry, hah, hah, :P --T for Trouble-maker 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC))
This article was merged to the JLU article before, but as you can see, it got sized down to a couple fo small paregraphs.
  • Delete, fancruft Incognito 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Policy relating to fancruft
As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and POV - all things that lead to deletion. Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are highly controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its deletion, but it is rarely the sole factor.
  • Smerge to Justice League Unlimited, which already discusses this material. -Sean Curtin 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe shorten and merge, verifiable. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Justice League Unlimited. It appears to be verifiable, although not fully encyclopedic on its own. The article itself is practically unreadable and all the needed information can be told in two paragraphs. --Pc13 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The info about it that's in Justice League Unlimited is plenty in relation to the subject's importance. Hirudo 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it was already merged as per original afd. And someone make sure all its redirects get taken care of, too. --InShaneee 04:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Postdlf 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, relevant information accesible alreay at Justice League Unlimited. Hiding talk 16:10, 22 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 ☎ ) 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bobby And Argyle Soc Show

Non-notable, local TV show. Google tally? One listing, this page. Ifnord 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete public-access TV show. From the article: "sock puppets... were used to play major characters. The show closed after only four episodes due to lack of funds." Boy oh boy, you know you're in trouble when you can't raise enough money for sock puppets(!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to bring up the sock puppets. =) Ifnord 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, obscure, minor USA TV show.Kreb Dragonrider 22:41, 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 possible copyvio; please take it to there. Johnleemk | Talk 12:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breezedesign

Advertising for web company --NaconKantari 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Savidan 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [33] and [34]. Tagged as such. --GraemeL (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a copyright violation, I am the copyright holder and under the terms to which I agreed in submitting content have licensed it under the GDFL. --w437913e (talk) 08:54 20 January 2006


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; redirect required to preserve edit history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commieblock

This seems to be a neologism for Tower block, I've merged in the content, now AfD'ing. - FrancisTyers 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect per nom (already merged) but: (1) point that the word commieblock is a /very/ new term and is limited on a community named in Talk:Commieblock, (2) remove Krushchev's drivel since it is of no relevancy here (plus no source). Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have encountered the word "commieblock" many times in different architecture forums on the internet. I always thought that the first part "commie" came from "communism" and not "communal" though. A commieblock is different from tower block in that the style used usually some kind of brutalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.141.29 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 January 2006 (user has 3 contributions)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tupton

Whilst this might be notable to those that live there if no-one else, this is a nothing of an article that almost qualifies for db:empty. However, it's a new user's creation and we should give him/her a fair crack of the whip.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well cleaned up and expanded, beyond what I had thought possible. Therefore, I propose to withdraw this AfD nomination. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I've tidied it up a bit, so it is at least a stub, and its a genuine geographical location Jcuk 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added a little more to the start that Jcuk has made. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I seem to recall running across the name of this place in a few novels. It cetainly is known for the pottery. Logophile 08:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, per above. --Terence Ong 10:53, 18 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 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq

Article consists entirely of quotes from a book originally published in 1964. If anything, this belongs in Wikisource, though its doubtful that this is public domain (or whatever the requirement is for moving to Wikisource). Delete. Pepsidrinka 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The article contents should be removed. I think the article should be made a stub as it is worth an article (see Sayyid Qutb). I will write up a paragraph so there is something there and make this change post-haste. --Vector4F 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I added some real content and classified the article as a stub. The previous article state is here [35]. --Vector4F 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. - Bobet 16:48, 21 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 ☎ ) 03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course this doesn't prevent recreating the article with new and expaneded encyclopedi content , as W. Marsh suggested. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional highway

one-line "A=A" dictdef. BL kiss the lizard 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep because SPUI just blanked the article earlier today because the previous version was "crap". I say either revert to the previous version or let him work on it for a few days. Pepsidrinka 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's substantial content in the history, and it should be reverted. Catamorphism 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not because of the history (read it! It's all about highways that roadgeeks come up with!) but because there are "notable" highways in actual works of fiction. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hahahaha Incognito 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - and if there are really notable specimen, create List of fictional highways. --Abu Badali 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Abu badali. --Hosterweis 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason why this couldn't be fleshed out along the lines of Fictional currency, Fictional country or other similar articles. --W.marsh 19:48, 18 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. Mo0[talk] 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noxerville Pumas

are little-leage teams realy notable enough? i wouldnt have thought so. BL kiss the lizard 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Apparently, this is just nonsense/hoax: there is no such place as Noxerville. 131.111.8.99 22:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Got speedily deleted, good riddance. 131.111.8.104 02:10, 18 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 01:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogiarism

neoligism. 262 non-wikipedia google hits is pathetic for a term about blogs. BL kiss the lizard 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Catamorphism 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Blogiarism is a new term. You can delete it, but it'll be back in 3 months.--Randymorin 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Catamorphism 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of non-wikipedia hits google hits has almost doubled to 460 in two days. --Randymorin 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A number of prominent bloggers are aware of the term, are using it and it starts to become a known derrivation of plagiarism. Since Wikipedia is also like a dictionary, I think it would be cool if it also explained terms and words that become frequently used but aren't in 'official' dictionaries (yet) - Miel Van Opstal 23:24, 19 January 2006 (CET)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Catamorphism 23:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef about a neologism that is in very limited use. If it ever becomes popular, it might be a candidate for wiktionary, not wikipedia. - Bobet 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. When it gets more hits, then bring it back.--KrossTalk 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Deltabeignet 01:13, 23 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. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rousseau's genetic mirror theory

Nonsense. I think somebody must have spent too long watching Lost (TV series) while stoned. Delete Spondoolicks 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article itself states that "...information such as this doesn't belong on an encyclopædia", which begs the question why the author bothered to type out the nonsense in the first place.  (aeropagitica)  22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speed Delete This should have been removed long ago; how this hoax made it on Wikipedia this long is a mystery unto itself. The hoaxster admitted it was fake a while ago [36]—LeFlyman 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per reasons stated above. Jtrost 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Ditto. This is appalling. Danflave 04:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 10:51, 18 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 ☎ ) 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Malice

no context, un-encyclopedic tone and no significant improvement since July 2005. Melaen 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Ozzy & Drix - N (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I had no idea what this was about until following N's link to Ozzy & Drix. This is a misspelling of the character General Malaise, I suppose. I'm guessing that it's supposed to be a pun, and is probably pronounced something like Malice, so a redirect might be ok too. ×Meegs 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 10:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft Incognito 03:11, 19 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. Harro5 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oblong Schlong

Non-existent album from a non-notable band, violates WP:Music. Dutch Blindfold should also be deleted for the same reason.  (aeropagitica)  22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - N (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - nothing about this band or this album on Google, appears user account created to post about this band/album, I don't think their notability is even up for debate. - Dharmabum420 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom Incognito 04:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable at best; possibly a hoax - note see also reference and name of creator. —ERcheck @ 02:29, 19 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 since three editors all agree and the article title is similar to a multiply deleted hoax (and article includes references to it). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Blindfold

Non-notable band, as per WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)  22:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - N (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - nothing about this band or this album on Google, appears user account created to post about this band/album, I don't think their notability is even up for debate. - Dharmabum420 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Dharmabum420, as well as linked article on their sophomore album. Unverifiable. —ERcheck @ 02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete That's two deletes and three speedies, I think I'll do the needful. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:52, 20 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. Mo0[talk] 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grandma of TSO

non notable The Sims Online character Melaen 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted it's a player character, and thus qualifies as an A7 speedy. Also, if it wasn't created by the player (unsure if it was), it would count as an attack page too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 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 why, but of course - delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HPH CC

Highland Park High School Cross Country school cross country team non-notable. Melaen 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Would suggest a merge to the school's article, but this team has done nothing of note. They won an area-level event in the 70's and were trying for it again in 2005. Seeing as the page hasn't been updated anytime recently (except to add cleanup and afd tags), I'd say they failed, and this 'cheer-page' has been forgotten about. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:22, 18 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 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steal a mirror

Useless... no chance of this becoming a real article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No need for an article on all types of obscure euphemisms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 10:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle. Essexmutant 11:59, 20 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 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ercol

This article appears to be nothing more than an advertisment for the company it's about Benami 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a verbatim copy of the stuff on their website, but compare the article to this. It looks pretty familiar. Self-promotion or copyvio, either way it should go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. advert Incognito 02:36, 19 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 this pisses me off terribly, but it's a no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical essay

Not an article, and unlikely to become one. All this is is a definition of a term and the rules of writing in one (unspecified) context. There will be other ways of using this term (eg. Essay for History). However to collect a bunch of ways this term can be used is not going to be encyclopedic either--Doc ask? 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC) -Doc ask? 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep:I learnt something from the article. I'm sure it will expand into how to write one soon. Plus nominator doesn't support his reasons with any policy such as WP:DP. --CyclePat 03:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What type of crap is this? You want deletion rule 43 subsection 394B(iv)? I stated that this term has many unrelated usages, and I cannot see how an encyclopedia article can be written here. If you want to talk about policy, you say 'it will expand into how to write one soon' - but WP:NOT a 'how to', so it can't do that. The point is, it gives the definition of the term within some section of US schooling (I presume, because there is insufficient context to judge). Actually, taken generally, every piece of info is simply wrong. 'Historical essay' more usualy means an essay by a historian taking any form whatsoever, thus it is not neccessarily a 'written assignment' it may not 'include a thesis' it may, or may not be 'supported with facts or sources'. If we rewrite the article to be general enough to be correct, we'd be left with 'an Historical essay is an essay pertaining to some subject of history - the essay may take any form whatsoever'. And that would be a dicdef - and we'd delete it. --Doc ask? 10:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could be a great and useful article if cleaned up and expanded. Logophile 08:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is encyclopedic, but needs a total cleanup. --Terence Ong 10:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain this, please? What do you mean by encyclopedic - if we remove everything that is untrue about the term, we have nothing left. --Doc ask? 10:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - What next? Articles for Math homework and Band practice? Exercise a little self-restraint here, folks. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are a lot (maybe infinite) possible permutations of words, a number of which are commonly used. Should we have an article on what time is it, then? Or geological essay? As it stands the article is pretty much a dicdef, IMO. I don't care what happens to it (transwiki?), as long as the eventual outcome is along the lines of strong delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The user who created this article also created Psychology essay and Philosophical essay. We may want to expand our discussion to those. NoSeptember talk 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Happy to extend my vote to delete all - closing admin take note that the same principles apply to all.-Doc ask? 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found this page useful, so... maybe we'll rewrite it a bit? --Master Psychologist 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did have in mind expanding it to cover all the meanings of the term and make it more general --Essaywriting 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and expand essay if you have new information to add. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to essay. —Ruud 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Think of kids today using wikipedia as a starting point for their home work. Rember your target audience. The fact that you are not interested or even impressed doesn't mean it's not useful and fitting... Wit 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WARNING: This is going to come across as a lot snappier than I intend it, but here goes. Wit, I would like you to scroll up to the top of the page, look on the left hand side, and read the four words under the funky logo. Pay particular attention to the fourth word. This is an encyclopedia, not a homework resource. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 10:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're kidding, right? Are we making this for 2300 AD archaeologists finding 'some' hard drive in the mud - containing the ultimate encyclopedia of 2006 - or for people happy to USE this today???
  • Keep and Expand - I could see this growing into a decent article.--God of War 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Excellent article for anyone wishing to write a historical essay. - Mykola Petrenko 20:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do your own homework: if you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Letting someone else do your homework makes you learn nothing in the process, nor does it allow us Wikipedians to fulfill our mission of ensuring that every person on Earth, such as you, has access to the total sum of human knowledge. Oh, and merge in essay. Alphax τεχ 13:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
→ Redirects (and merges) are
cheap, fun, and a great way to
inflate your edit count!
Happy to redirect - but there is nothing here worth merging (for all the reasons given above) --Doc ask? 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything worth keeping with essay. Haakon 14:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to essay. There's nothing worth merging.--cj | talk 14:22, 20 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 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dover Castle

Non-noteworthy in its own right; Merge to Gay bar as the first gay pub in the UK. Erath 23:29, 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 01:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smashgames.com

Alexa 3,956,861; Google 3,610; no awards; no forum; a dozen staff. Fails WP:WEB; delete. Melchoir 23:37, 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 01:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Access Hip Hop

nn-website with a Alexa ranking of 425,000+ [37] Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Incognito 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's more than a website - it's a company with an actual real-life store, but the article does not assert notability. Zocky | picture popups 00:14, 22 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. nn spam Madchester 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MoPodcasting

50 unique google hits most of which being mirrors of wikipedia or nonsensical pagerank-inflating garbage. absolutely non-notable neologism that nobody has ever heard of. Timecop 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism Incognito 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MoPodcasting?? get rid of this garbage -- per nom Skrewler 23:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - one liner spam, per nom -- Femmina 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The creators of these stories should either be banned or warned. Cptchipjew 00:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yep - its nonsense :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete protologism. --Hosterweis 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • De;et per nom, nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ridiculous. Eusebeus 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NOTHING OF ANY IMPORTANCE Aigis 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aigis. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:13, Jan. 19, 2006
  • Delete. NONCENSORED Popeye 01:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Buzzword Mish-Mash Viscid 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologistic linkspam. Can we get a speedy as {{db-empty}}, or is that just wishful thinking? Stifle 15:51, 19 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 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telsa Gwynne

Delete. Non-notable. Telsa 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (yes, that one)

Just to clarify, I am the subject of this article and this AfD is neither false modesty nor a fit of pique. I just think any internet notability I had is long-gone except for the accident that I have a very unusual name and have been on the internet for long enough for that name to end up all over Google.

Going down the factoids in the article: marriage to another person with a Wiki article? Should every spouse of everyone with an article have their own article? I don't think so. "More accurate diary" (not "most")? I have been waiting for six months for someone to notice it has not been updated. Heavily involved with Gnome? Not right now, but in the past, yes -- but as part of a cast of hundreds. Perhaps, by now, thousands. Translations? I largely put other people's work in CVS, not mine. "Is often said".. well, yes, I complain about this, but again, encyclopedic value..? No single item in this list is remotely notable on its own. I'm really not convinced that the combination is either. And WP:BIO (which I found as I wrote this) confirms me in that view.

Telsa 00:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Well-argued nomination. FCYTravis 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a shame that these types of arguements seem to have little to no bearing in many other articles which are still floating around but don't have the article's focus arguing for deletion. Oh, and Delete, of course. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What a well-reasoned, modest nomination. It's nice to see someone who's not interested in using WP for vanity. It's enough to make me vote keep. :) Delete. °°°rodii 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nomination is spot-on. ×Meegs 07:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and give her a cookie. Stifle 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Telsa. We should have a list of Wikipedian's who have successfully argued for deletion of their biography! Thryduulf 15:18, 20 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.