Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 18 January 20 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected (as an empty list) to the definition of the position not listed therein. Rewrite it in 2010, if Wikipedia still exists. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:54, Jan. 19, 2006

[edit] List of Lieutenant Governors of New Jersey

There is no content on this page; a Lieutenant Governor will not be elected in New Jersey until 2010. The article contains no information not in Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. Cuivienen 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The information is notable, I say move to Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- this info is already at Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey, I think. --James S. 07:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since is the same as the main article, it's simply a duplicate. --Terence Ong 09:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey: Looks like there are a few references that could be added to the "real" article. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 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 all. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pale raw umber

I am nominating this page as an example of all the color stubs that should be deleted. There is nothing contained in this article that is not mentioned in the List of colors. This is not a nomination of any color article that contains even a sentence more information than is given in the list of colors. God of War 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete duplicate information. Who would look this up under this term anyway? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extended to all pale color stubs:

Pale bright green, Pale Denim, Pale mint green, Pale ochre, Pale olive, Pale olive drab, Pale orange, Pale pink-lavender, Pale sea green, Pale Turquoise, Pale Wisteria and Pale Yellow.

  • Delete, we don't need articles about colors of things we have articles about, we need pictures. Gazpacho 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Color pictures? (grin) ...If we wanted pictures about colors of things we have articles about, we could just define a rectangle of color "pale raw umber". Or show a color picture of a Crayola box in each of 64 articles. Delete per nomination, and delete similar articles which aren't expanded by end of AfD period. Barno 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. In its current state the article is obviously not useful, but if someone could find even a few sentances to add about the color or places it is used it could potentially be worth keeping. I'm inclined to keep the color stubs in hopes that someone will expand them. Admittedly, this particular example will probably never be expanded, so I can't support my intuition very strongly.
  • Delete Can never expand beyond an illustrated dicdef. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the vast majority of colors are completely nonnotable. Tuf-Kat 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a web color that isn't specifically important to the color wheel. Any colors that are solely webcolors probably can't be made into articles. Lotusduck 05:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale blue-purple for where this has been discussed before. Uncle G 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This afd should be extended to all the "pale" color articles - Pale bright green, Pale Denim, Pale mint green, Pale ochre, Pale olive, Pale olive drab, Pale orange, Pale pink-lavender, Pale sea green, Pale Turquoise, Pale Wisteria and Pale Yellow. Pale is a subjective term and cant really be defined other that its lighter than the main color -- Astrokey44|talk 09:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Werdna648T/C\@ 12:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per ESkog. Sliggy 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everybody. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: I don't think the article is particularly useful unless there is something interesting about that particular colour. For example, hypothetically, 'Pale Green' is the official colour use to paint NHS Hospital corridors.GoldenTie 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find that's called Frating Green. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Obina 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not infinite as applied to colours ;) Zunaid 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete do I need to come all the way to Wikipedia to find out that pale raw umber is a pale version of raw umber? I could probbaly find it in me to support a single table of colours, but even that is probably best left to the paint manufacturers. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete en masse. Wikipedia is not a painters' gallery. Stifle 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't need it and extend to all pale color stubs Dakota ~ ε 07:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boctaoe

NN neologism coined Jan 2006 J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. Only 173 Googles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as uncommon neologism. SycthosTalk 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. -- Chris 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. May be notable in a few months or years' time but not now. WikiFanatic 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Meekohi 03:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. --Terence Ong 10:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Meekohi, please justify your vote to Speedy Delete Werdna648T/C\@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Banes 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per se. KILO-LIMA 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: a tad too dictionary-esque. I don't like to use the phrase non-notable but I think it may apply here. GoldenTie 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. How could it have "quickly caught on" if the term is only two weeks old? James084 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete it! I needed to search Wikipedia to find what the word meant, and the term was here for me. There's no need to delete something just because it's a little archaic (for now).

<NO DELETION> This word DID catch on real quick. It started on the Daily Dilbert blog, and now it's a widespread word, used mainly by bloggers, but it's also been included in the urban dictionary. "LOL" has a link at wikipedia, why not 'boctaoe' ?

    • Comment: Do you have a reliable source that you could cite to prove this? Stifle 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If EOE wasn't a dab page we could've redirected, but there's nothing currently to redirect to. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 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 redirected. Ifnord 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware interlocks

dicdef Melaen 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as it gives no real content to let you understand the subject. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speeky delete as article with "little or no content." SycthosTalk 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Interlock (engineering). Gazpacho 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, agree. -- Chris 01:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect - this is a dict defn.
  • Redirect as per Gazpacho. ManoaChild 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect per Gazpacho. --Terence Ong 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Gaz Werdna648T/C\@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Gazpacho. The Deviant 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Gazpacho 18:30, 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 withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eeyore's Birthday Party

Non-notable festival. Wikipedia is NOT for something you made up one day at school. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongest Keep Possible. Read the references on this article -- it has been running for the last 40 years and is currently attended by thousands of people. Please follow the links and actually read before nominating -- this is a major event in Austin, and the article I have created is eminently verifiable with 3 separate links all backing up the existence of this event. How much more verifiable could it be? Additionally, I plan further additions to this article including photos from my own collection. Note, I am the original author of this article and all its text. If you can't follow all links in the references, please at least read this article from the Daily Texan, an important (college-run) Austin paper which more than verifies the existence and notability of this event. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I will even quote from this article in case you don't feel like following the link: Thousands of children, parents, college students and hippies camped out at Pease Park on Saturday afternoon to celebrate Eeyore's birthday for the 42nd time since the celebration began 1963. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Looks like an important community and counter-culture event to this Brit. I Google searched for a couple of random years (1974, 1978) and the festival gets a mention for each. A 40 year old festival is not something made up in school - please research your AFD nominations before making them! --kingboyk 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep long-running event with loads of participation and media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as very notable article. SycthosTalk 00:30, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard McQuirt's Gravestone

Content copied from main Bernard McQuirt article. Redundant. Kerowyn 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Kerowyn. SycthosTalk 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Dlyons493 Talk 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This redundant article is redundent. -- Chris 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. The Deviant 14:08, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tampa Palms

POV/ad-like article on non-notable planned community. —ERcheck @ 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity. The use of the sentence:

    I-75 provides easy, high-speed access to points North and South.

    clearly indicates advertising. SycthosTalk 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:59, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnightwiki

This article is nonsense created over the past four months almost entirely by anon IPs. If the nonsense was removed, all you'd be left with would be a wiki that gets 19 distinct Google hits. Carbonite | Talk 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Reads like nonsense, apparent vandalism target. The website that it's about has an Alexa rank of 977,096. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Attack article. --Kerowyn 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There are 29 registered users. Current article seems to reference 2 different wikis, but that might be the attack/vandalism mentioned above. --kingboyk 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense and attack page. I will change my vote if major cleanup is offered. SycthosTalk 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like nonsense. -- Chris 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --Kbh3rdtalk 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy? Delete as nonsense attack. Blnguyen 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete {{db-nonsense}} article, no content of research interest.  (aeropagitica)  07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense, with no redeeming features. Carbonix 13:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete all of the above. The Deviant 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible speedy? - Uh-huh. KILO-LIMA 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Content is confusing, mostly worthless and makes the internet forumer within me say "WTF" GoldenTie 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete : Pure advertising. --^BuGs^ 21:58, 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 no consensus. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoang Thi Loan

mother of Ho Chi Minh president / non notable Melaen 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. All his family/parents/siblings can be moved into his article.Blnguyen 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tio Ho. If that's where she's discussed, why not? It will probably also help prevent her name from showing up on this page again.--Rockero420 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but is in dire need of cleanup. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 09:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blnguyen. --Terence Ong 10:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- seems to have become figure of veneration under Communist regime. Article exploring myth could be interesting. In desperate need of rewrite, though. Perodicticus 11:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:BIO. This is not to be considered a keep vote. Information on non-notable relatives of notable people goes in the article of the notable person. Stifle 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, "The tomb of Hoang Thi Loan at the Dai Hue mountain is a tourist attraction in Nam Dan". Kappa 08:19, 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 no consensus. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pompeii 99 (band)

I do not know the ins and outs of WP:MUSIC but I found nothing about this band on google and I assume it fails this criteria. Forbsey 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I know nothing about this band and have't researched it yet, but I wanted to jump right in and point editors to Christian Death --kingboyk 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've wikified it now. --kingboyk 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, This band does have notoriety, which should be noticable when reading the article. They are fundimental to the history of Christian Death. Gabriel77 12:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Gabriel77 (talk · contribs) has fourteen edits.
Redirect to Christian Death, because Pompeii 99 on its own is not sufficiently notable. Christian Death can have the information (such as it is) included, and then needs tightening up to be an encyclopedic article (it is currently not very NPOV, and in places reads like someone's inconsequential diary notes). Carbonix 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There are things on Pompeii 99 (such as the complete line up) that are irrelevant to the Christian Death page but are important history concerning Christian Death members. Gabriel77 23:27, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JIVE - Joining Policy / Joining Practice

Delete pure advertising. Dakota ~ ε 00:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. as nominator pure advertising with email link bottom line.--Dakota ~ ε 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. I've removed the email address. --kingboyk 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Did anyone look at the linked website? This is clearly a legitimate NGO with a noble purpose. I'm restoring the email address. --James S. 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that it may or may not have a noble purpose does not matter to us. Having an e-mail address is anathema to Wikipedia policies, as Wikipedia is not a place to make personal contacts, and I've removed it again. Please don't put it back. FCYTravis 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam and send them to Wiki-Hell. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 09:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete reads like an advertisement. email adresses dont belong in encyclopedia articles -- Astrokey44|talk 09:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. If I'd stumbled upon that article I would have deleted the email address. The article's presence on AFD, or the notability/importance of the subject, have no relevance to that issue whatsoever. --kingboyk 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete adv spam. The Deviant 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 04:02, 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 redirect to Monsignor Bonner High School. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monsignor bonner

Total nonsense. (not {{nonsense}}, though. Delete Kusma (討論) 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, if editor wants to move it to the sandbox, fine.Bjones 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Monsignor Bonner High School. I was bold and did that already. The students obviously created this page so they'd have something to vandalize. We sprotected the redirect article this morning. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and have teacher show them the sandbox or set up a local wiki! --kingboyk 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what the article looked like before it was redirected to the legit article. BJAODN maybe? -- Astrokey44|talk 09:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The Deviant 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delte - horrible. KILO-LIMA 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... just horrible. CJewell 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Abe's action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazyCaley (talk • contribs)
  • Kill History and Redirect per Abe. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Abe's excellent work! TMS63112 21:04, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double H

No evidence that this is a recognized architectural style. Of the first 30 google hits [1] (discounting Wikipedia) only 1 refers to this. Needs serious work or Delete. Deiz 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Please also consider what to do with its companion Single H. I would vote to delete that one as well. --Lockley 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe important for Hong Kong. Both are mentioned at this Hong Kong housing authority site -- Astrokey44|talk 09:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many other Google references to Double H - but none to do with buildings/architectural design. Also, the Hong Kong Housing Authority website cited above mentions other building 'Block Types' which similarly seem to have no verified use elsewhere. Carbonix 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delte - Simple. KILO-LIMA 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 00:00, 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. Mushroom 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetPros

Delete - Advertising for nn company (doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP standard.) AJR | Talk 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete incoherent advertising that is the only contribution of User:NetPros. Kusma (討論) 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I've purged some of the gobbledegook. --kingboyk 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A1 (very short, no context) or A7 (vanity) --Deiz 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Embarassing advertisement --BakugekiNZ 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom etc.
AFD template has been removed several times by author J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:41, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Havenmush

No media coverage. 100 nn Google hits. Copy/paste of their page. Submitted by site owner. Fails WP:V. Extremely invaluable information. -- Perfect 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Haven't much of anything. --Perfecto 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advertisement—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onthost (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as above. Note: I'm about to remove a spamvert image, so if you need further convincing please do check the previous revision. --kingboyk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity site J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say the MUSH itself might be popular enough to warrant an article, but this has uncorrectable POV problems as is. Meekohi 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. p.s. to nom, invaluable is the same as valuable -- Astrokey44|talk 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I know. --Perfecto 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advertisement, certainly as it stands. (A redirect to MUSH could be useful, especially if that page was made more encyclopedic, explaining more clearly the history, what is involved, etc., rather than giving precedence to the technicalities of the programming.) Carbonix 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Great, let's start citing all these nn mush sites in MUSH now! :P --Perfecto 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non encyc, vanity, etc. The Deviant 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not tidied up: it reads like the back of a game packet. Make it more neutral and informing. GoldenTie 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbustoo 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dimitrii 06:47, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Marcuse

vanity page Hirudo 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think it's vanity. The author clearly states that he followed a red link about himself and that it is self authored. He may well be notable enough if somebody else wrote the article; I haven't checked that. I really feel we need to improve the message that appears when a user is invited to start a new page. Wikipedia encourages new users to get stuck in and then puts them through the AFD grinder - I know, it happened to me (Tredington Community Primary School). What I'm saying is that it would appear the editor was acting in good faith, but the article must go as it stands. --kingboyk 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes perhaps using the vanity term is too strong. Perhaps gut the article instead of completely deleting it? I wasn't able to find much useable info online. Hirudo 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think delete it (with a friendly word to Mr Marcuse about autobiography). An incoming wiki link proves nothing. If it gets recreated by an independent editor the issue can be looked at again. --kingboyk 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup tag -- Astrokey44|talk 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if he's authored a book and teaches at a UC College...cleanup is needed, but I dont think it fits delete criteria NorseOdin 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, doesn't really pass the professor test. Stifle 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, non-vanity published author. Kappa 08:17, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireon

Game is set to be release in 2008. WP is not a crystal ball J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, I bet this does not ever get made! Mike (T C) 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. crystal ball, ad. Nateji77 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep - seems slightly notable enough. KILO-LIMA 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello dear admins! English is not my native language, but I hope we will understand each other well enough =)

That was certainly my fault to write down here just a couple of words instead of a full project description. I will try to make up for it in 3-5 days.

2Mike I'll not go into detail here & now — I think I'd better just put our timeline in the article. But I should mention, that we work on this project as a team since February 2004. I will put links to our docs as soon as they get translated in English — and as you understand in a case of 120+ pages design document it's not always as easy task as one can imagine. Besides, we all work in our free time from direct labor and docs translation right now is not a high priority task. _However_ we are in a constant need of new developers, and that's especially relevant now, when the work on game code has started. I'm pretty sure two C++ coders will surpass any language barrier problems fast enough =)

2Nateji77 This is a non-commercial project. Our documentation is released under GNU FDL, game code is released through several other open source licences. Is this article considered to be an ad under such circumstances?

when i read it i think it's an ad. maybe because it's a stub abut a product (free or for sale) that won't be around for another 2-3 years (early to late 2008). if the progamming is communal or transparent writing more about the development process might help clarify. but it also might seem a solicitation for programmers, which would also be ad. i don't speak russian so it's difficult for me to know based solely on the site. Nateji77 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

2Jwestbrook Actually, I'm just a game designer. Our project leader is much more sceptical about the dates.

So, is there anything special you may recommend me to do in order to remove the page from this dreadful section? --Diancecht 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Question - Does Ireon have any other titles under its belt, and if so, how were they received? (unsigned comment by User:KrazyCaley)
  • Delete per nom. C'mon people, 2008? Melchoir 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • After some thinking I've come to a conclusion that you were right. When our site, docs, wiki and game client will all be in English then it would be much more reasonable to write an article in English part of Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention and patience! --Diancecht 12:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as severe case of vaporware. Stifle 00:01, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demetria Clark

Unverifiable autobiography of someone not notable.-- Perfecto 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.
  • Delete Her Heart of Herbs Herbal Apprenticeship had high hopes for articlehood. Dlyons493 Talk 01:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, Delete it --Lockley 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed. The Deviant 14:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided. The web site looks a bit like an ad to me. The assertion that Demetria Clark is "internationally known" seems difficult to prove; appears to me like "would like to be internationally known". <KF> 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not at all hard to prove, google her. She is totally verifiable. She is well known in the herbal and midwifery world. I added more to her entries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mommagoddess (talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 January 2006.
  • Delete; the actual content of the article is unverifiable, including the claim of being "well known". We would need a reliable source actually calling her well known. Melchoir 03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking at the criteria for people still living at Wikipedia:Notability (people) this article should be left as it very clearly passes two of the criteria.
Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more As the article says she has been published in Vegetarian Journal, Midwifery Today, and others. A quick search on Google shows that she has indeed been published in both of the before mentioned periodicals; both of which do have a circulation of greater then 5,000.
Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? A google of the name Demetria Clark brings up many results. Many of these results verify the claims of the article.--Drumzandspace2000 13:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As for publishing, there are only vague claims of publishing in the article. Let's see some article titles and page numbers. As for Google, no, those results are all websites, and a great deal of the material was written by Demetria herself, just as this article was. They do not help verify the article at all. Melchoir 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A list of some of the publications by Demetria Clark has been posted. --Drumzandspace2000 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of those are webpage-only or defunct... let's see if someone else wants to support you. Melchoir 01:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability based on google results and noted publications seems to exceed a minimum standard that allows many others to pass. I suspect opposition comes more from a response to the author's attitude than from an objective view of info. Deli nk 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been established by both publications and Google results. --Atc 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: For what it's worth, but this is the contributor's first edit. Deli nk 21:40, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heart of herbs

Unverifiable company submitted by its proprietor before she wrote about herself. Fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is [WP:NOT-- Perfecto 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Perfecto 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto. The Deviant 16:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She is well known to midwives and herbalists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mommagoddess (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2006.
  • It still fails WP:CORP. Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a school and not just a corp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drumzandspace2000 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 January 2006.
    • It's a .com and it says "view cart/checkout" in the upper-right corner. Melchoir 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a school, that is how students enroll.. [[User:Mommagoddess}}
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Deli nk 21:38, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lastaria

Unverifiable "Fantasy Game world" likely submitted by its webmaster. No media coverage. The geocities on its logo shows me this is just someone's hobby project.-- Perfecto 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Perfecto 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Please list the images for deletion at the same time when they're this blatant (or is that not necessary? I'd like to know as I'm about to waste time listing the image myself). --kingboyk 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've always presumed the closing admin does it, along with any vanity incoming wikilinks. I might be wrong.--Perfecto 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hopefully someone else will know and tell us! I'll hold off on nominating Image:Lastaria.jpg & Image:Havenbigbanner.jpg for now. --kingboyk 01:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Geocities homepage leads me to believe this is just another non-notable (and thus unverifiable) D&D universe. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not even recently maintained on the Geocities homepage. Dimitrii 06:41, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universidad Icesi

non-english, and as far as I can tell what is there isn't worth translating Hirudo 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*Comment: I translated it, nothing to it. What is the precedent on foreign universities? Grandmasterka 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Whoops, that's more than a little embarrassing. I say keep.

  • Comment This is an international encyclopaedia. How do you define foreign? Jcuk 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment2Sorry wasn't meaning to embarrass. Jcuk 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as with any real university. CalJW 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd just like to comment that I have no objection to having a real article about this university. I'm just of the opinion that a single non-english sentence is worse than having no article at all. Hirudo 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a single English sentence, better than no article at all. Kappa 23:30, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient order of the seventh sun

No verification. Linked webpage is only source I can find for the name. Bjones 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete With no citations or references, this appears to be a {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  07:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we can't take chances with hoax articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete KILO-LIMA 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Stifle 00:02, 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 to Magnadramon. -- Jonel | Speak 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnadramon X

yet another low-quality individual digimon article Hirudo 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, real digimon, or maybe merge somewhere. Kappa 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Magnadramon bar some massive merging of nearly all digimon characters (which is really, really necessary). Nifboy 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge & redirect Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect all Digimon to List of Digimon Characters if they have it, digimon are not notable --Jaranda wat's sup 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft incog 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Some Pokémon are not notable yet they all have their own article. And by the way, this is not a fanmade Digimon! I just uploaded an image of its card. 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep else Merge and Redirect --Celestianpower háblame 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to a list of Digimon. Pokémon are different as the franchise has a significantly higher following. Stifle 00:02, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cthings

This company launched last Monday. Its press release (its only Google result) does not even identify whoever dubbed them the CNN monicker. (The owner's aunt, maybe.) Fails WP:CORP-- Perfecto 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Keep in mind that CThings is a Visual Basic construct [2].
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a company launch announcement service. --Perfecto 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what you think. Sadly PR people the world over are starting to see it as exactly that! :( --kingboyk 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Perfecto. Stifle 00:02, 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 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati

A minor development within Judaism that attempts to increase women's participation to prayer services. Two Google hits. Number of groups actually following this philosophy estimated <20 worldwide. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete on grounds of notability. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not voting just yet, but strongly against any attempt to merge into Minyan. Avi 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment given that the concept is a relatively recent development (earliest comment permitting the idea appeared in 2001—5 years ago at most), and by comparison to Reconstructionist Judaism a "branch of Judaism" which apparently consists of a marginally more notable approximately 110 congregations[3] (began as a concept as far back as the 1920s, split formally from Conservative Judaism in 1968—38 years ago), I think a bit of leniency is in order. That said, this long article doesn't belong (at least not at that length) in minyan, nor am I convinced that the sum total of the content belongs anywhere on WP just yet, not because the phenomenon of women's participation in orthodox prayer services is unnoteworthy, but because the name for the article amounts to an endorsement by WP of a specific expression thereof. The number of groups actually following the philosophy addressed by the article is much higher than 20 (and the assertion that it's fewer is spurious at best), but unlike the one relevant hit in JFW's google search, they are not organized to the level where they're all out publishing websites. A cursory glance through this page indicates that the concept extends far beyond a simple one-hit result on Google. That the article (previously a section of the minyan article) is given the name of a particular group practicing what the article describes is a different issue, which should be addressed at WP:RM. The article has merit, it just needs to be renamed and have a lot of work put into encyclopædizing it. As for where it goes, like I said earlier, it doesn't belong, especially with such undue weight, in minyan, being more appropriate in Role of women in Judaism. Tomertalk 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up and merge with Role of women in Judaism per my comment above. Tomertalk 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's almost all POV original research meant to turn the left-wing segment of Orthodox Judaism into just another "branch" of Conservative Judaism -- which is just plain dumb and dishonest, like the Conservative's pretending to go by Halakha when in fact they just want to dump as much of it as they can. If this article has anything of value let it be put into either Modern Orthodox Judaism or Role of women in Judaism. Anyhow, how can anyone justify such a long rambling basically neologism of a name, in Hebrew yet, to posture as something significant? It ain't happenin' babe, a minyan is a minyan and will always be a minyan ... of Jewish MEN. IZAK 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I acknowledge Tomer has a point. While the phenomenon is indeed significantly broader than its web presence suggests, because of its novelty and relative informality, there is indeed not necessarily universal agreement on what to call it, so for WP to pick what may at this point be a mere candidate name may indeed be leading rather than following what it is trying to describe. Although others will need to judge the underlying merits. I acknowledge that the subject-matter is controversial. I would only hope that any disagreement regarding its merits, as a matter of personal religious philosophy, would not be confused with the issue of the phenomenom's notability, or interest to researchers and to the public, for purposes of making an editorial decision. It might be useful to do a Google search under "Shira Hadasha". Indeed, Shira Hadasha may well be sufficiently noteworthy on the web at this point to deserve its own article based on such a Google search alone, if so perhaps the content could be put there with a sentence or two and a link in articles like Minyan and Role of women in Judaism, etc. --Anystat 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You are new here, so let me point out a few things that you hopefully won't take as condescension. First, this is an encyclopedia, not an indescriminate collection of information. Please review WP:NOT. Second, wikipedia has a policy prohibiting original research (read the guideline, it probably means something other than what you perceive). Third, WP has a policy requiring that information be presented from a neutral perspective. Much of the information in the article is presented as unabashèd advocacy. Any advocacy is fine, as long as the [substantial] opposition is also presented. Please review WP:NPOV. Finally, in either Minyan or Role of women in Judaism, the information presented in the edits you propose give undue weight to what is, at least at this early stage, a new and [relatively, in the grand scheme things, at least presently] insignificant phenomenon. Including information in the depth this addition attempts to gives undue weight to what thus far is not proven to be anything more than a bit of fuzz on a radar screen. Copy this stuff to User:Anystat/Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati if you like and if it becomes more relevant to the Jewish world as a whole in the next 2-5 years, bring it back (to Role of women in Judaism tho, not to Minyan). Tomertalk 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Three points. First, there is evidence of an actual, reasonably coherent phenomenon here. The sources verify that services, when described, are conducted in a similar manner, with women being allowed to do similar things and not allowed to do other similar things, and similar reasons being cited for why and why not. This consistency simply wouldn't happen in some general effort to synthesize Orthodoxy and Feminism or to explore women's roles in Judaism. It indicates a coherent, clarified phenomenon that can legitimately be treated as a distinct subject. Second, the phenomenon, while novel and hardly major, is not of merely isolated interest. Third, the neutrality of the article has been enhanced since it was first introduced. --Anystat 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with the status of women article. Like it or not, this is a notable phenomenon. Benami 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and original research --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - because people looking for the newly coined term need an encyclopedia article telling them the meaning of the term. Wikipedia, as a comprehensive encyclopedia, has articles on extreme left and right topics as long as the entry is written from a neutral POV. This is a notable phenomena even if one disagrress with it. The article needs to be fleshed out and not just a list of places.

Anonymous user, please read this: WP:NPOV#Undue weight, especially the last bullet-point. Avi 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Avi. Stifle 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : Given that the demographic center of Judaism is roughly the left wing of Conservativism, this viewpoint is merely a little to the right of center. What's all this about it being 'extreme'? On the other hand, seems to me that statements like "the Conservative's pretending to go by Halakha when in fact they just want to dump as much of it as they can.", or "It ain't happenin' babe, a minyan is a minyan and will always be a minyan ... of Jewish MEN" are pretty durn good examples of what WP DOESN'T want in its editorial judgments. It's a public-interest encyclopaedia. -- anonymous
  • Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -19

Article is essentially a disambiguation page about a non-notable number. It goes without saying that keeping this article sets a dangerous precident! Along those lines, what's up with Category:Negative numbers? - squibix 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete, unless there is something interesting to say about -19. Kappa 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better add Category:Negative numbers to the debate also. --kingboyk 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Minus one number article. Will change vote to "Keep" if a verifiable test shows -19 to be the IQ of George W. Bush. Apologies for WP:NPA violation. Barno 02:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It's also the number of men who recall doing drill with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972. PrimeFan 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -40 (number) it ain't. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki spam? --BakugekiNZ 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - No content --Lightdarkness 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I've also placed the category on CFD, -- Egil 06:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not sure about the category, though. --James S. 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 100% agree with nom. Dangerous precident. The Deviant 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Or maybe merge with 19? KILO-LIMA 17:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Incognito 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, -19 means minus nineteen? Are you sure about that? And what about a debt of 19 pounds sterling? Basically, what I want to say is NN. GoldenTie 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -19 might be a discriminant for Heegner numbers, but other than that I doubt there's anything else interesting to say about this number. This article is therefore not justified by WP:NUM. PrimeFan 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even though its the exact part of the space shuttle countdown when most astronauts' balls shrink to the size of hazelnuts. --Deiz 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing in this article that makes it any more notable than any other negative integer. JIP | Talk 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Revolución (talk) 00:51, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corsaro Theory Of Magnets

Original research Kappa 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, perpetual motion machine. ManoaChild 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom--nixie 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original, unpublished research, silly --BakugekiNZ 04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense research.Blnguyen 05:20, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jezchat

NN website community J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Created by Jezmiester. Is there really no way for tiresome garbage like this to be speedy deleted? It's a waste of all our times - we know it will be Deleted per nom. --kingboyk 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded: Website community articles just need to be tidied up with more interesting information and less headings. If this is not going to be expanded, delete. GoldenTie 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this a joke? Or does someone seriously think this is a real article? No, GoldenTie, web communities don't need to be "tidied up", they need to be measured against WP:WEB, and if (like this one) they have no Alexa ranking at all, no Google News hits, no significant inbound links - in short no evidence of any significance whatsoever - then they need to be "tidied up" into the bitbucket! This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of trivial websites. Seriously. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 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 REDIRECT to Mathematician. -- Jonel | Speak 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathie

Do we need this kind of article? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete dictdef of a neologisim, with no evidence of widespread use. several reasons to delte here. DES (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete More has been said here than in the article. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutral If JamieJones would include some of comments in the article, it seems to fit within Wikipedia's structure, although I would never write such an article. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meekohi 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do we really need an article on every slang word that someone invents? Unnotable and unverifiable. -- Fropuff 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If the usage is verifiable (and more widespread then just the University of Waterloo) we could just redirect to mathematician and add a (very brief) section on slang terms. I haven't looked through all the links below, so I'm not sure how widespread the term is. -- Fropuff 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT Dbtfz 05:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a dictdef and an unnecessary one at that. --Lockley 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Perhaps we should give JamieJones a chance to explain where he encountered this term, and to expand the article to a sensible one? If that is of any relevance, he has also created a userbox Template:User mathie. --Meni Rosenfeld 10:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef Brian Tvedt 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep*, with the star being that of course I appreciate it if I am wrong as I am still learning the wikipedia ins and outs. I please hope you don't delete the mathie userbox {{user mathie}} as it took me two hours to make it. Yes, that is long, yes i am a newbie. As to the term mathie itself, I fully support the wikipedia process. I did a search in google using "math mathie". Here's webpages I got. I'll try and wikify this if i have time. Please check some of them, and if we agree it's not wiki-appropriate, that's cool, but please reconsider. And spare the userbox if possible because i am proud of it. Thanks. JamieJones talk 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
He-he. :) Having a Wikipedia article so that somebody has what to write in a userbox. :) That's one of the most hillarious reasons I ever heard of . Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
hahaha. What's even more hilarious is making fun of a new user, so that he feels even more uncomfortable trying to make changes on wikipedia. That's awesome. What would be even more helpful is if you gave me constructive criticism that wasn't sarcasm, but was meant to help. JamieJones talk 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Round our way such people were Mathmos. Whaddya mean there's no article there? GWO
  • Delete not needed dicdef. feydey 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki The article as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but still useful. Wikitionary, maybe? CJewell 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This belongs on wiktionary or in the mathematician article. - Gauge 22:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Scroll down, "How to date a mathie"

"In Peter's (slightly modified) words a mathie is "one that loves the subject and loves doing problems." and I would add "she can solve those problems". The litmus test for a mathie: Give him last year's AIME."

  • Weak delete until this neologism gains an entry in a published dictionary. FWIW I was a mathematician and a numerist in college, not a mathie. --Perfecto 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep common slang term, as demonstrated above by User:JamieJones.  Grue  17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per CJewell. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Blinking light problem

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald A. Lisy

NN local politician - EurekaLott 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please consider writing more well-rounded nominations. Simply saying "non-notable" (or worse, "NN") tells us nothing more than "I would like this article deleted". Instead, try explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable. The nomination usually sets the tone of an AfD discussion, and to start things off with a powerful argument for deletion is always a Good Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless he becomes a state level politician or a city mayor, I don't think he is notable.Blnguyen 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Not nationally notable. Stifle 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Assuming that the article is true, he was a city councilman and he has a decent chance of becoming the chief of staff for a US Congressman. --Mareino 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Below-radar politician. mikka (t) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I live around this area and have never heard of this politician. Non-notable. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podfader

Made up word, used by maybe total of 5 people on the internet. The "podfader" entry advertised in article is filled with viagra comment spam. delete. Timecop 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn crap Incognito 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete never gonna be idiomatic --BakugekiNZ 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable podcruft. made-up, meaningless word -- Femmina 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, barely-used neologism. Proto t c 12:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. PJM 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn (as nominated). The Deviant 14:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete protologism. Not notable four months after creation, probably never will be. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Cptchipjew 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Hosterweis 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn neologism Dakota ~ ε 06:55, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiworld (Virtual World)

A proposed project that does not even exist yet - this is not the right place for this. Francs2000 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikiproject proposal, not article. Nateji77 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not crystal ball, etc. The Deviant 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:06, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Farrell (political scientist)

speedy delted as nn-bio and restored. Notability sems very dubious to me. Weak delete unless better notability establsihed via verifiable sources. DES (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Has a reasonable number of Google Scholar hits Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Henry_Farrell%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 Dlyons493 Talk 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We expect academics to get hits for publishing, that's their job. You link didn't work for me, so I used this. I use what's cited and how often as a rough guide, and he's not cited often enough for me to thinks he's a notable in his field. He does get one mention on Google news, but that's a throw-away line at best. Always willing to change my mind if evidence of notability provided. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing to Merge to crooked timber based upon additional sources. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - I just can't see the point of deleting. He's a real person, with real publications, he contributes to a notable blog - William M. Connolley 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep There are a lot of entries for people notable mainly because they write or contribute to a notable blog that is listed separately, the closest parallel being members of Volokh Conspiracy. Farrell in addition has real publications and a media profile. I made the entry on that basis JQ 11:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do give examples so that I may at once merge them into their parent article where they belong. I notice that this article makes claims that Farrell is "quoted extensively in mass media" but fails to support those but with a single link where he's mentioned in passing and is paraphrased rather than quoted. I'd refer to WP:BIO where, with the evidence to date, he does not qualify. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Stated criteria at WP:BIO "better known and more published than the average professor" are met (link to CV added for latter point or use Google scholar). I agree that's a rather low bar, so I've added more media citations to back up notability JQ 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that writing for any sort of blog is notable, and we're not likely to be able to find a lot of verifiable information other than from the blog, which I'd discount as a reliable source. —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. His "publications" are what, a 27 page paper and some blog entries? Blogs are the ultimate vanity press; their writers have a very high bar to clear. If any real indicator of notability is asserted I may reconsider. -R. fiend 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Google Scholar seems to have over 15 publications. Dlyons493 Talk
      • Still not impressed, all academics publish something. Did he write any books or anything? 15 publications is hardly great, especially since some or all seem to be brief papers. the guy who's lab I used to sweep gets more than that. In fact, I can probably take any scientist in that building and get comparable results (if I could only remember their names). -R. fiend 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually Farrell has nearly twice as many Google Scholar hits as Martindale, and "Henry Farrell" gets 93000 Google hits, of which most front page items refer to the political scientist. "Mark Martindale" gets 380 hits, only a minority for the scientist.
          • Well, Henry Farrell is a much more common name, and don't you think that a few hits might be this Henry Farrell (or one of thousands of others)? Maybe some of the google scholar hits too, I'm not sure.) In any case, small academic papers are not widely read, if he's had articles in major magazines, or any written books, we'd be on the right track. -R. fiend 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • As noted in the entry under dispute, he has an article in Foreign Affairs which is a very influential magazine, and this article was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Times among other media. On your point about other Farrells, please reread my comment. I checked the first 100 entries to verify that most referred to the Farrell in question, and not the Henry Farrell whose notability is undisputed. Feel free to check a larger sample if you want.JQ 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn blogger of an nn blog. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like you're wrong about the blog [4], but I guess you can pile in if you want William M. Connolley 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • While not commenting on this discussion, I'd like to say that that AfD was a really crap example of how things should run. Testimony of editors is not a citation, and having people simply say "notable blog" without (for example) providing links or references is somthing that we should, in the strongest possible way, discourage. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, article in major magazine, contributes to notable blog, published academic etc. Kappa 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleaned up this article a bit. Iv'e had to remove some citations per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, please don't do anything but WP:AGF over my reasone for doing so. I'm now happy with merging based upon the additional cources. I'd ask that when people contribute to an AfD, they take the time to attempt to improve the article as opposed to just saying "keep" and wandering off.
    brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep for his media prominence. I'd like to see a lot less of these steamingly stupid referrals from DRV. If an article was wrongly deleted, undelete it. If someone wants to list it for deletion, they will. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to media prominence and Google Scholar results. Hall Monitor 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete notability is questionable and published papers do not provide notability per WP:AFDP. (Note: I nominated for speedy) If its kept I would only support a merge to Crooked_Timber nothing more. --Pboyd04 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and no merge per Tony Sidaway. -- JJay 14:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa.--cj | talk 15:20, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save Our State

This page is completely biased in favor of a racist and naitonlist anti-immigrant group that is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for recruitment. They have not allowed any edits to make content more even-sided, so they should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elzia (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep - these guys get covered in the LA news all the time, and have even made national headlines once or twice. If it is biased, it should be changed rather than deleted.--Rockero420 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete They are not allowing any modifications to the original text from outside parties. I tried to modify their content but they have deleted it within hours. The page is totally biased in their favor and I expect they will continue to keep it that way. Elzia 06:41 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Rockero420. A notable group with verifiable material available about them. Bias can be handled, though it may take more than a day. -Will Beback 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the solution to Eliza's problem is not to delete the article, but instead to get an admin involved if good edits are being reverted. Meekohi 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Political disputes over content need to be dealt with in a different way. Choalbaton 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --nihon 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It appears there are editing disputes over the content of the article, bias, especially in certain versions, and what should be included, but I believe the content is salvageable. Wholesale deletion of the article about a notable subject is not the best way to resolve WP:NPOV issues and content disputes. --Mysidia (talk)
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and start banning the NPOV violators - Fight fire with fire. --Agamemnon2 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and report the problem with the NPOV editors. Having a group of editors steer an article is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have to start deleting articles on nearly every prominent politician. This is a case for you checking Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, not for AFD. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - NPOV isn't a vild reason for deletion. KILO-LIMA 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and ban users who do not allow others to edit the article. Captain Jackson 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for preference, as there is actually not that much coverage in (e.g.) Google News; if kept, NPOV the hell out of it, maintain semi-protection or protection as needed, and as others say block the POV pushers. WP:ISNOT a soapbox. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't delete an article because of an edit war. Get some cleanup tags in place. --StuffOfInterest 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with a severe warning to the POV pushers. This doesn't really belong on AFD, it should be on RFC, RFM, or RFAr. Stifle 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The POV issues must be resolved, and the POV fork should be deleted. KrazyCaley 04:21, 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 delete. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Robichaud

No evidence of notability, likely vanity. Google finds 11 unique hits when name is paired with company. Needs far more context and proof of notability to avoid being Deleted Deiz 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 10:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability (e.g. companies with no articles). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Possible vanity. Stifle 00:13, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebCollab

Not notable Sleepyhead 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Undecided. Sourceforge shows around 2000 downloads for each successive version, I don't know how significant that might be. Probably not very. JzG 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability asserted or evident. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another generic piece of software. Mindmatrix 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 2000 downloads for every version seems like its enought. Achen00 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 2000 users? From al the potential users of web collaboration software? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Ichiro 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- 2000 downloads per version suggests many more than 2000 users. I was mostly convinced by these statistics, however: [5]. Given about 220 MB of transfer a month, i'm figuring they get about 650 downloads a month; this suggests a much larger number of users than 2000, but also counts people who download just to evaluate it (without using) and fails to count a potentially significant group of users who download from a third party (like a package available from an OS vendor as a RPM), which the GPL permits, instead of directly through Sourceforge. --Mysidia (talk) 08:08, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vikash

Delete: article strongly appears to be copy from Baiju with vanity name change Shenme 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Baiju was begun 20 June 2004. The article Vikash was begun 1 August 2005 with what appears to be a full copy of Baiju, but with the person's name changed to Vikash (or Vikkie !) Sure looks bogus and vanity page to me. Shenme 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Bobet 14:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Melchoir 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable/bogus. Stifle 00:13, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental_techie

nominated for deletion as neologism and self-defining term--Mareino 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Jawz 08:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic --Mysidia (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree on all counts. The Deviant 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Incognito 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I have to say that Nonprofit technology looks a lot like a link farm to me... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:07, 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, no consensus. mikka (t) 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of seiyū

This page is redundant and very difficult to keep up because all of the seiyū should already be listed on the Category:Japanese voice actors page. I can see making a page of "Notable seiyū" or some other category list, but it's redundant to make a list of all of them when it already exists under the category listing. nihon 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Not only is there a category for this anyway, there is also another duplicate list of "Notable seiyū" on the Seiyū page itself. Shiroi Hane 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the category doesn't give the Japanese name. Kappa 23:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    The individual articles do, though. The MOS indicates that the Japanese should not be given when providing a link to another article when that article includes tha Japanese. --nihon 00:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    That applies to prose articles, not to lists, or at least it shouldn't apply to lists. Kappa 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as a list which appears to be of interest to only very few people and/or is large and unmaintanable, i.e. listcruft. Also redundant to the category. Stifle 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There are only about 120 million people in Japan who listen to Seiyus. Kappa 00:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEPandexpand. There should be redlinks in such a list. 132.205.45.110 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, category and list do different things. Move "Notable seiyū" from the Seiyū page into the list article. The very fact that this list exists in two places says that it is considered useful by more than one person. mikka (t) 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The abominable iron sloth

  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:BAND. No entry on either www.amazon.com or www.allmusic.com. I can't find any albums they've released or any shows outside of little places in California and Las Vegas. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --nihon 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari 21:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (probably can't speedy as there is at least some assertion of notability) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:09, 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 del. mikka (t) 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Zone

Delete No encylcopaedic value, especially as nothing more will come of this game. Very NPOV "perfect level design". Beyond help, as unlikely anyone familiar with project will ever come back here. --BakugekiNZ 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. The Deviant 03:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Jawz 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Uses specialized language such as Mario-like only familiar to gamers, but that's fixable -- what's not is the article reads more like a review than an encyclopedia article, and the subject doesn't seem to be notable to warrant a rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete minor fan-created game by defunct group. What more need be said? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per JzG. --Mareino 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Feld

Vanity, vanity, thy name is Brad.Denni ☯ 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Yeah, this is vanity to the Nth level. The Deviant 03:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity --BakugekiNZ 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good Lord, what a piece of work Brad Feld is. --Lockley 06:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for vanity.Blnguyen 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 11:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete delete asap, pure vanity Russco 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy since bfeld (talk · contribs) has no user page as yet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbustoo 04:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Save the picture and the last sentence for BJAODN--Mareino 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article was speedied outside of this process. Closing the debate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inferno (Brandon Pena)

17 year old 'bible code' researcher. No evidence to back up claims of noteability. Delete. --InShaneee 03:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete for obvious reasons --BakugekiNZ 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - nonnotable. Connection between Pena and Inferno unverifable. —ERcheck @ 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonnotable.Blnguyen 07:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. --Terence Ong 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable and vanity. --StoatBringer 13:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Did anyone actually read the reference site? All of the notability is thereUser:Klmc4 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The website provided was put in AFTER all of the notability comments. The website does provide for all the information provided. The site is hard to navigate, but the info is there User:Archpain 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why this is still considered for deletion. The only negative case stated here concerns notabilty, but the website provided clearly states the information. User:Prolime 01:04, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE FORMATION OF CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE OR REDIRECT. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moe High School

Lacks notability, i.e., is not "known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency" (quoted from guideline on notability). May be a vanity article. Hydriotaphia 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge unless expanded to meet WP:SCH. Delete if not verified.Gateman1997 06:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delete. Delete due to non-notability. However, the precedent is to keep high schools and merge primary schools, per WP:SCH. As a result, delete unless we can verify the information. -Rebelguys2 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As of this moment, there is no verifiable information in this article. Therefore it must be deleted, pending a substantial rewrite with sources. "Notability" is an absurd thing to even discuss, when the issue should be about verifiability. To the nom, Quoted from *essay* on notability "This is not a policy or guideline.". Finally, please quit this rubbish about precedent of merging primaries. No such precedent exists. WP:SCH is the closest thing to standard (but not standard), and its all about content, not education level. Elementaries tend to have less content, and are more likely to be merged, but not simply because they are a lower level. Actually precedent is to keep all verified schools regardless. But some of us have been willing to compromise, and accept mergers of substubs (partly in a pursuit of peace). Please don't misread the compromise of WP:SCH to be anti-primary school. Its not. --Rob 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep based on the following links.

[6] [7] [8] [9] They do seem to suggest there was a school called Moe High School and it opened in 1953, in Victoria, Australia. Is that enough? dunno... Jcuk 08:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for finding that, but for now, I'm staying with delete. I think the school existed, but there's still no reliable sources about the school that are adequate for our reliable sources guidelines. I'm now personally certain of its existence, but that's not good enough for inclusion. I oppose a merge in this case, because I don't wish to "contaminate" a valid well-sourced article with inadequately sourced information from this article. --Rob 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm quite ok with schools being on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong 11:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep References on the sites of two major universities and the state government seem sufficient to me, but that song still looks fake. CalJW 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — It lasted for about 20 years and then was demolished? Was it a temporary construction until a better school was built? We can probably mention it on a page about the replacement school. But there seems to be nothing useful about the current content. — RJH 16:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Verified - notability is a failed policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the existence of the school has been verified, but per policy it is the content of the article that needs to be verified, and that has not been done. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If there is certain content that is unverified, then by all means remove that content. That's no reason to delete the article.
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article contains some good, well-sourced, verifiable content prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Can be re-created at any time when content that meets Wikipedia policy is available. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is difficult to make a decision. Was the school replaced by another school? Moe is certainly a prominant place and could well have a High School. If so, put this in the article about the later school. If not, weak keep, but only if the article is much improved. Bduke 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with a redirect since I have now failed to verify (as have others) the content of the article3 in any respect other than that "Moe high school is a high school in Moe" which iis scarcely going to make the front pages. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with a merge is that this *was* a school. We don't know precisely what happened to it (we know the remnants of the building were dumped somewhere improperly, so that confirms its demolished). Where do we merge a closed school to? Do you list it in Moe, Victoria, possibly next to currently open school(s)? Maybe make a new article on a school district (if one is applicable), and make a closed school as its first, and initially only entry? I submit that often *more* information is needed to do a merge, than to have a stand alone article. For instance, when merging, you need to know what if any district is relevant, and any/all communities served by a school. We don't know that. Currently, we can probably be confident that Moe, Victoria is 100% correct. Why would we wish to spoil that. --Rob 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article is now sufficiently referenced. Silensor 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears that Lowanna College was formed in 1994 after the merger of three former Secendary Colleges. It serves Moe, Newborough and surrounding districts, so Moe High School may have been one of the three. See Lowanna College. Maybe we need a page about Lowanna College that includes stuff about three closed Schools! Bduke 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep or merge, real and just about verifiable schoolKappa 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • {{db-school}}. Minimal content to expand upon, and no assertion of notability whatsoever. This is the type of stub somebody would create to shock the hell out of his football coach (to further the "jockstrap" motif). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:54, Jan. 22, 2006
  • Keep The school clearly exists. Kurt Weber 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Existance is not a keep criteron per Wikipedia policy.Gateman1997 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Schools themselves aren't notable just because they exist. AnAn 03:22, 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 keep. Ifnord 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Weinstein (musician)

Non-notable; unverifiable. Only Google hits are Wikipedia and mirrors. —ERcheck @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. No Google hits for band except Wikipedia and mirrors. —ERcheck @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 06:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite for notability. It appears that a David Weinstein's work has been featured via a commissioning of the NRPA [10], a group that makes radio productions and has them performed on public radio. Specifically speaking, the program he composed for, "O Little Town," won the Prix Futura price [11], apparently an international award in Berlin for excellence in television and radio. I'm not sure how well it fits into WP:MUSIC, but there's plenty of reason to keep this article with all this in mind. I'll try to rewrite when I get an opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff 14:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since Jeff seems to be committed to fixing the problems; lets see how he gets on :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why...why...are you challenging me, sir?! d;-) --badlydrawnjeff 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have expanded the article somewhat to better reflect his notability. It still needs work, but I believe his notability is more than established at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff 16:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep as edited. --kingboyk 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten by badlydrawnjeff; notability established. Hall Monitor 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the current edit, appears to be notable per the NYT. Stifle 00:15, 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 speedy delete (patent nonsense) and recreate as redirect to Ryll. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryl spice

Hoax, not verifiable, or possible original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  04:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Speedy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense. —ERcheck @ 05:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment wasn't sure about tagging as speedy J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism; G3. As idiotic as it is, I don't see it as utterly patent nonsense; but close. PJM 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as (mind my informality) total piece of crap. SycthosTalk 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 06:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ryll. VegaDark 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very good example of patent nonsense. --Lockley 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ryll, which is what I thought of when I saw the article title. Grandmasterka 07:17, 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 speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Lilly

Short article that mostly consisted of a copyrighted porn image that I removed. Probably not notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Expand. "Dirty Lilly" seems notable with 42,200 results on a google test, but the article is only one sentence long. Delete only if impossible to expand. SycthosTalk 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tagged this as a nn-bio speedy. Simply saying "porn star" is not a claim to notability. If the author of this sub-sub stub couldn't be bothered to make any more effort, we really don't have to preserve their name in the history forever. Delete it, and if someone wants to write a real article with actual sources, give them a biscuit. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:30, 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 del. mikka (t) 23:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Next Level Church

WP is not a free hosting provider. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Dbtfz 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom James084 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A church which, unusually for a church is "a community of Christ Followers who come together to worship God" and - in a complete break with tradition - meets weekly and on alternate Sundays. Actually that is a break with tradition, since most churches aspire to meet every Sunday but we'll let that pass. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG (as is often the case, his summary is better written and more interesting than the article being discussed!) --kingboyk 21:45, 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 del. mikka (t) 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Institute for E-Learning

Delete This is a minimal advertisement for a professional organization with a substantial number of google hits (possibly because the organization itself is web-based), but there is no assertion of notability, and the stub refers readers to a web site for more details rather than summarizing those details Endomion 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising, virtually linkspam. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. No evidence of any authority whatsoever. Will reconsider if the article is rewritten in line with policy before closure. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a vision statement--Mareino 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PHPSS

non-noteable Tedernst | talk 05:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete [12] says google is a good measure of notability - however it does return some results. But I think it's for a different PHPSS. So weak delete, unless someone can prove a measure of notability. Megapixie 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, not comprehensible: "Since the code is more or less structured on Variables it's completely invisible to the viewer by any means" is meaningless. It also appears to be about unreleased software, designed by the writer of the article. This is essentially an ad. Jim Apple 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, also vanity article.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] okay

IF I was featured on popular hosting companies reccomended scripts area for winning a PHP Programming contest, would that be noteable? Sixthcrusifix 15:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Jim Apple 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:15, 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 del. mikka (t) 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kleptophilia

Non-notable fetish community term, no hits on Lexisnexis, no hits on American Psychological Association articles search. No sources for it, so it is unverifiable. There is one article in Google scholar that says it means the same as kleptomania and is not a widely used term. So mainly it fails wikipedia's verifiability guideline. Google search for Kleptophilia and paraphilia get 403 hits, which is kind of notable, but remember my charge of verifiability. Pretty low notability for a fetish term in google, and yeah, I turned off my safe search. One stray article mentioning it meaning kleptomania isn't enough to justify it being a redirect, I think. Lotusduck 05:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I did google kleptolagnia and search it on APA and LexisNexis with similar results, 400 hits on google, no hits anywhere else. I guess I'll have to either delete or redirect kleptolagnia too? Lotusduck 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Same with kleptolagnia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Stifle 00:21, 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 del. mikka (t) 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rescreatuhelp

I don't see the point of this page, it seems like vanity to me. I was going to speedy it based on the lack of assertion of notability, but I held off on that pending Google stats or something. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank, no sites linking in, 5 google hits for rescreatuhelp. - Bobet 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The Deviant 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails every imaginable test for inclusion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:46, 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. UNSTANDARD DISCLAIMER: I DISDAIN PEOPLE WHO VOTE "KEEP, THIS SCHOOL EXISTS" OR "KEEP AS PER WIKIPEDIA:SCHOOLS". THIS IS A DEBATE, NOT A VOTE. USE RATIONAL ARGUMENTS, NOT PREPACKAGED ONES OR ONES TOTALLY LACKING BASIS IN POLICY. Johnleemk | Talk 13:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion High School

The article may be salvageable, but the last paragraph in particular seems questionable. Note the name of the creator and the principal. - unsigned comment by User:Mikereichold on Talk page of article. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 05:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (acting as a proxy)

I had remade the article shortly after posting this AfD, and the questionable bits have been taken out and deleted from the history by admins. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The cleaned up version looks fine. — TheKMantalk 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sterling, Virginia. Very short article, but there is a past precedent to keep high schools in some form. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep seems to get quite a few google hits. Jcuk 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability. However, there is precedent to keep high schools. -Rebelguys2 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is not policy. Kappa 09:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The original version should have been tagged as {{db-attack}}. I would ask an admin to please delete the history of this article, without waiting for AFD completion. --Rob 09:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted this, and then restored the re-write. Since it was a total re-write, this is GFDL compliant.--Doc ask? 09:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, its fine to me. --Terence Ong 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep school articles should be kept. -- Astrokey44|talk 13:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep valid High Schools. I don't even see a proper AfD criteria listed by the nom. — RJH 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to be fair to the nom, the article that they nominated deserved deletion as being an attack page, and was in fact deleted (it was removed from history). We're now talking about an entirely new article, though for the same school. Since no (non-admin) can see the original contents, nobody really has much basis for criticizing the nominator. --Rob 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep And the next article about a high school in Virgina will be number 50 and that won't be deleted either. CalJW 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not proxy nominations without valid reasons. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
To be fair to the nom (and myself), I did redo the article last night about two hours after I posted the VfD -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 17:36, 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, pretty clear-cut mostly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banhammer

This article was listed for speedy deletion, but does not meet any of the criteria. I'm only listing this here to gather consensus, this is NOT A VOTE. Mo0[talk] 05:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. --Mysidia (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dlete per above. --Terence Ong 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hammertime!, uh, sorry, Delete as neologism. --Agamemnon2 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed. The Deviant 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I've heard it before, but only in some pretty esoteric places. The folks at Bungie Studios seem particularly fond of it, but that's it. KrazyCaley 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable slang term, just count the Google hits.  Grue  17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, it has some hits, and some awesome photoshop homages. In a couple of months, this term could take off, and it would undeniably deserve its own page. As of today, though, a Wiki article would serve no purpose. --Mareino 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope Fellowship Church

This appears to almost be some kind of advertisement for this church. It has no real information except it's schedule and the fact that it exists. Vertigo700 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as ads.Blnguyen 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 10:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ...church in the south-central Denver area focusing on Christ... Ummm, as opposed to what? This is Christianity we're talking about here. --Agamemnon2 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. James084 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advert. Behind which is a church just like all the rest. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:47, 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. JIP | Talk 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeds of Vision

Clear vanity article, created and edited by the author of the novel. Not notable. See also Articles for deletion/Jonathan Fesmire, Articles for deletion/Amber in the Over World, Articles for deletion/Children of Rhatlan, and Articles for deletion/Tamshi's Imp. – Hydriotaphia 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity-published book. The ISBN wasn't found in any of the libraries I checked. Amazon rank above 2 million. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kusma. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:21, 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 delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Preston

Article is unverifiable. Seems to be an original work of fiction. Zen611 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense. It contradicts itself, saying she has been buried and then say funeral is TBA. Also some nonsense about David Beckham and Brendan Fraser. Blnguyen 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Lockley 06:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The author of this article seemed to neglect to mention this is a fictional characer from a comic book.--Dakese 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've researched the new edits. I can find no web reference to a "Miricle Publishing" (sic) of Toronto, nor any web reference to the comic "Pancake Invention". I do not object to listing a comic, but feel if this truly "gained a cult following in the Toronto clubbing scene" we would at least see at few web mentions. Zen611 03:16, 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. I don't really need to point out to y'all that I discounted the puppets, do I? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac spingarn

Looks like an autobiographical page. Non-notable. Could it be notable for the soybean car part? He does have a google hit (about the fourth one down) that lists him as the winner of a science fair, but this appears to be a middle school fair and thus not very important. Anabanana459 06:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have read about him in local papers around bridgewater, new jersey. he seems to be a multifaceted young student who is drawing some attention from both students and the public alike. Aside from being an outstanding student, his soybean car project is quite interesting. I have seen this car on the road and it is destinctly different from any other out there. It is the youth like this today that are outstanding models for other teens. Cnragnips 06:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Really? Then how come the CourierNews has never heard of him? Delete as hoax/unverifiable. --Wrathchild (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn vanity bio.Blnguyen 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:Bio violation, non-notable person.  (aeropagitica)  07:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable guy. --Ghirla | talk 07:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio, total vanity. --Terence Ong 10:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. Even if the non-referenced soybean oil car claim was true, it wouldn't be notable, since it's nothing original (try googling "soybean oil"+car). - Bobet 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • His soybean project is indeed very notable. This page should not be deleted, Isaac serves a model student for others at his school.--68.192.185.31 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SAVE HIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.53.30 (talk • contribs) 13:48, January 20, 2006 UTC
  • Delete see Ispingarn (talk · contribs) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Save He has been noted in papers around bridgewater, the Echoes-Sentinel many times for school realated matters, he even has a half page picture accompanied by a article about his cross country team 68.192.175.131 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. Stifle 00:22, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immedium

This looks non-notable - like a contact page for a company. Anabanana459 06:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. Blnguyen 06:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. See also Mark Graham for an associated deletion candidate Ianb 09:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per advertising. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

how is it any different from wiki entries such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_Press http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatpress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_Press http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_Press

and many other wikipedia printing press entries. The article is not advertising. It instead maps out the organizational structure of the press. 19 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.124.201 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A8 [13] --NaconKantari 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "emerging" = yet to emerge. Unencyclopaedic in tone, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:WTH. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We've missed the speedy deletion deadline (please, when you vote speedy delete on an article, tag it with {{db}} and the reason after a |. Delete for now, per JzG. Stifle 00:21, 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 delete, resist temptation to merge with Manic Street Preachers. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Short

Delete. Non-notable, probable vanity. Lockley 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing that is worth keeping. NorseOdin 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Although it looks like it was written by someone who doesn't like him rather than a vanity article. Grandwazir 19:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an amusing mix of vanity and attack (gotta love that "controversies" section!). Created by anbon so nowhere to userfy to. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per JzG. Do not merge with Manic Street Preachers ;) --Mareino 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion, followed by page protection. enochlau (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darius Palmer

Non Notable Singer, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Article has been deleted as CSD A7 x 2. Doing AFD to reach consensus J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete and have reapplied your tag for good measure. Ben Aveling 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
* 16:13, 19 January 2006 MONGO deleted "Darius Palmer" (nn bio, fails to establish notablity, vanity page as well)
* 13:41, 19 January 2006 Zoe deleted "Darius Palmer" (nn -bio)[14]
  • Speedy Delete as per nom, I copied and pasted most of his vanity page to his user page, perhaps that will make the point? - Dharmabum420 08:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - and then protect the page from recreation Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, nn-bio with protection of page to prevent recreation. --Terence Ong 10:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt teh earth per consensus thusfar. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:09, Jan. 19, 2006

Enough already. Will someone put the poor thing out of our misery?  :-) 11:28, 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 no consensus; default to keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS MEANS NO CONSENSUS NOW AND ONLY DEFAULTS TO KEEP. THIS MAY CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE OR REDIRECT. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiaquatic

Delete. This should be a wikitionary definition at best. Lockley 07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and transwiki. --Terence Ong 10:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems a fairly standard term, often found in descriptions of plants and animals; should have an explanation here. Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, and delete. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Stifle 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely link/search term. Kappa 08:14, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Gardner

Deletable. My reasons are stated well enough here. -Ste|vertigo 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - changing vote. -Ste|vertigo 16:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete -changing vote back, after reading the article again, and attempting a futile rewrite. -Ste|vertigo 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No keep this on it goes to show wikipedia helps society in many ways sometimes strange --Kyle G 06:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia helps society??" ROFL. -Ste|vertigo 16:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Noteworthy.[15][16]. See also precedent AfD case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). — TheKMantalk 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet notability standard. Inclusion of this article seems to be inherently POV (in this case, biased towards topics that are even tangentially related to Wikipedia). --L33tminion | (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only WP:BIO criteria that comes close is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", which is so nebulous as to be almost useless. Notoriety within the WP world yes, in teh real world? Methinks not. --bainer (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Does television coverage on CNN count as the real world? — TheKMantalk 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • From what I've read, much of the media coverage (especially the original ABC article) seems to focus more on the kids who uncovered Gardner. Moreover, none of the sources paint Gardner as being exceptional among sex offenders, since many use false names and identities. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What makes him exceptional is his media coverage. The vast majority of sex offenders don't get interviewed on NBC[17]. — TheKMantalk 08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kman. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE. WP:BIO includes "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Kman, also this is encyclopedic because the use/abuse of the Internet (including Wikipedia) was so widely documented and the deception lasted so many months. This has become a somewhat notable case of Internet identity fraud (of which there is a lot) in the early 21st century. Only as a point of reference (but not as justification) I believe this article is more encyclopedic than Sollog, never mind about a half a million other articles on the English WP. The Witch 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he made CNN. I'd also prefer if people would post their rationale here instead of to their livejournal. Rhobite 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per KMan and Phil. Madame Sosostris 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a noteworthy event with an unusual twist that garnered major media coverage (like, say, the Anna Ayala case). The nominator's reason for deletion seems to be a dislike of statutory rape laws. Dynayellow 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Kman, although well referenced, it may need a cleanup to remove all the quotes, parts read like a news article. Grandwazir 20:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh... Keep... this is rather newsworthy and will continue to be, IMHO. --OntarioQuizzer 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kman. His highness may have been a fraud, but this page is not. TomStar81 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rhobite. Also, that would be His Fraudulent Grace, not "His Highness". Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. I stand corrected. TomStar81 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per KMan. -- Dwheeler 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's a well known sex offender with extensive coverage of his actions, which just happen to involve Wikipedia. Jamesday 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nonsense article that Gardner created claiming to be the fifth duke got AfD'd, but with this recent to-do, this is encyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The stuff's in the news for crying out loud! And I need it to do my final paper! 129.97.252.63 07:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know, this AFD is doomed to failure, but I voted to delete Brian Chase as well so I might as well be consistent. There are thousands of offenders like Gardner who we wouldn't think twice about deleting, and just using Wikipedia to do something ill does not bring a person closer to meeting WP:BIO standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: for me, the (minor) Wikipedia angle doesn't even enter into its notability. It's the strange "pretending to be royalty while enrolling in high school" combined with his discovery by students themselves. If you wrote a story like that, no one would believe it. Dynayellow 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because although I have a lot of sympathy with the delete voters, this really is so strange it will probably be remembered. I'd still have let it simmer for a couple of years before creating the article though. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to widespread media coverage and sheer oddness. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm going out on a limb - I agree with the nomination (but in future please state your reasons here, not on another site). I think this story is all a fuss over nothing and this issue will be very quickly forgotten. I agree with JZG, except that I think it should be allowed to simmer for a couple of years. --kingboyk 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joshua Gardner is insane and need a therapy. After the therapy he should be anonymous. Only than he can start a new life. Without rehabiltation the chance of his criminal career is very high. Don´t forget: This boy is not a killer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.163.204 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a killer, but a sex offender (if that makes it any better). It's a bit too late for anonymity, since this has gone through the news networks. Also, in the United States, where these servers are located, criminal's names are not censored by law. — TheKMantalk 12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • A majority of the US-people lost their feeling for human rights and are betraing Jesus. You´ve to attend the quality of the crime and if the offender is insane. J.G. has to serve a sentence. But afterwards we´ve to give very young people like him a chance. But what I´m writing. The US-police hundcuff a nine year old boy, if he give a kiss to his classmate.
  • Delete. There are millions of sex offenders and crackpots in the society. Don´t open the door to list them in wikipedia. It´s not the sense of an Encyclopedia. --> Wikipedia shouldn´t be a register of sex offenders and crackpots.—The preceding unsigned comment was first edit by Christianluther (talk • contribs).
  • weak delete -- Wikinews, sure. But Wikipedia, for his 15 minutes of notoriety? The voting looks like a keep, of course, and I'll not lose any sleep over that, but in my opinion being on today's headlines does not give you sufficient notability for your own article. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, No plausible reason to delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, news mentions doesn't automatically mean that a subject should be in an encyclopedia, though it can be used as an indicator. This is a news story that will be forgotten in time. A Wikipedia article should be relevant for a much longer period of time than a newspaper or magazine article. I'm sure there have been similar situations a decade or two ago that no one remembers. If it is kept for reasons specific to Wikipedia (showing its benefits and such), it should not be in the article namespace because such a rationale indicates that it is not encyclopedic, but advertising. Summaries of news stories like these could be put on an internal page. -- Kjkolb 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The nom wrote at great length their reasoning, but failed to give just one good reason for deletion. Its fairly obvious the person is now notable. Also, it seems the noms principal reason, is they their sympathy for Gardner. Apparently he has some problem with "an arbitrary age milestone" in laws regarding consent for sex, which is a POV the nom is entitled to, but shouldn't be used to justify the deletion of an article. We do properly have articles on people who have criminal convictions for things that some of their supporters don't think should be labelled as criminal. Finally, it's not our role to decide which persons, and which events should be deemed notable. Rather, we are to find what has deemed notable. That's a key distinction. --Rob 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that notability may be a standard, and in that regard, it may be better that we simply have an article which actually explains both sides of the issue. Still, it seems that deferring to either a local label or to mere news notablity is huge problem, when those labels can be so variable, when news notability can be so baseless. Putting the both of them together doesnt make it any moreso 'notable' nor encyclopedic. (There's Wikinews though, too.) For example, the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping was once named Elizabeth Smart (kidnapping victim). The issue then was to disambiguate from an author (IIRC) and that Smart (then only 13) wasnt herself 'notable', and only the kidnapping was. I objected strongly because it seemed ridiculous to make an article about a person and then prejudice it of a sorts with a label of 'kidnap victim'. The person is a person, and though they may be notable for being a 'kidnap victim', thats not in fact what they are —especially someone only 13 who's got a whole life ahead of her. The same thing goes for someone only 22, who has carried the label of being a 'sex offender' since he himself was only a teenager. Minnesota AOC is apparently only 16 years, which makes the label even weaker. Even though its not in the article title, the very existence of the article seems to be more dependent on the label of 'sex offender' than the actual offense. The damn thing (as its written) doesnt even phrase it according to NPOV ("according to the state of Minnesota, Gardner..."), or to even mention that the AOC is only 16. Amateur writing at best. I suppose it could be a good thing to keep it, as a good example of a ridiculous abuse of justice. -Ste|vertigo 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete leave the guy alone.  Grue  17:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We can't have a page and mugshot for each person in the news. I don't see a page regarding Thomas Jefferson and his statuatory rape of his 16 year old slave. Leave this guy alone, he's been though hell already. ~ This user has left wikipedia 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Newsworthy. Arbiteroftruth 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kman. Sarah Ewart 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Newsworthy is not necessarily notable. A flash in the pan. Wikipedia articles should have some staying power. Herostratus 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting and apparently newsworthy story. We're going to see more of these types in the future, I'm afraid. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all sex offenders are notable, but this one is, because of his rather bizarre story (claiming to be British royalty and getting exposed because of Wikipedia, of all things). JIP | Talk 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep clearly notable ➥the Epopt 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per extensive coverage and borderline notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to a new section in Duke of Cleveland. --Neutralitytalk 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Cruft! Only a communist, fascist, fundamentalist or/and peeper vote for keep. They´ve no idea about human-rights.

[edit] Comments

  • Just out of curiosity, what are you people's ages? Ive seen two or three responses from users who are only teenagers. Combining this fact with the fact that many responses are simply claiming that if its on the news, its encyclopedic, I'm not sure if high school kids are really capable of understanding the difference between what local news outlets consider news (i.e. a chimpmunk waterskiing) and what's actually encyclopedic. While notablity is a genuine factor, 'he made the Today Show' is not. Wondering who here is unclear on the difference. -Ste|vertigo 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Look, if you think it's okay for 18 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds, well, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I find your attitude towards this debate, and your above comment in particular, insulting. Dynayellow 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. what do people think of this template for placement in articles. One of the early keep votes inspired it.
This article is an example of How Wikipedia helps the world!
No offense, but I don't think it is appropriate. As per my comments above, it is advertising in the main namespace under the guise of an encyclopedia article, if the reason the article is kept is because it involves Wikipedia, especially how Wikipedia "helps". The article should be kept or deleted on its merits alone, not its association with Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No way. How the heck did this help the world? They guy wasn't comitting a crime, just violating his probation. I think the whole thing is a black eye for everybody. Just because some Junior Spies used Wikipedia to finger some poor schmuck doesn't mean we should crow about it. On the contrary it makes a point for Daniel Brandt's contention that Wikipedia is a way to air out anyone's dirty laundry on a very high-traffic site. Criminal or no, this guy is not a public figure, and the idea that citizens can have low-profile lives, make low-profile mistakes, and have low-profile private sorrows is not something that I would throw away. No, this is something that Wikipedia should hope best forgotten. Herostratus 07:05, 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. JIP | Talk 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mutis

Delete as not verifiable. A Google search turns up this partial explanation, which suggests this was simply fabricated: "(actually, Mutis is another name for Galder.... who happens to be in Dimmu Borgir. Strangely enough, though, the name was just something I pulled out of thin air without any previous research)" Lockley 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverifiable. (link to above comment here.) The creator of the article also added it to a list of demons here. — TheKMantalk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:53, 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 Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brody Dark

Delete. This appears to be a musician and actor but I can't find any reference of him to the albums or films listed (and it's not a band, it was incorrectly stubbed). Is this a hoax? Bruce1ee 07:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hoax. The "#1" chart positions for the discography and the role of "Beatrix Kiddo" in "Kill Bill vol. 1" under filmography make this a dead giveaway. — TheKMantalk 07:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the role of Kevin in Sin City. Delete. --Agamemnon2 12:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 14:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Potential hoax. Stifle 00:36, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE A MERGE OR REDIRECT. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD IN THE FUTURE WHEN OPPOSING OR SUPPORTING A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sie and hir

Uncommon fictional neologism Garglebutt / (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. The coverage at Gender-neutral pronoun is more than sufficient. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Uncommon, but it's usage has supposedly been around since the 1930s. — TheKMantalk 08:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hardly a neologism since they've been around for decades, they're pretty common as far as gender neutral pronouns go Night Gyr 10:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
New is a relative term but this could be more accurately described as a protologism which further supports this afd. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur, an unsuccessful protologism. --Agamemnon2 12:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a lot of valuable content that's not in gender neutral pronoun, and far too much to be merged. ×Meegs 10:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Gender-neutral pronoun and use as redirect (along with Sie and Hir, which currently redirect to Sie and hir). The terms are used and have been for quite some time, but not widely. Certainly not fictional, but the information is better served on the one page. As artificially-created gender-neutral pronouns they deserve considerable coverage on the g-np page, but probably are not worth a separate article. A similar case could (should?) be made for Xe (pronoun), Ve (pronoun), and the Spivak pronoun. Grutness...wha? 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge as above. "Sie" and "Hir" were actually used fairly commonly on certain Usenet groups at one time. AnonMoos 13:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting expansion of Gender-neutral pronoun, can give usage details and sources that would be too detailed there. Kusma (討論) 13:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Terence Ong 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy proposal, even if it is silly and quixotic. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Grutness. bikeable (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Grutness. Spivak might deserve its own article, though. Madame Sosostris 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep probably is too detailed for Gender-neutral pronoun -- Astrokey44|talk 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's useful and detailed enough to merit its own article. Kimun 06:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Grutness, makes good sense since much of the contents at present seems distinctly trivial. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page has more detail than would be appropriate to merge into gn-p. In fact I thought this page also used to mentioned Zie, which is a RDR, but I can't find it now. pfctdayelise 22:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. -Sean Curtin 02:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Article deletion as CSD G7 Alf melmac 23:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Shorthouse

I created this article a while ago. However, I now realise it is non-notable (he's only a minor character) and borders on cruft. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 08:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - nominated by author and sole editor. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - as nominated by author of page. --Lockley 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G7 --NaconKantari 21:18, 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. JIP | Talk 07:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Kirtley

Delete because it does not meet notability criterea DudeOnTheLoose 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. CalJW 16:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete 'periodicals with a circulation of 5,000'. Floppeus 01:37, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Graham

This has "vanity" written all over it: page created by user with same name, advertising subject's website, notability of subject is not established Ianb 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Immedium created by same user is also on AFD Ianb 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable geographer and photographer, WP:Bio refers.  (aeropagitica)  15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Definite vanity. NN. The Deviant 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sure fire vanity article. Grandwazir 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Also deleted my speedy request. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy is the best option. Stifle 00:37, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishen Langoo

Substub biography with no assertion of notability. Most Google hits point to Wikipedia mirrors, but there are some non-WP pages that I haven't investigated. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-19 09:07Z

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as A1 no context and A7 nn-bio. Stifle 00:38, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Budgie

Non-notable bio of a moped mechanic in California, and unverifiable. Google throws up no relevant hits other than wiki-mirrors. Given this, it seems unlikely that the guy is "world famous" for his repair jobs.GeeJo (t) (c) • 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete article about nn moped mechanic that also contained a shock site link since the start. Kusma (討論) 14:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, no citations or references to back up claims.  (aeropagitica)  15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kusma. Stifle 00:38, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Jammie Dodgers

Non-notable band entry. No indication they meet WP:MUSIC criteria Akamad 09:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This article was written admittedly in the playful spirit of the group, but the information was culled from genuine journalistic sources. The fact that those sources remain underground, and the bands musical popularity is of an underground nature doesnt impinge on there notability. I have not met the band personaly, but have attended many of there gigs, and being a determined member of Dublins thriving underground scene, I can testify to there influence and popularity. I will look over the article, but I ask for a short time to make ammendents to bring the article with-in Wikipedias criteria. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddyboy (talk • contribs) 09:48, January 19, 2006 (UTC).

  • You have until the end of this AfD. Tick-tock.... tick-tock... In the betweentime, delete. --Agamemnon2 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Surely a case for {{db-band}}? Violation of WP:Music with no notable albums, singles, chart releases or notable members of which to speak.  (aeropagitica)  15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable and reads like a news article. Grandwazir 19:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems more notable as a biscuit than a band. "The Jammie Dodgers" dublin gets 7 google hits (3 of them also about the biscuit). -- Astrokey44|talk 23:25, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thechristiancynic.com

Vanity page - appears to be created and edited exclusively by persons involved with subject Kenji Yamada 09:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN, vanity. The Deviant 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatent self promotion and non notable. Grandwazir 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no Alexa ranking. --NaconKantari 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:38, 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 13:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Lights club night

Appears to be a red-link stub about a bar or bar event of dubious notability. Delete unless proven otherwise. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:35, Jan. 19, 2006

  • Delete barcruft, unless we can add my friend's annual New Year's Day party. I guarantee its more fun. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this is widely seen as one of the nights at the pinnacle of the norths current music scene. i live in manchester and there is nothing here to rival it. bands such as arctic monkeys and babyshambles played here before anyone else latched onto them. clubs like the hacienda and cbgbs would no doubt of got a similar response early in their careers by people not clued up on the current scenes. i do think the article should maybe be edited slightly though. User:manc67 01:54, 20 January 2006

  • I wrote the article. I do a lot of research on music in the North West of England. If you wish me to provide you with press clippings and testimonials of the club then I am more than willing, just ask. If you think the article comes across as trying to promote the club or whatever then I am more than willing to change it. Please let me know your thoughts. Mex79 17:14, 20 January 2006
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment, it has been moved to wikicities nightlife [18] -- Astrokey44|talk 13:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Michael Ross Dance

Delete, WP:NOT something somebody made up at school one day. Lukas 10:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverifiable, and makes no claim of popularity or notability. ×Meegs 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. NN, unverifiable. --Lockley 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G1 --NaconKantari 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – this page been blanked twice and the AFD tag removed from the article by User:128.220.195.39 ×Meegs 11:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Garbage. Dbtfz 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiDance Delete, can't see how it's speediable but it is definite WP:BALLS. Stifle 00:39, 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. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy McCracken

Non-notable McCrackenPot (sorry) who runs a website. Likely self-promotion. Zero 10:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Also, website in question has a poor Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (Heh @ -pot). The Deviant 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not self-promotion. The page was not created by Andy, because I created it. No real concern for deletion User:Inferno9891 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The website provided shows all of the info stated. No definite need for deletion. User:Archpain 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: this user had no contributions prior to voting on AfDs for Inferno (Brandon Pena) and Andy McCracken on 20 January. Lukas 11:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Website is of high quality and provides all the factual information stated User:Klmc4 21:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: this user had no contributions prior to voting on AfDs for Inferno (Brandon Pena) and Andy McCracken on 20 January. Lukas 11:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Besides the "idea" of self-promotion, there is no valid reason to delete this site. The site wasn't even created by McCracken. User:Prolime 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: this user had no contributions prior to voting on AfDs for Inferno (Brandon Pena) and Andy McCracken on 20 January. Lukas 11:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Inferno9891 Zeq 09:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --InShaneee 23:33, 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 KEEP. Mo0[talk] 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smirting

Orphan neologism that isn't in common use, nor is it ever going to be much more than a dicdef Night Gyr 10:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Night Gyr 10:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's already more than a dicdef, and the first page of google results includes some news stories about the term [19] [20] [21] ×Meegs 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep mentioned in news stories in several countries -- Astrokey44|talk 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Meegs. Stifle 00:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, real activity. Kappa 08:11, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Edward Carney

nn vanity article. Google has no relevant hits, and the article itself does nothing to establish notability. Nezu Chiza 11:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination Ianb 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom.
  • Delete per nom. The Deviant 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari 21:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jono 20:15, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Ruler

Errant band vanity. Two Google hits, both from Myspace.com, the parking garage of garage bands. Delete with extreme prejudice. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 19, 2006

  • Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. You call that a website? Grandmasterka 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

cough try 'red ruler breakcore'. i must also point out- Red Ruler, just like the entirety of established breakcore has listings on myspace. venetian snares, doormouse, bong-ra, knifehandchop, edgey, hecate, little mack, etc. red ruler innovated an entire style of music within our genre, and remains a very important part of NW electronic music. Notsleeping 05:18, 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. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Music Review

Detected by catapult, this non-notable website has an alexa ranking of (omfg) 3,650,223. Delete as link spam. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:14, Jan. 19, 2006

delete for reasons above Ianb 11:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
delete non-encyclopedic, non-notable -- Femmina 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom.--Esprit15d 14:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:25, 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 deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skatter

Appears to be an elaborate teenage band vanity/hoax. Nothing links to it besides this afd page. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:19, Jan. 19, 2006

  • Speedy delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. I thought it was an obvious speedy at first, but reading it again I see that it says one of their songs was used in a movie. Little buggers. PJM 12:41, 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. Punkmorten 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.C. European Society of Oxford University

AfD on this last week. Voted to delete. Article went back up almost immediately. Lincolnite 11:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, per nomination. Lincolnite 11:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. Warn editor.--Esprit15d 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if WP:CSD G4, recreation of deleted material, applies (cannot see previous content to verify if this is applicable). If not, delete as non-notable, limited student society. Sliggy 14:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    WP:CSD G4 does indeed apply. The material is definitely substantially identical. If my memory serves me correctly, I also think it is exactly identical. Lincolnite 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    OK, I've added a {{db-repost}} tag. Sliggy 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Protect the page from recreation. --Terence Ong 15:54, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Enough

Webcomic is not yet released so no readers. Non-notable CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination ×Meegs 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 17:24, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitrat the pirate

Delete. Non-notable webcomic newspaper comic; Google search for "Pitrat the pirate" only returns one result. Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 12:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Andylkl, this is NOT a webcomic. It is a real comic, published in a University Newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkCorvus (talk • contribs)
    • Ahh, my mistake. But still, please read this. Although it's verifiable, it's still not notable for Wikipedia. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If this is deleted shouldnt half of the pages on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comic_strips be deleted as well? Pitrat is loved on campus, and i dont think its justified to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitrat (talk • contribs)
      • Note: The above comment was actually added by 142.161.72.128. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I feel oddly compelled to chime in with my 2 cents.

Andylkl: The notability page you refer to is for websites, and yet it has been shown that this is NOT an article referencing a website, or a comic who's primary means of distribution is a website. This is a popular (although I'm not usre why) comic strip published in an established, credible University Newspaper.

Pitrat: You have a long way to go before you should feel compelled to compare yourself to half of the comics listed on the page you have referenced.

I don't believe web hits should be the sole source to determine validity or notability of a subject, the world does not revolve around the internet after all...at least not yet. This is a popular comic in Winnipeg, Manitoba with little to no web-pressence...it should not be punished for that. Maybe it should be applauded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk • contribs)

  • Okay, you've made it clear now. My bad. The correct one should be Wikipedia:Notability, please take a look at it. My point is, for the moment the article topic does not seem notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This isn't a punishment or anything, seriously. If you or anyone else can back up claims that the comic strip is popular in Winnipeg (and not just the university grounds) through the comic being mentioned in local television stations, any number of websites, radio stations, local daily newspaper articles, any one of those mentioned with verified sources, and I'll willingly withdraw the nomination for the article's deletion. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable means difficult/impossible to verify. Also very new; will it even last the semester? (ESkog)(Talk) 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable student comic. -- Dragonfiend 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's not on "The Manitoban" website, which leads me to doubt its veracity. However, I must say that I would like to read a comic about a snowman who's also an accountant. --Mareino 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slippery Nipple (band)

  • Delete: Questionable adherence to WP:BAND. No mentions on AllMusic.com or Amazon. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and Google doesn't show much either: [22]. PJM 12:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Right I have links to the bands purevolumeand Myspace They are a very new band and have not started work on their website yet, I am sorry about the confusion.194.8.54.250 13:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Although the band has a fanbase, the band has not met any of the criteria in WP:BAND yet to merit an article. A proper search on Google also produces only 130 results. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 14:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • I see your point the article should be removed then because it does not met wikipedia criteria Bobertwhitty 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:26, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ThereIsNoRadio

Appears to be a vanity page for a radio website with an alexa ranking of 1,296,221. Bear in mind that our total number of articles is only 2,408,888, and only a fraction of them pertain to websites as, well, there's a lot more to life than that. There is no evidence of links to it from anywhere besides us and myspace. The article seems to be WP:OWNed by user:Randomgenius who seems to be the only one who knows anything about this phenomenon. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:24, Jan. 19, 2006


This article has already survived an afd and proved it's notability here. Maybe you should read it. Here are some quotes from Alexa's that you should pay close attention to:

"The traffic data are based on the set of Alexa users, which may not be a representative 
sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited 
to) the following:   
The Alexa Toolbar works only with the Internet Explorer browser. Sites frequented mainly by 
users of other browsers will be undercounted. For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not 
supported, which means that Alexa collects little data from AOL users, and our traffic to 
aol.com is likely lower than it would be for a more representative sample. 
The Alexa Toolbar works only on Windows operating systems. Although a large majority of the 
Internet population currently used Windows, traffic to any sites which are disproportionately 
visited by users of other operating systems will be undercounted."

I'm the main editor on the article? So what? There's lots of articles on wikipedia that are only edited by one or two people. Everybody that is knowledgable on a subject doesn't edit articles on wikipedia either. I don't really see much point in dignifying your afd with a vote. I will again point you in the direction of the original afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThereIsNoRadio. The arrogance of the "I haven't heard of it so it must not be important" afd's is rediculous and I'm getting tired of defending articles I've worked hard on for these reasons. Randomgenius 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


I am a listener of this radio station and wanted to know more about it. I came here and read about it. It's not an article about a website, as Freakofnurture has pointed out. It's about an internet radio station. A station with a history, on air talent, and ties to both commercial and satellite radio. Also, I didn't find out about this station from WIKIPEDIA OR MYSPACE. I've seen this site linked on ronfez.net, wackbag.com, talkradiofans.com, silentspic.com, and I even heard Ron and Fez talk about it several times on XM 202.

(sorry if I didn't provide a proper timestamp, I am new to wikipedia and only signed up to respond to this.)

I vote we Keep it. - EddieWilliams - 1/19/2006 16:49:00

This vote is the first edit by EddieWilliams (talk · contribs). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:16, Jan. 20, 2006
  • Delete nn, Im not convinced by that past No Consensus afd vote - it includes three delete votes, one anonymous keep, one keep vote by a relatively new user [23] and one keep which is really a merge vote -- Astrokey44|talk 23:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No outside sources = no good. Ashibaka tock 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm Badmonkey, the owner of ThereIsNoRadio, and I find it interesting that this and related wikipedia entries are considered "vanity" and "non notable". I'm not sure exactly what makes these entries "vanity" as there are much nicer looking websites than wikipedia for each of them. Getting a listing somewhere is easy as most just have simple forms and I've submitted the station on several of them.

Since there has been no evidence presented other than one person's opinion to support the vanity charge I will move on to the notability issue and present some evidence that I think supports our notability.

The station started in mid October of 2005 when RadioBBQ, the original station housing most of the DJs, closed its doors. TINR and it's DJs have been discussed many times on Ron and Fez on XM Radio and The Hideout on WTKS-FM in Orlando, Florida. Before Ron and Fez moved to XM, we were discussed many times on their show on WJFK-FM in D.C. Some of our DJs are regulars on Ron and Fez as well as Opie and Anthony, such as DJNewStyle who is well-known for his O&A parody song submissions. I worked on the air with The Hideout and in the background with Ron and Fez during their time at WJFK-FM.

We are currently linked to by Fishbone with an unpaid banner on their official website. We are the only internet radio station or other non-fishbone related advertisement they run at www.fishbone.net. We are also linked to by Ron and Fez's website www.ronfez.net, another place our banners are run without any type of reciprocal payment.

In under three months, we have become the #13 ranked talk station and #6 in reality on Live365. The above mention of the 13 people that have supposedly "listened to" our station since October is a misleading number, if not an outright distortion of the facts. That is simply how many people have ranked the station during their time listening. Since mid October, we have accumulated almost 5,000 TLH, over 100 Live365 listener presets, and over 140 registered members on our website.

We may not have a high alexa rating, but as stated above Alexa only works with internet explorer. Most of our listeners use Firefox. Most of our listeners are pretty internet savvy and do not like their privacy invaded. Read your Alexa internet and you'll see that it has a bad reputation as spyware. That alone would keep them from using the alexa toolbar.

Everybody that listens doesn't rank the station. Everybody that listens doesn't register for the website. Everybody that registers for the website does not necessarily post on the forums or enter the chatroom. Nobody is required to actually visit the site to listen to us as we broadcast through Live365 and our stream is launched from our station page at Live365.com.

Reading the original afd, it appears that the primary reason for deletion was due to TiNR being an internet radio station. You've got long lists of internet radio stations that I've never heard of while neglecting stations like Soundbreak.com, one of the biggest and most written about internet radio stations of the last 10 years. Soundbreak was a project by Mark Goodman, former MTV VJ, and is the station that inspired me to start ThereIsNoRadio, years before I was on RadioBBQ. It appears to me that there are very few, if any, "wikipedians" here qualified to judge the notability of internet radio, internet radio dj's, internet radio shows, or internet radio stations. The entries I looked at today about internet radio seemed bare and uninformative as if written by people that only had a vague idea what they were talking about. We are not a website. We are an internet radio station. If the only way to show notability on wikipedia is by getting people that use the alexa toolbar to visit our website, then chances are we will never be notable in your eyes.

If you need outside sources, then start with Thereisnoradio.com, Fishbone.net, RonFez.net, The Hideout on WTKS, wackbag.com.

We may not be XM Radio or Sirius, but I would hardly call us cruft. Hopefully you all read that and now have some idea of what we are, although reading the entry would have given you plenty of information. Although, I guess if you were going to bother reading past the nomination you might have voted keep already, or at least written something more than "non notable".

My vote may not count here as I have just registered, but I vote keep because of what we have achieved in such a short time and my personal belief that the articles are informative and fairly well written. There's nothing in them that couldn't be fixed and I see nothing in the deletion policy mentioning a low alexa rating alone as a good reason to delete an article. Maybe if I'd written the article all this information would have been in it, but then it would probably meet the definition of vanity?

Keep DiabolicalBadmonkey 03:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Badmonkey

  • Delete Although Badmonkey raises some good points about how we assess the notabity of internet radio stations, how else can we do it? We simply can't just take your word for it.
I'll admit I don't follow the internet radio scene, but we need to be able to verify the station's notabity. If 5,000 people have listened to your show since October, link the evidence. If Ron and Fez talk about it, link an archived show to prove it. From the small amount of research (checking the outside sources you listed) I have done I have found little to support keeping this article.
  • The first one is your own website which isn't very useful for assessing notabity.
  • The second one has no links to your station that I can find, and a search on their forum brings up nothing. Ron and Fez's site has a link to RadioBBQ, which I understand was the previous incarnation of ThereIsNoRadio but there is no link to TISR and no mention of it that I can find on the main site.
  • The third at the hideout has no reference to TISR either on the links page or on the "names to know" page.
  • A quick check on the unoffical Opie and Antothy forum picks up two forum threads announcing the existance of the station[24], created by DJNewStyle, although these threads are empty, apart from inital post.
  • I also can't find evidence that you are being talked about on talkradiofans.com since the forums have since been shutdown.
If I am missing something or not looking in the right places then please help us out and give us the references we need otherwise it has to be deleted per policy. Grandwazir 06:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the links you asked for:

  • Here is a link to a show log from Ron and Fez discussing one of the DJ's leaving RadioBBQ Ron and Fez Show Log

Randomgenius 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm changing my suggestion to a weak keep, because it does seem to still be some doubt over the notabity over the station. Although the article does need to be improved if it is to be kept. The links provided by Randomgenius here need to make their way into the main article.
I don't think we could just brand this as vanispamcruftisement because it does have some basis to it's claim to fame. Grandwazir 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. --King of All the Franks 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Merovingian. Plus I hate siteowners defending at length their inclusion to this encyclopedia instead of spending that time expanding their article or other articles with reliable sources. --Perfecto 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't write the article. We are not a website. Looking at the history of the articles proves that the guy that wrote the article has been working on their expansion. I simply gave information that wasn't already in the article that I felt was relevant to the discussion. I guess it's better to be a delete sheep that just post their delete vote and disappear without ever reading or contributing to the discussion? As stated above, I own the radio station. I don't know much about wikipedia and I'm not really sure how our inclusion in an amateur internet encyclopedia helps promote the station. If our article stays, great. If it does not stay, then I just think it sucks that the time and energy other people put into it was wasted. DiabolicalBadmonkey 22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At this point, it looks like the argument against this article remaining is that internet radio stations aren't notable. I'd have to disagree with that. For the most part, terrestrial radio stations are allowed; of them, I have edited several articles. I don't see why internet radio stations (and show pages) with some notability wouldn't be allowed. I'm not saying all stations are notable. I also realize that internet radio is yet to become as popular in the mainstream, atleast in American culture, as terrestrial radio or satellite radio. But, I think the community should re-consider its stance on internet radio stations. --Kevin McManus 00:42, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Asylum

Appears to be another vanity page for radio website that doesn't trip the Alexa radar [25], which (I recently learned) counts to at least 3 million. Only 505 google hits. We've deleted and padlocked topics more notable than this. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:24, Jan. 19, 2006


This article has already survived an afd and proved it's notability here. Maybe you should read it. Here are some quotes from Alexa's that you should pay close attention to:

"The traffic data are based on the set of Alexa users, which may not be a representative 
sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited 
to) the following:   
The Alexa Toolbar works only with the Internet Explorer browser. Sites frequented mainly by 
users of other browsers will be undercounted. For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not 
supported, which means that Alexa collects little data from AOL users, and our traffic to 
aol.com is likely lower than it would be for a more representative sample. 
The Alexa Toolbar works only on Windows operating systems. Although a large majority of the 
Internet population currently used Windows, traffic to any sites which are disproportionately 
visited by users of other operating systems will be undercounted."

I'm the main editor on the article? So what? There's lots of articles on wikipedia that are only edited by one or two people. Everybody that is knowledgable on a subject doesn't edit articles on wikipedia either. I don't really see much point in dignifying your afd with a vote. I will again point you in the direction of the original afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThereIsNoRadio. The arrogance of the "I haven't heard of it so it must not be important" afd's is rediculous and I'm getting tired of defending articles I've worked hard on for these reasons. Randomgenius 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity -- Astrokey44|talk 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Ashibaka tock 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Interesting page but seems to be a non-notable show on a non-notable station. If the station proves notable then it is another story, otherwise delete. Grandwazir 06:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, however it's good to see that the style of the article has improved in response to recent complaints MikeMorley 08:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. If you're "tired of defending articles I've worked hard on" maybe you should instead work on Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:Cleanup instead of articles about yourself. --Perfecto 22:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who exactly do you think I am? I've just been following the shows, and stations since soon after they started. I thought wiki was for people to write about things they know. I've contributed to other articles outside of these, but I've been working pretty hard to add information and make them more encyclopedic. I've been told that some of the references I've added in dicussions here should be put in the article. If it survives afd, I will do that but I don't see any reason to continue effort on something that will just be deleted because a specific cross section of the world hasn't heard of it and calls it non-noteable. -- Randomgenius 00:20, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJNewStyle

Another web radio phenomenon that Alexa has never heard of [26]. Also, this source seems to indicate that 13 people are confirmed to have listened to it since October. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:24, Jan. 19, 2006

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. feydey 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has already survived an afd and proved it's notability here. Maybe you should read it. Here are some quotes from Alexa's that you should pay close attention to:

"The traffic data are based on the set of Alexa users, which may not be a representative 
sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited 
to) the following:   
The Alexa Toolbar works only with the Internet Explorer browser. Sites frequented mainly by 
users of other browsers will be undercounted. For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not 
supported, which means that Alexa collects little data from AOL users, and our traffic to 
aol.com is likely lower than it would be for a more representative sample. 
The Alexa Toolbar works only on Windows operating systems. Although a large majority of the 
Internet population currently used Windows, traffic to any sites which are disproportionately 
visited by users of other operating systems will be undercounted."

I'm the main editor on the article? So what? There's lots of articles on wikipedia that are only edited by one or two people. Everybody that is knowledgable on a subject doesn't edit articles on wikipedia either. I don't really see much point in dignifying your afd with a vote. I will again point you in the direction of the original afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThereIsNoRadio. The arrogance of the "I haven't heard of it so it must not be important" afd's is rediculous and I'm getting tired of defending articles I've worked hard on for these reasons. Randomgenius 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Ashibaka tock 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Should be deleted if the station proves not notable. Grandwazir 06:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep DJNewStyle submits material for the Opie and Anthony show, Ron and Fez, and has been on several internet radio stations. He also has a podcast, which is listed on several sites/services - including iTunes. Also, what does Alexa have to do with notability? He has been mentioned and played on XM Satellite radio - as recent as yesterday and friday. Surely you'd hold actual radio exposure higher than results from a malware ridden toolbar. EddieWilliams 16:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RadioBBQ

Non-notable radio website vanity page by a serial cruftmonger. Alexa has never heard of this [27], and it appears no respected wikipedia editor has heard of it either [28]. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:24, Jan. 19, 2006

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Serial cruftmonger? That's nice, real nice. How about you try and keep it civil "administrator" instead of being such an arrogant jerk? Alexa ratings are practically useless in determining notability.

This article has already survived an afd and proved it's notability here. Maybe you should read it. Here are some quotes from Alexa's that you should pay close attention to:

"The traffic data are based on the set of Alexa users, which may not be a representative 
sample of the global Internet population. Known biases include (but are likely not limited 
to) the following:   
The Alexa Toolbar works only with the Internet Explorer browser. Sites frequented mainly by 
users of other browsers will be undercounted. For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not 
supported, which means that Alexa collects little data from AOL users, and our traffic to 
aol.com is likely lower than it would be for a more representative sample. 
The Alexa Toolbar works only on Windows operating systems. Although a large majority of the 
Internet population currently used Windows, traffic to any sites which are disproportionately 
visited by users of other operating systems will be undercounted."

I'm the main editor on the article? So what? There's lots of articles on wikipedia that are only edited by one or two people. Everybody that is knowledgable on a subject doesn't edit articles on wikipedia either. I don't really see much point in dignifying your afd with a vote. I will again point you in the direction of the original afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThereIsNoRadio. The arrogance of the "I haven't heard of it so it must not be important" afd's is rediculous and I'm getting tired of defending articles I've worked hard on for these reasons. Randomgenius 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - At the moment I'm not convinced that this radio station is notable enough but I think we should give the author time to improve it.
I've just spent 30 minutes trawling through DCRTV news archives, which you mention in your article to have talked about you and I was unable to find any reference to the station. I'm not saying it isn't there (it is a terribly designed site so I might of missed it) but I couldn't find it. If ron and fez talk about your show provide a link to the archived show if you can. I'm afraid we just can't take your word for it. If you can cite your sources to back up your claims, I would be happy to support keeping this article.
On a side note responding to personal attacking by using personal attacks usually isn't the best way to go around things. Best thing is to ignore them and stay civil. Grandwazir 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the links you asked for:

  • Here is a link to a show log from Ron and Fez discussing one of the DJ's leaving RadioBBQ Ron and Fez Show Log

Randomgenius 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom MikeMorley 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a short section about the DCRTV article and the WJFK management's reaction to it to the article as well as a link to archive.org's snapshot of the DCRTV website including the article. Randomgenius 05:19, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tötensen

It might be a punk band, it might be an album, it might be a village, or it might be patent nonsense. Unfortunately, I'm not finding anything helpful to indicate which. Delete unless somebody is willing to completely rewrite this. If you make a statement to that effect, I'll hold you to it, believe me. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:49, Jan. 19, 2006

  • I rewrote the article into a stub about the village, which unfortunately doesn't have a German wikipedia entry (only mentioned as part of de:Rosengarten (Kreis Harburg). Kusma (討論) 13:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as village stub. It needs expansion, but my German is limited to Hogan's Heroes phrases so I'm no help. Good job on the stub, Kusma, can you find anything else to add to this article? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is famous in Germany for being the place where Dieter Bohlen lives. Period. I tried and failed to find anything more exciting (unless you count the listing of all the cars of the voluntary firefighters of Tötensen). Thinking about it, I just created Rosengarten (Harburg), another almost-worthless stub, and suggest redirecting to there. Kusma (討論) 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , real village. Kappa 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that its been rewritten -- Astrokey44|talk 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not earthshattering but it's the birthplace of Professor Ulf Pallme König. Dlyons493 Talk 00:21, 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 deletion (talk page of deleted page). enochlau (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Sage Brush Fire

  1. delete - Vanity page, created by user:Sixthcrusifix. Jim Apple 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Vanity page. Also not notable.--Alabamaboy 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This is rather strange because the main article has already been speedied. I'm going to put a speedy tag on this and see what happens. Stifle 00:40, 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 Starblind deleted "Tonk reim" (Patent nonsense.)

[edit] Tonk reim

Nonsense that barely fails to be {{nonsense}}. Delete as ungooglable neologism/hoax. Kusma (討論) 13:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete This should have been {{nonsense}}. Nothing to see here - move along.  (aeropagitica)  17:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G1 --NaconKantari 21:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedied as patent nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crux Zine

Not notable enough for me at least but sent to a vote because I couldn't verify if it was released in major UK cities as it claims. Grandwazir 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. as nn magazine. Only has three issues, and is self-published. To add insult to injury (although they have the option of doing this) their website is ripped code from wikipedia with different text.--Esprit15d 14:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable. Mukadderat 03:04, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar experiment

Delete. This is article is self-promotion and should be considered as advertisement. The discussed interpretation of the experiment is not published in peer-reviewed journal, and may confuse occasional readers of Wikipedia, instead of supplying them with trustful information. Danko Georgiev MD 13:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. I fully agree with A. Drezet and the putative situation when your own child has read Wikipedia to search some math or science. If Wikipedia keeps article's like Afshar's then what you have to tell your child - "please ignore what you have read, Wikipedia is not encyclopedia, but web forum where everyone can publish whatever he wants if he is enough clever like Afshar to create some sock-puppets" [see Physicsmonk entry below].Danko Georgiev MD 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Afshar has contributed to the article, but someone else created it. Is there any other reason you'd call it "self-promotion"?Bjones 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment As I have stated many times before, my involvement has been limited to ensuring accuracy of the content, with much repair that still remains to be done on the page. A pee-reviewed publication is upcoming, although there have been other reputable professional publications as well. The fact that the work is NOTABLE according to Wiki standards is beyond question... It is a sad day for Wikipedia when a spiteful non-entity with no understanding of physics (e.g. see [29]) can ask for deletion of an experiment that's the center of much current debate in the academia. Danko Georgieve's complete lack of knowledge on the subject matter is known (and has been publicly stated) by many physicists including Unruh, Drezet, Kastner, Motl, and some wikipedians who've had the chance to engage him in conversation. Many experts who would wish to keep this article are not Wikipedians and are too busy to get into arguments with somebody who's not "even wrong." If such individuals as the nominator of this 2nd deletion request are to constantly interfere and destabilize the article, then I may join the ranks of Wiki critics who have little if any faith in its reliability. Prof. Afshar 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Dear Afshar, personal attacks cannot establish the truthness of your work. There is nothing violating Wikipedia politics for nominating an article for second time to be deleted. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 04:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Nominating an article for deletion one month after its previous nomination concluded with an overwelming consensus to keep the article without giving any new facts is not going to achieve something. It does not help to build the encyclopaedia. Hence it is against policy.
Incidentally, I do agree that Prof. Afshar would be well advised to moderate his tone. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have made no personal attacks on Georgieve who has been fully rebuffed by other physicists as well as myself in my weblog and elsewhere. Pointing out the facts is not an attack, it is a simple "heads up" for those who do not know this person's motives. As Prof. Hewitt said, this 2nd deletion nomination is an abuse of Wiki procedures. Prof. Afshar 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No difference with last time as far as I can see. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There seems to have BIG DIFFERENCE with the last time. Now it seems that the number of DELETE votes has increased. If the work of Afshar was true it would have tendency to corroborate in time, yet this does not happen. The page is almost fully serving the purpose of Afshar AS IS NOW, so it must start with a lot of other basic principles on complementarity. By the way, my entry on complementarity was VANDALIZED by Afshar, and this is evidence that he and his friends control all relevant pages that have something to do with complementarity. THIS IS VIOLATION OF WIKI politics, VANDALISM is not acceptable, and IF Afshar wants to delete an entry he must at least suggest it for voting before deletion. Danko Georgiev MD 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Like he said, nothing new. GangofOne 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. IMHO, this 2nd nomination is an abuse of the Wikipedia procedures. --Carl Hewitt 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --NaconKantari 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for same reasons as last time. Pfalstad 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 00:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the vote was all reddy to keep!.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The Afshar page doesnt contribute to physics but only to disinformation. There is no thing of founded in this experiment untill the result will be published in a peer reviewed journal and discussed by professional on the same criteria. If WP policies don't correct this kind of thing it is all the pertinence of the WP project which seems for me senseless. Naturally the fact that many good works were controversial before to be accepted could look as a counter example. However this works were at least discussed by physicist and not in the public place. It is only science which can define science and discussion like that show there is a problem here. My conclusion since Afsahr work has not been aproved or disaproved by science you should not keep the page .In other case this is more like superstitions and is pseudo-science.

Yes there is self promotion and since this self promotion is not justified for the moment I propose to remove the page until more rigorous discussions will be done (far away from Danko Georgiev pseu do-science naturally) Aurelien Drezet Drezet(physicist vocifering a bit) 20 january 2006

  • Comment Dear Aureline, this experiment has put an abrupt end to 8 decades of bullying by the orthodoxy, and sadly for your side, the cat is out of the bag and there is no going back. I wonder what other means of stifling dissent you guys would come up with when the paper gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. As for the technical rebuttal, (although this is hardly the place for it) I have responded to your criticisms without receiving a response. As I have asked before, one simple question: what process other than interference can account for the lack of flux on the wires? Please respond using QM formalism. Prof. Afshar 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear Afshar, there is NO WHICH WAY information in your experiment and the photon is holographically at both detectors. And YES, in order to have holographic image YOU NEED INTERFERENCE, but there is NO WHICH WAY info. See the recent posts of my 4 slit experiment with two different density matrices, and see also the CARL LOOPER's entry suggesting a holographic experiment with "virtual pinhole". Yes, I agree that Aurelien et al., suggest wrong physics and no interference, but others (including me) have explained your experiment with rigorous math and with holography [no which way]. Once you see that this is the loophole in your interpretation, you will be glad that actually you have not yet published the article. The difference between me and you will be that I have withdrawn a preprint [at ArXiv] but I have NEVER withdrawn peer-reviewed paper(!), while you will have withdraw a published one. I am almost sure that you will find some low quality journal without impact factor, and you will publish your work, but my friendly advise is "Do NOT do that", you will score an auto-goal. Danko Georgiev MD 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To Afshar: The problem here is not if my argumentation (or one other ) is good or not (but of course my argumentation is the correct one :)). The problem concern the objectivity of the WP concerning your work. This page doesnt fulfill the basic rule of a scientific : don't amalgamate the agreement of the large public with the one of professional. for this reason and many others this page should desapear from WP. Concerning my objection it is not the place here and I said already what I think about Afsahre work's several times: i will nor repeat again Aurelien Drezet January
  • Comment Danko, here's what a fellow-Wikipedian says about you: "its clear that he [Danko Georgiev] not only doesn't know QM, but he doesn't even understand basic undergraduate analysis." Please do not force me to put out the other unflattering remarks from the physicists who have had the misfortune of interacting with you. I do not enjoy doing this, but for the interest of historic record, I will not hesitate to reveal to newcomers the various kinds of opposition I am facing. Enough said! P.S. When did I ever withdraw a publication, name and date please?! Prof. Afshar 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have grave concerns that the strong personalities at play in this AfD discussion will endanger the article's NPOV (without a substantial base of qualified experts to balance it out, as might be the case in other controversial articles), and much of the article seems unencyclopedic. If kept, the article should be about the controversy, not the theory. Wikipedia is most certainly not the place to debate or communicate professional physics--it is about physics education. If kept, the article should be re-written to reflect that. --Hansnesse 10:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Every controversial new result produces visceral reactions, involving "strong personalities." Controversy in itself does not qualify an article for deletion according to Wiki rules. That said, however, we may have an amicable solution at hand. I would like to act upon a suggestion made by Prof. Hewitt elsewhere: I will write a version of the page that I believe accurately reflects the facts of the experiment, its implication, a brief discussion of the controversy with references, and post it on my Userpage. Other experts will then be invited to edit and correct the text to ensure its objectivity. Upon consensus on the quality of the material, one of the experts will replace the current article with the "good" version. Of course, as new information (pro/con) becomes available the page can be updated in a similar fashion. Would this offer change your opinion on the article? -- Prof. Afshar 10:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment' Quotation: "I will write a version of the page that I believe accurately reflects the facts of the experiment, its implication, a brief discussion of the controversy with references, and post it on my Userpage." (Afshar)'
    • Comment I would like to propose a friendly amendment to Prof. Afshar's offer above:
The new version that is constructed as a subpage of the user talk page of User:Asher would first be moved to Talk:Afshar experiment for discussion instead of immediately replacing Afshar experiment.
The reason is that some Wikipedia editors might feel that Prof. Afshar has an unfair advantage contributing to the version on the subpage of his user talk page because of the special rules that apply there.
Regards, -- Carl Hewitt 09:18 21 January 2006 (PST)
  • Comment Dear Carl, I agree with your suggestion.-- Prof. Afshar 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Also I suggest that you do a whole article on the subpage of your user talk page. That way there won't be integration problems later. You can incorporate whatever is of value from the current article. --Carl Hewitt 13:40 21 January 2006 (PST)

Dear mr. Afshar, you may write new QM textbook if you want. You at various places say that your EPIC article is the TRIUMPH of the last 70-80 years of QM experiments, and this is nothing but parody and unrespect to science. Are you seriously expecting a Nobel Prize, you once said that Einstein's Nobel prize should be taken back BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIMENT??? To all others - why you still haven't voted for deletion of this non-sense entry? Danko Georgiev MD 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Danko, I will not engage in a conversation with you, as you have severly failed all the necessary criteria in my book. I fully understand your current bid for deletion of this page is your reaction to the lack of interest in your baseless arguments by every physicist that wasted his/her time listening to you. As to the "epic" nature of my work, only time can tell. For now real analysis and debate is needed, not juvenile antics. As for Einstein's Nobel prize, you have misquoted me. I said: "In order to declare Einstein the winner of the Bohr-Einstein debate, we would have to take back his Nobel prize." Of course all physicists believe that Einstein should have won his Nobel for Relativity Theories, and I personally revere Einstein. BUT, Einstein was awarded his Nobel prize for the concept of photons (thinking of them like "rain drops" with definite trajectories.) That idea of the photon (with bullet-like trajectories) is certainly wrong as my experiment clearly shows. The above statement was made to signify the seriousness of the problem the experiment attempts to address, and should not be taken out of its context. It took me 18 years of focused research and hard work to come up with this seemingly simple experiment, and I will not allow an inept person like you to halt its discussion. I repeat my advice (which is the advice of all other experts previously given to you): learn the basics and then talk about the bigger issue. It is an absolute embarrassment to say that the image is a hologram... Do not further harm your reputation, and good luck with your studies in Pharmacology. -- Prof. Afshar 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Afshar, recently Carl Looper has added identical argument with holographic pinhole, and possibly he is physicist working on holography, because he agreed with my argument at 100% percent. It is NOT an absolute embarrassment to say that the image is a hologram and this is where math loophole is. Sorry for you that for 18 years of study you cannot write down one simple density matrix. Although I am not great math expert, I have done this already in 2004. Danko Georgiev MD 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete as no verifiable third-party references. Stifle 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Very weak keep. The main problem with Mr. Afshar's references is that all but one are to subscription-only websites. I still make no assertion that the content is encyclopedic, but I will accept the opinions of the more knowledgeable folks here. Stifle 11:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what counts as a "verifiable third-party reference", but the article lists one paper by Afshar published in conference proceedings, available online, and one reference to an article written by somebody else in a popular-scientific magazine (New Scientist) which generated some discussion in the Letters section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It made the cover of New Scientist magazine, if I remember correctly, and, since this is a rather popular, widely read magazine, it ended up causing quite a stir; it is for this reason that the article is "notable". As to publication in a refereed journal, Prof. Afshar does have a preprint that has been submitted for publication. I saw it; while it describes the experiment closely, it was mostly free of the contentious claims and statements that caused the controversy. linas 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What?!!! See my web-page for "verifiable third party references": New Scientist Cover Story, NPR Science Friday, The Independent, Einstein Centennial Lecture, AIP Conf. Proc., SPIE, Perimeter Institute, University lectures, numerous magazines and a couple of books etc. Please check the facts before you make erroneous statements. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 05:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • YELLOW PRESS is not counted as trustful source for encyclopedic entry. Before 10 or so years there was bold announcement of COLD-FUSION, that later was proved to be CON-FUSION. I suppose that after several months when everybody disproves your work, you will quietly delete everything from the irims server, AS IF it never happened. But yes, the time will tell ...Danko Georgiev MD 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment dear Linas, all the periodicals presented by Afshar are only 1)popular press or 2) conferences. In both cases this is not sufficient to find the agreement of science communauty. A .Drezet (23/01/06)
  • Clearly, there is no agreement in the science community that Afshar's experiment refutes quantum mechanics. I'd even say that there is a consensus that Afshar's interpretation of the results is wrong (at least, the physicists in my department are not panicking). However, there are some things that people agree on: that Afstar did an experiment, the setting and the results of this experiment, that Afshar claims it refutes the current theory of QM, and that this claim generated some interest in the popular press. It is obvious to me that this yields enough material for a Wikipedia article. I'm sure the article can be improved but I see no reason to delete it. Since you seem to be new here, it might be a good idea to read our deletion policy to get a feeling for when we do delete articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear Jiste, I have never claimed that my experiment refutes QM. My claim concerns Bohr's principle of Complementarity which seems to have failed in the experiment. Please take a look at my preprint www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/, and Proc. SPIE 5866 (2005) 229-244.-- Prof. Afshar 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A third-party reference is one outside the control of Mr. Afshar. This article does not provide any. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If and when some other person writes a book/paper on the Afshar experiment, then it is no longer original research.
      I maintain that this is material for a user page, and not article namespace. Stifle 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a serious answer it is clearly says Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought so why this page is here. secondly it doesnt matter if yes or not this experiment has been presented in popular journals: the topic is so controversial that there is even not a article of afshar availaible in a per reviewed. Perhaps the best choice will to create a WP section for controversial idea (perhaps it exists i dont know). However if one of your student comes on WP and collects the information on the Afshar experiment would you say that he or she learned science ? I will be please to know your point of view. Aurelien Drezet (23/01/06). (PS: this comment is not for Stifle since I agree completely with him).
  • Comment Dear Aureline, on 07/31/05 @ 08:23 in my weblog you said "I would like to say to DG [Danko Georgiev] that an article of conference is certainly an important point even if a PRL is much better. Even if I desagree with S. Afshar on his interpretation your argumentation is meaning less since very important thing can be found in proceedings." You seem to have changed your opinion! I would appreciate if you kindly acknowledge the fact that you consider Danko to be totally wrong. In the same post you had said: "You [Afshar] are right that he [Danko Gerogiev] is 100% wrong on his interpretation of QM, electromagentism and even optics." I expect higher consistency from Prof. Zeilinger's ex-student. P.S. It would be nice if you could set up your Wiki account, I believe your vote may be ignored otherwise.-- Prof. Afshar 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and delete again dear Afshar 1) it doesnt matter if my vote is not considered as official or not. 2) DG is indeed ignorant in physics but it is not my fault if we have a common point : we believe both that your result is wrongly analyzed. 3) I was never a student of Zeilinger even if I learned a lot working in his group as a post doc. 4) On my 3 remarks only 1) is connected to the present suject which is: Do you have the right to create a WP page on your research which are still so controversial. I know that I speak to the wind because you will never listen however ethics are good things for a scientist. Aurelien Drezet (23/1/06)
  • Dear Stifle, The New Scientist article was NOT written by me. Nor the Analogue, nor the OE, nor the Independent, nor..., nor the book Schrodinger's Rabbits. They are all 3rd-party ref.s according to your view then aren't they? If not, why? Are you saying I wrote those?!!-- Prof. Afshar 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Published in New Scientist. Nominator's comments are beginning to resemble Time Cube. Ashibaka tock 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Time Cubel, you obviously do not understand what means scientific publication. Maybe for you publications in New York times, or any other magazine should be included in Wikipedia, as well? What you think?? Danko Georgiev MD 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The policy on verifiability can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability and, at least in my reading of it, does not extend to requiring publication in a peer-reviewed journal prior to coverage in Wikipedia. So indeed, scientific publication is not the standard for verifiability. I think, however, it is fair to limit discussion in the article to the parts which have been published; that is, as an account intended for a popular audience (if it is to be kept). --Hansnesse 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Hans, I agree that not all topics covered in Wikipedia need scientific publication before coverage. Examples are literature, movies, e-games, some popular topics. But when it comes to mathematics and science you cannot publish yellow press. Afshar is offending Einstein, takes back with easy hand Nobel Prizes as IF he is in the Nobel Cometee, and possibly himself expects a Nobel Prize for his parody of science. Everyone who understand matrix algebra and what is called density matrix of quantum state will immediately SEE that in order to have violation of complementarity you need to have 2 different density matrices in the same time! This is absurd, and as I suggested Afshar may write down new QM textbook if he wants, but it will be science fiction, not science. Danko Georgiev MD 07:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Speedy keep, again. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is this a comment? what is the argumentation? Aurelien Drezet 23/01/06
  • Speedy keep. I agree with Ashibaka the deletion nominator sounds like a crackpot. This is disturbing-- Physicsmonk 12:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WARNING SOCK PUPPET !!! - Physicsmonk is SOCKPUPPET!!! The admins should detect the I.P. and prove this abusive usage. Already linas has shown clearly the sockpuppetry. Afshar has the nice habit to use SOCKPUPPETS and he must be punished for this see [[30]]. Please ignore this voting - Physicsmonk has no other useful Wikipedia entries except voting against Afshar's entry deletion!!! I think that this time Afshar has done a big ERR. If I was a crackpot I also could create a dozen of sockpuppets and vote against, but I am not such an idiot. Danko Georgiev MD 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep In fully reading this article I found nothing to be confusing. There is even frequent mention of the fact that it is an on-going debate, with references of submission to two journals of which I have heard (and are of quite some merit). As much as QM is done via thought process, it is frequently seen that results from experiments can take sometimes in the ballpark of 2 years before they are fully reviewed by peers. Das Nerd 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment The debate will not continue because people will forget the result soon (this is my point of view at least). However wait two years and then come back and write again the

WP pages concerning Afshar's works. for the moment we should delete that... Aurelien Drezet 23/01/06 PS: the sockpuppets story is indeed comical linas will have probably some fun (or he will explose soon ) when he will see that the puppet master is back:) conclusion delete again.

  • Keep for the same reason as last time. Let's stop the renom game and do something important with our time. -- JJay 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (changement of last minute after meditation in the lonelyness of a tibetan monastry After a discussion with linas he convinced me that the best thing to do is not to destroy the page but to fix it in a good norm and a good standard. The work of afshar is controversial and i dont subscribe to his interpretation. however the experiment exists and it is not the first time thata physicist present somehing of controversial concerning complementarity (remenber the experiment of dipankar Home for example). I proposed now to prof. afshar to write down a theoretical section to replace the present one (he seems to accept). This new section should says at the beginnig this is the interpretation of afshar. The rest will stay objective since the introduction is already fine and the list of reference is I guess correct. I will add a link to the page concerning complementarity which needs to be modify too. Concerning the work of DG I have no idea what to do with thaT since the physics is too badly presented to give even a unity or a impression (perhaps there is something behind but i dont know what). If he wants he can let a link to his work on my user page (talk) i will tra to read it and give honestly my impression. I will work on this topic at the beginning of february not before because i have too many things to finish right now . regards to all Drezet (24/1/06)
  • Dear Aurelien, I applaud your objectivity. And many thanks to Linas for his patience and cooperation. Either Linas or Aureline, can you kindly cross out the initial delete vote from the list to snsure it is not counted as such? Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 16:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: my name is Aurelien not Aureline Drezet (24/1/06)

  • Delete. This is a very difficult situation. All other things being equal, I think the experiment is well enough known to merit a page. However Afshar's behavior on Wikipedia has been absolutely despicable. Regardless of the merits of his work, his actions have been those of a crackpot. As long as he remains on Wikipedia, the article will never be reliable as a source of information, and so I can't see the point of retaining it. I don't think it's fair to the readers of Wikipedia to continue to serve this article as though it were the result of a cooperative community process. -- BenRG 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As it stands, the bulk of the article has been written by others, not me. So I don't see your point regarding the article not being a "community process." There are errors precisely because I was not allowed to clarify the motivation behind the experiment and the main line of logic. As discussed above, I have agreed to work with the credible Wiki editors who have a solid physics/mathematics background like Prof. Carl Hewitt, Jitse Niesen, Linas, Drezet and others to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the article. You are welcome to join us in that effort. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TameStorm Games

Page exists just to promote this game company and contains no other useful infomation. It is also very very short. Duplicate can also be found at Tamestorm but I have tagged that for speedy. Reason for sending to vote is because they do seem to have made a couple of games so I am unsure if it meets the notably requirement or not. Grandwazir 13:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Alexa rating of 712,342.--Esprit15d 14:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My speedy at it's duplicate Tamestorm has been removed, would it be possible to have this vote decide both of them, considering they are identical in every way except for the title. Grandwazir 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Duplicate articles are redirected, not speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a notable game company. --Wrathchild (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/Note to closing admin: I changed Tamestorm to be a redirect to TameStorm Games. If this article is deleted so should the redirect. --Wrathchild (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think (hope) we can trust whoever closes the discussion to check "what links here" and delete any orphaned redirects. From time-to-time Wikipedia has been able to attract relatively cluey admins, strange though it sounds ...
      • Yeah, I know. I was on a strange "cover all bases" kick yesterday. I did not mean to imply that an Admins were less than clueful. Mea culpa. --Wrathchild (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dossarps

Two-man company, with only reference listed being the name of one of the partners. No claim of notability, 105 google hits for Dossarps, none about the company on the first page of hits. - Bobet 14:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable company - article reads as if taken from website blurb. No claims as to notability of company or directors.  (aeropagitica)  17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete nn adcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:03, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doomville

Non-notable web forum with 58 members according to the article. The whole of proboards12.com has an alexa rank of over 100,000, with this site getting under 1% of those hits according to alexa. - Bobet 14:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom, and this is spam.--Esprit15d 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: reverted blanking of this afd page by 66.240.31.252 at this point. - Bobet 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:30, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable people who have used cannabis

Highly dubiopus, highly partisan list that doesn't add to the encyclopedia. This article fails to link in to other cannabis articles, and unlike them is not encyclopedic and is clealry anything but a notable list of people who have used cannabis SqueakBox 14:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, list bound to grow to incredible lengths, become less reliable.Bjones 14:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've never done cannabis or even gotten drunk, but for some reason I fell upon working at this a bit. Doing so was mostly a waste of time so I don't object to delete at all.--T. Anthony 14:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list at List of iconic smokers is enough. And if completed, the list will have tens of thousands of entries, making it useless. Kusma (討論) 14:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Then just delete. Although a few of the better sourced ones here that aren't at iconic smokers could maybe be added.--T. Anthony 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way to broad of a list, would have to include most musicians, actors, politicians, etc born after 1945 or so. Youngamerican 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Such a list is not needed. --Terence Ong 15:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. To broad to have a reasonable criteria for exclusion, which any list should, or it's pointless. --Esprit15d 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, POV magnet, and a list that is unmaintainable, of interest to few people, or apparently created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This list does have some sources, if it had them for all of the notable people, than I would Keep it for sure. I don't think it would be too broad with a requirement that every name has a source, and it has some value if you were interested in the face that many people who have used cannabis are now famous. Vertigo700 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is very useless. Makes the wikipedia a trivia source of unverified origin. The Deviant 16:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Barely verifiable trivia. Carina22 20:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Pointless. --kingboyk 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft -- Astrokey44|talk 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep what can be verified, seems like very useful list.  Grue  17:40, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RLCTF

Rules for "real-life capture the flag". Delete as original research / howto for NN game. Kusma (討論) 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Can this be sent to wikibooks?--Esprit15d 14:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Capture the flag is quite a notable game, and the article could use some expansion. But this is original research and doesn't really contribute anything, so delete. Grandmasterka 17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow. I'm not that old, but I played "CTF" first in "RL"... this is original research anyhow (ESkog)(Talk) 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NFT.--Drat (Talk) 00:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blog entry. plus its incorrect, it makes it sounds like the author is the first person to think of Capture the flag -- Astrokey44|talk 00:37, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreisig

Page is about a surname with no useful info beyond what you'd get from a phonebook (except it's wrong, since the name is actually more used in Sweden). There's no disambiguation use since there are no people with that surname with articles. Starting an article for every surname in existence wouldn't be feasible and WP:NOT a discriminate collection of information. - Bobet 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. There is virtually no information her, but the actually name can be added here or here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No merge. Punkmorten 16:47, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Freakofnurture. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Doolittle III

Article only contained an incorrect redirect to the subjects Great Grandfather. PPGMD 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominated and vote for Delete PPGMD 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment inserted afd2 tag which was missing. Tonywalton 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Comment. This was a valid (whether "correct" or not) redirect to Jimmy Doolittle prior to PPGMD's tagging it - as such this does not strictly belong on AfD but on Redirects for Deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete since article has been blanked. --Terence Ong 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not blanked, all it ever contained was an redirect to the subjects grandfather.--Esprit15d 15:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I scanned the redirect article for some mention of "the third" or the man's grandson, or grandchildren. Apparently The Third is not anyone notable, nor is he mentioned in the second article.--Esprit15d 15:35, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pherotone

Delete: hoax, original research at best: no corroborating Google results [31], sole edits by the two creators User:65.205.39.146 and User:Pherotone PhD, no efforts to cite sources in the month it's been tagged as unreferenced. Supposed blog of a researcher, which links to article, clearly supports "original research" theory. See talk page for viral marketing speculation -c3o 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, primary research, protologism, fake information, etc. - CorbinSimpson 02:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google results have multiplied since listing, after the pherotones.com site (that the creators of the article seem to be connected to) was linked to from Boing Boing. Discussions of this as a viral marketing campaign are at [32] [33] [34] etc. The current article is beyond a doubt misinformation that does not belong in Wikipedia. If this keeps spreading, one might consider turning it into an entry on the viral marketing campaign itself similar to the Haunted Apiary ("I love bees") entry, although it doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for now. -c3o 12:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article is unsubstantiated and contains statements that I strongly suspect are, ahem, 'marketing'. There is no scientific study on "pherotones" and I would not be at all surprised to find out that the 'Dr' involved in this bought theirs from a diploma mill. If not deleted, should be rewritten to make it clear that this is scientifically unsubstantiated, unreviewed and unverified. Average Earthman 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Pwinn 16:35, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside the Net Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Now! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Week in Tech

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generate a keypair using OpenSSL

Unencyclopedic. Move to WikiBooks? --Tothebarricades 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. to wikibooks.--Esprit15d 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks - VERY appropriate for that wiki, doesn't quite "read" like a Wikipedia entry. — CJewell 04:24, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Penske

seems to be a CV Robinh 21:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. seems not particularly notable, and smells of promotion. DES (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Information seems accurate, and notable that individual dated numerous stars, and is likely a billionare through father Roger Penskes Courtkittie 13:23, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jericho High School

Reason why the page should be deleted: Direct copy of the article for Syosset High School with appropriate name changes. Amazinms90 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no way this stuff (awrads won, etc) can be true of both schools, and the burden of proof is on the copycat.--Esprit15d 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Keep. per new information.--Esprit15d 19:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — the award applies to the school district as a whole, so of course it can apply to both. Yes the text was probably copied and slightly modified, so it may need some cleanup and verification. It is still an encyclopedic topic. :) — RJH 16:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The award applies to the district as a whole. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason to delete. CalJW 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, high school. Kappa 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, barely notable. -Rebelguys2 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:SCH, assuming it's not copyvio.Gateman1997 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The school clearly exists. Kurt Weber 00:44, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorrainian people

This is a badly done stub which doesn't add anything to the Lorraine entry. It is part of an attempt to create ethnic groups everywhere, even where nobody would dream of one... Lorraine certainly has a troubled history, passing from Germany to France and back & forth. This doesn't means that there is a "Lorraine" ethnic people, as this entry tend to make believe. Lapaz 16:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. We already have a page on Lorrain, the language. But we also have a page for Texans, even though Texans are very much not an ethnicity, because Texas had a history as an independent nation and because its residents in certain contexts will identify more strongly with Texas than with the USA. As a result, I consider this a very close call. --Mareino 15:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would tend to assume that this is not a real ethnic group, and the article contains no evidence to the contrary. The other articles cover things better. CalJW 16:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep or merge into Lorraine. As of the start of World War one, Lorraine had a separate culture, and a regional, almost national, identity. (see various histories including Tuchman's The Guns of August on that point.) Wether they are truly an ethnicity, I couldn't say. But they had at one time a sufficently separate identity to be worth a mention. Howver, this need to be significantly celaned up and expanded -- if it isn't the issue should be dealt with in the main Lorraine article until and unless there is enough separate verifiable content to justify article. Mareino, above, makes some good points. DES (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing usefull in the article atm, nothing which cant be covered in Lorraine.--BadSeed 23:11, 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 by request of creator and sole editor (apart from original edit which was a redirect). Uncle G 11:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merit badge (disambiguation)

Delete made this page in error when making a merit badge disambiguation page. See: Merit badge, where this page is duplicated. Pls delete this one and keep Merit badge. Rlevse 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per request of creator (and because it was a mistake).--Esprit15d 15:37, 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 delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picardians

Unreferenced entry. Who considers today that a "Picardian ethnic group" exists? This is a simple attempt to create ethnic groups everywhere. Should we consider that each metro station in Paris, Marseille, Toulouse or Strasbourg have their own "ethnic group" gathering around their underground station? Lapaz 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (see the talk at French people for more general considerations).

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AngelVoiceSites

Obviously spam. exists solely to promote these sites. Grandwazir 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Spam! Agree with nom. The Deviant 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising spam.  (aeropagitica)  17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. c3o 19:03, 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 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hamtoucher

hamtoucher was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-19. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamtoucher/2005-10-19.

In the prior deletion discussion, it was mentioned that there was an on-line "dictionary of profanity" that listed this word with a wholly different definition to the one being deleted. This is that definition. Since this isn't re-creation of deleted content, here we are again. The on-line dictionary (linked to by the article) is currently lacking in content. This article is a dictionary article about a word, that has been placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It was marked for transwikification, but Wiktionary almost certainly doesn't want it, because it is not attested that this is in fact a word at all. An encyclopaedia article by this title would be about hamtouchers, whatever they would be. But since there's no such word, there's no such thing as a hamtoucher for an encyclopaedia article to be about. Uncle G 15:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Essentially the same article as the last AfD. Unverifiable and if true, it is not common enough for wikipedia. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G4 --NaconKantari 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD:G4. Stifle 00:43, 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. -- Jonel | Speak 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pencil Test

Not an encyclopedic article JRawle 15:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and rename to just pencil test. Women talk about this all the time; it has been an established part of female culture and breast lore for perhaps as long as there have been pencils. 1,370 Google hits on this sort of usage. I don't know if that's enough to establish notability, but I would wager that if you asked a hundred different women they would all know what you meant. Daniel Case 16:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I had no idea about this until I read it and verified. I did ask some people and they knew what it was. Should be added to, maybe some history, etc. but a keep either way. Agree with the Rename too. The Deviant 16:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This is potentially verifiable. Also remove the definite article from the article title.  (aeropagitica)  17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard of this test before, although the article does need work to bring it up to standard. Grandwazir 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: OK, I'm going to try to get this up to some degree of snuff, starting with a move and slight rewrite. I am at a loss as how to categorize it, however ... it seems to me there should be a Breast category, which this would be perfect for (I thought of merging, but there really doesn't seem to be a good place for it in breast) as there are enough other articles to justify one.
And if there is, should there be a breast-stub, as well? The mind shudders: "This breast-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by stuffing it with toilet paper or cotton balls ..." Daniel Case 06:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - common phenomenon Fourohfour 13:59, 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detail

Not to be confused with the previous occupant, this is a load of original research which appears to be someone using Wikipedia as a free webhost. Stifle 15:58, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martian Death Lyric

Article exists to promote an obviously low-budget band Rob 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete LOL. This is BAAAAD. Vanity, etc. Meets the band speedy delete, eh? The Deviant 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the article does assert notability, so no speedy. But this is some hilariously bad vanity, so delete.
  • Delete Are we sure this isn't a hoax? Its bad enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN - This must be a hoax, I don't know any bands that have come from Mars yet. I'd vote for BJAODN because it is quite funny. Grandwazir 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. incog 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete this per {{db-bio}} --Timecop 00:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconding the BJAODN' I was the original nominator for deletion, but BJAODN sounds like a better idea. Rob 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN Nhandler 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konfuze

nn website. [rating of 3,091,749] Esprit15d 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. Also a lot of specific jargon, no wiki links, etc. The Deviant 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:45, 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. —Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G.R.A.C.E.

Delete Vanity page DA3N 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed, vanity and non notable. Grandwazir 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:45, 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 deleted as blatant copyvio. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity Consulting

Spam. Esprit15d 16:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Promotional. Daniel Case 16:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spamvertising.--Alhutch 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Already deleted. It was a copyright violation of www.claritycon.com/about.html

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome Fortin

Article's assertions do not suggest anything notable. Google search on name turns up one Canadian ... a French Canadian artist. If this page is a hoax page, then it's libelous and can't be deleted soon enough. Daniel Case 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. It seems as though this Montreal sculptor is notable enough for his own article, but this looks like a really bad hoax. Grandmasterka 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable/hoax. Stifle 00:46, 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. This might be a valid topic, but the article as it stands does not cite a single credible source and only makes speculative claims. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future evolution of humans

Page is a pointless rant on a confused topic. We already have a transhumanism article AND a human evolution article. This has to go. Graft 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I'm seein' delete in this article's crystal ball. The Deviant 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Hey! I like this article, and yes right now it sucks major ass, but that what Wikipedia is great for, it will improve! If you don't like the article, just dont look at it. I've only just found it and I hope to do so massive improvements. Now gerrof my land! (...please...) mastodon 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. There are some elements here that I like, that I don't find in the pages Graft mentioned. It just needs some MAJOR attention. Grandmasterka 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hypothesis; how can the author or an editor verify anything written about the future of a random process? A dubious article to use for research purposes.  (aeropagitica)  17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Admittedly, it is interesting, but not encyclopedic. --Bletch 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absolutely what wp is not. POV crystal-ball (bad) original-research essay --Doc ask? 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research that is unverifiable speculation - a whole hatful of reasons. Sliggy 21:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR, not to mention the fact that WP:NOT a pair of crystal WP:BALLS -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. May I suggest to Grandmasterka to merge any worthwhile content into transhumanism, human evolution or dysgenics, as applicable? The article addresses interesting sociological issues, but it would benefit from references such as Fisher's work, some of which the dysgenics article provides. I'm happy to help with editing, but I think this one may just have to go. - Samsara contrib talk 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm not overly attached to this one but wonder if it might be maintained (in greatly altered/reference-expanded form!) under SciFi themes. As I noted on the discussion page, the topic is by its very nature speculative and therefore likely to tempt some to include OR. RJCraig 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. If it were to stay as is then deleting is fine but I think it can be reworked to identify current selective trends especially in non-developed countries. Asteron 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I would like to see what it could become with some cleanup. James084 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Future evolution of humans
  • Delete per Thesquire. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete essay. Nothing in the article now would stand in a proper article. Gazpacho 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speculative original research. Logophile 07:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speculation, however interesting, is not encyclopedic. —simpatico hi 07:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. --Terence Ong 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup tags. Widely discussed topic. -- Astrokey44|talk 08:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just someone's essay! Ramanpotential 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are significant parts to the article added since it was created: [35] -- Astrokey44|talk 08:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately all of that material appears to be armchair musings. Gazpacho 09:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrell

Non-notable website (even though the article calls it an organization on the first line), fails WP:WEB with an alexa rank of over 5,000,000. - Bobet 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per the above alexa rank, plus the site only has 6 registered users, plainly nn. Grandwazir 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:46, 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. It's a probable hoax, from what I can tell. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemount Reds

Rosemount Reds appears to be a non-notable fictional football team. Punkmorten 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Quite clever in a primary schoolboy kind of way...Crawford Albiston appears to be a pupil of Uphill Primary School, who has had a poem "Football" published. [36] My guess is one of his "chums" got the hump with him and wrote the article. Delete Jcuk 22:40, 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. As a matter of policy I discard all IP address votes. Mo0[talk] 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Cope

Delete, nonnotable blogger. Angr (tɔk) 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, does not merit an article.--Alhutch 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, plus I was unable to verify the claims that he has published a book (amazon has never heard of him). Grandwazir 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.165.121 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Cope is a notable member of the fledgling Welsh-language blogging community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.187.196.192 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete pn --PTSE 01:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.55.83 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hominid Emotion Deficiency

Sounds very official and legit, but the only Google hits for "Hominid Emotion Deficiency" are for the article itself.[37] Two usages for "Theodore Syndrome", which the article says is a colloquial form; one is a form of conjunctivitis and another appears to be a running joke on a NHL web forum. [38] Only external link is bad. Possibly original research; see problematic lines like "vague research has shown", "There is a high possibility that HED will be considered as a categorization of human personality in the non-distant future" and "Currently there are no professional psychological or medical institutions funded to specialise research in HED, nor is there any personnel dedicated to HED research works and studies.". Move to delete unless someone with superior Googling skills can find a valid reference for the subject. Vary | Talk 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, puppy looked, nothing to fetch unless I missed it too. Looks like a serious case of OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete , um... wtf? Stifle 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete , ditto Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:16, 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 reposed vandalism. -Doc ask? 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophie brooks

I believe this is a hoax. Unlikely claims can be found throughout the text — for instance there is no Arsenal player named Owen Newman. 0 Google hits for Sophie Braderlain. Punkmorten 17:52, 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. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National harpsichord day

The guy mentioned and his birthday are real, but a Google search on "National Harpsichord Day" and "December" turns up *nothing* except pointers back to this article or copies of it. There's nothing on the British Harpsichord society website about this day that they consider "an important event". It also comes from an IP with lots of associated vandalism (vandalism took place 30m before creation of this article).

In short, there's absolutely nothing backing this up. Fourohfour 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete {{hoax}}, vandalism. There is no such day in the UK.  (aeropagitica)  18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Would a speedy as blatant vandalism hold up? Stifle 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dec 16th is National Prune Day, and they obviously wouldn't have them clash. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:03, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benangie

Tagged for speedy as "nonsense" but it isn't patent nonsense. There are no relevant google hits, and I suspect a hoax, but I can't verify that with enough certienty to simply delete. Even if verified as accurate, this is only a dictdef for a non-english word adopted into a single english dialect, and seems unlilely to be expanded much. Delete unless verified by reliable sourcves, in that case Transwiki to wiktionary. DES (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Unless someone manages to verify it. -- Vary | Talk 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Without a reference and citation of usage, this definition is useless.  (aeropagitica)  18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 00:46, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aibyouka

Dictionary definition that has now been copied to Wiktionary, don't know whether others believe this is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia-- Babajobu 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, says nothing special about Japanese cat-lovers. Kappa 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as already transwikid. Stifle 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. incog 01:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neg9

Vanity article created by the people it describes. waffle iron 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This isn't even a hacker group; its a script kiddie cesspool. Theres no room on WP for it. 12:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Vanity. The Deviant 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a webhost for every self-referencing hacker group on the planet.

KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 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 speedily deleted. Author admits that the party is essentially non-existent at present. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Republican Party

This seems to be a non-notable, recent start up political party. I almost want to say patent nonsense. An example of nn political party being removed can be viewed from about three months ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange Party. My vote is delete. ^demon 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no verifiable details. Gazpacho 18:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom -- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Never heard of them and nothing on the web so it could be a hoax. Alternatively if they emerge as something more tangible in the future the article can always be recreated. Keresaspa 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Stay, Hey there, I'm the guy that created the article. I am part of the party, Demon is right in saying we have just started up, and this is one of the only notable mentions of the party on the net. Currently we are creating a manifesto and bringing togther our viewpoints. We have had a large amount of interest from a large number of, should we say dissatisfied Labour backbenchers. If you really feel that it should be deleted, then please delete it. But hopefully I will be able to create another when the party is slightly more well known. If you'd like to talk to me, email alanpardew123@hotmail.com
  • Delete - nn. Author of the article himself states this article is one of the only mentions of the party on the net. Ruby 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not registered with the Electoral Commission in the UK, so not a valid political party. They should aleast register first. Grandwazir 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If deleted, someone will want to remove the entry from Republican Party --^demon 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment life is full of risks. Ruby 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment, I'll probably do it myself, I just thought I'd mention it in case I forget. --^demon 01:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The articles author has even said its only "notable" mention on the web is this article. Mike (T C) 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A political party that doesn't have a website - oh come on delete (and God save the Queen)--Doc ask? 23:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, party is not registered with Electoral Commission and hasn't fought a seat yet. Qwghlm 11:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and preferably speedy per above comment from the author. In fact, I think I might have just the tool for this job... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never heard of it, NN, and I wrote ISBN 1902301595. David | Talk 16:37, 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 14:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fade Away

  • Delete.This is a song by band 12 Stones; the page contains no new information about the song, so there's nothing to merge with the 12 Stones article. Therefore I'm putting it up for deletion. The separate pages for their two albums (12 Stones (album) and Potter's Field (album)) might also be merged and considered for deletion. — simpatico hi 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if there were more than a half-sentence already covered on band page, I'd say merge, but as nom states, nothing to merge. Merge other articles as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article. However, I see absolutely no reason to delete the album articles and unless someone can convince me otherwise would strongly oppose such a move. --kingboyk 20:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If their content was merged into the main 12 Stones article there would be no need for them. —simpatico hi 05:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Convention here seems to be that if a band is notable enough for an article they're notable enough for their albums to have articles too. I accept that the 2 articles in question are not of a high standard at this time, but they may improve. Please, by all means list them for deletion if you think that's the right thing to do (or go ahead and merge them) - I may be a lone voice, who knows. I just think we have enough to do deleting the vanity, spam and cruft and I personally am not interested in deleting articles for the sake of it. --kingboyk 13:16, 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, vanity. Thue | talk 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristina Moon

Whee...vanity. Delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete vanity^2. Agree with DES. The Deviant 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article and her little orphaned photo too. Ruby 19:34, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram (band)

Seems to be classing band vanity, and was taggged for speedy delete. But the articel claims a national tour, although no sources are cited. Thsi is enough to make it not a speedy IMO. But still, delete unless verifiable sources are cited that fulfill WP:MUSIC. DES (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete bandcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I've found a source which seems to suggest that they are organising or have been in a national tour[39]. Grandwazir 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Umm, they did play here in Montreal, they are from Philly, apologies if my formatting is bad, this is my first try at an article for deletion thing-y. ZekesGallery
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Starblind deleted "Aufseeser family" (Group, no claim of notability.)

[edit] Aufseeser family

If this was about one person, it would be speedyable, but this is a biography of a whole family of NN people MNewnham 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom., completely non-notable. Makemi 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Six times zero equals zero. Ruby 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedied Groups with no claim of notability can be speedied these days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 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. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizardtales

Entry about a website dealing with fan fiction. Not sure if it would get through on a speedy delete. Quick bit of research reveals the site almost has 800 users so sent it here for a vote. Grandwazir 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree that it isn't really a speedy candidate though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Non notable web site. Alexa says 590,000.Obina 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per WP:WEB -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. incog 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Alessio Tacchinardi. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massimiliano Tacchinardi

Brother of Alessio Tacchinardi, has played only two Serie A matches, and then a small number of very minor league presences. Since 1995, according to what I found, he definitely stopped playing (at least professional) football. Non-notability. Angelo 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Anyone who has played for one of the top few football clubs in Europe is notable. Carina22 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alessio Tacchinardi, or, failing that, delete. Punkmorten 22:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a (once) professional sportsperson. Unless you're going to delete Paul Mariner, Eric Gates, Mick Mills et al Jcuk 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mariner played for England national team, Gates was a regular in a Premiership team (and nowadays a radio personality), Mills even captained England in a World Cup. This guy, who is not Alessio Tacchinardi, but just his brother, has just two appearances in a Serie A team, and nothing else. --Angelo 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I should let you note that this player had just TWO Serie A appearances in his whole life before to leave professional football forever. If you think they could be enough, well, you must know that I am a (very) amateur football coach and, in my own past, I even led a couple of players with some experience in some Serie A youth teams, thus I could even feel myself authorized to make articles about these two guys. It is not enough to have played just a few minutes in a top team, according to me: even this guy, Gianluca Palmiteri, has played one match for Palermo (Serie A team), but I will never make an article about him, even if I am a big (and Sicilian) fan of Palermo. Merge it or delete it, just consider people who regularly played in a high-profile team. --Angelo 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Serie A player. Kappa 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alessio Tacchinardi, as suggested by Punkmorten above Starfighter Pilot 11:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alessio Tacchinardi as per Punkmorten. Qwghlm 11:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as obviously notable player. Carioca 00:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Punkmorten. Oldelpaso 13:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Alessio Tacchinardi as per Punkmorten. -- Elisson • Talk 00:39, 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 keep (no consensus). Vote count puts me at 6 delete/3 keep. Main reason I am not calling this a "delete" is that the reasons given do not go past an assertion of non-notability backed up by having only a few Google hits (countered by pointing out that the title should have been "Rif Raf" with a space). I am not comfortable calling a "delete" decision on that basis and will therefore decline to delete this without prejudice against a future AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RifRaf

non-notable bar Paul Carpenter 19:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • keep it is notable. see -

http://www.google.co.il/search?hl=iw&rls=GGLM%2CGGLM%3A2005-52%2CGGLM%3Aen&q=rif+raf+tel+aviv&meta= nnimrodd 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - A better search is this returns less than 10 relevant google hits MNewnham 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Ianb 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. it's a place very much notable. Ilan b 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

to MNewnham - there was a mistake in the master name: it is "Rif Raf", with space between the 'rif' and 'raf', and if you look for Rif+Raf+Tel+Aviv in google you'll find alot more results. nnimrodd 23:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AFD notice had been blanked, I've restored it. --kingboyk 21:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Shmila 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) It can be also 4th in Riff Raff.
  • Delete per MNewnham. Stifle 00:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NicM 17:39, 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 KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remy Martin (rapper)

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for music notability. Esprit15d 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, meets standard of publication in a major media source, i.e. MTV. But it definitely needs to be re-written for NPOV; as it is, it's a puff piece.
  • Keep and cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff 14:46, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googonzolion

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for made-up terms as this. http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Googonzolion turns up zero results. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbarian Feast

A NN meeting of some people, somewhere MNewnham 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - A little research reveals that it is a meeting of bloggers on the east coast of america. Still nn, very limited attendence. Grandwazir 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Grandwazir. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:51, 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. Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown noser

This is a term and the definition supplied here is adequately covered in wikitionary Ginar 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nom Ginar 21:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dictionary definition, with one caveat - the Wiktionary article is very short. Perhaps this could be pasted over? --kingboyk 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
comment I dont' really like the language here. Its unprofessional and parallel. Use this as a template to expand but change the language a bit and make it less crass.
  • Delete per nom., as a orphan. — RJH 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, dic-def. incog 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Gateway Anykey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settlers of Catan number tokens

Settlers-cruft, unencyclopedic. Maybe suitable for a Settlers guide at Wikibooks. kelvSYC 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Rules of Settlers of Catan Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Starblind. Stifle 00:47, 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 by Violetriga with the reason "blatant advert". Stifle 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Dog Cafe

Delete - It as an obvious advertisement for a cafe in Tallahassee - Amazon10x 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising, non-notable café.  (aeropagitica)  21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Delete it then. There are too many by that name anyway. Krashlandon (e) 22:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Krashlandon is sole editor of article and he approves of the deletion.
  • Speedy Delete Yes, I approve deletion. We no longer need to discuss this. Krashlandon (e) 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisment for a non-notable place. Captain Jackson 23:46, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AmberPoint, Inc.

Delete I created this page and then thought better of the title and created an identical page called AmberPoint. So this page is extraneous and unnecessary. I am also the only editor of the page. Ebertelsen 21:38, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vemund

Autobiographical original research. It's been nine days since the creator saw my {{original research}} tag. Vemund came back today to add a thing or two, but I doubt references are coming, though the article says it's a rare popular name (or a popular rare name, whatever).-- Perfecto 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Perfecto 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per excellent nom. Signed article. Stifle 00:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom incog 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bali project

Total fiction as such film does not exist IMDb for Hugo Weaving. Not a CSD. feydey 22:11, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Route X1

This article is pointless and if you want to know information about the route see MTA New York City Transit buses and/or Yukon Bus Depot I Am Ri¢h! 22:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable bus-cruft? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as random bus route. Stifle 00:52, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CRiSTAL WMS

Advertising for NN Warehouse management system MNewnham 22:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, 17 google hits would indicate non-notability, and the article itself isn't very helpful in establishing notability either, it's just an ad listing the supposed features of the program. - Bobet 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 00:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible copyvio and advert. incog 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call of combat

Instruction manual and FAQ for online game MNewnham 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and nuke, speedily if possible. Captain Jackson 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. Stifle 00:52, 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 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripchord

Local band in Minnesota, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. -Satori (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Should be {{db-band}} if it violates WP:Music, which it does - albums, singles, chart positions, non-notable members.  (aeropagitica)  23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily if you wish, as non-verifiable article about a band that is unlikely to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. Stifle 00:52, 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 no consensus; keep. THE LACK OF CONSENSUS HERE DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONSENSUS FORMATION IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS RESULT AS A SOLE REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A REDIRECT/MERGE/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French citizenship and identity

POV fork of French people Ezeu 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. While this article is more or less right in what it says, it seems that the issues of "French ethnicity" and French Citizenship are currently being hammered out on French people. Therefore I think it would be better to wait until consensus is reached there before deciding whether the nuances of how the Republic of France classifies its citizens merits a separate artice. --BadSeed 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fork which only makes things more difficult to maintain. Rama 11:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least untill it is clear to everyone that no consensus is possible on the French people page. Either this page must be mantained or a new page called "french ethnic group" must be created.
Plus this is not a POV fork since French identity (in France) being based on citizenship is not denied by either side of the debate, and sources are easily found to prove it. The only problem seems to be which side keeps the "French people" page. --Burgas00 11:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We can insert there a translation of the fr:Nationalité française article.--Teofilo talk 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually that is pretty much what I based the article on! We can expand on the rights of French citizens, Code Civile etc... Translating this page--Cassius80 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fork. French people are French citizens. Basta ya !!!! Lapaz
  • Split. Demerden sie sicht. Ericd 23:50, 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; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE FORMATION OF CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE TO REDIRECT/MERGE/WHATEVER. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD ALONE AS A BASIS TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A REDIRECT/MERGE/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] III Steps Forward

album of only 1000 copies/ music un-notability. Melaen 22:48, 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 no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE FORMATION OF NEW CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. IN PARTICULAR, THIS AFD SHOULD NOT BE CITED AS THE SOLE REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPPOSE A REDIRECT/MERGE/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whale tail

Dicdef for a slang neologism. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: People have nothing better to do, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say transwiki to Wiktionary, but they'd just delete it, so let's save them the bother and delete it here too. Stifle 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I just added to it. 4.250.198.130 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the "most creative word of 2005". Kappa 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the ADS cite was added, I'm changing my nomination to a weak keep; it may be a rather weak claim to lasting notability, but we're not trying to save paper here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Won the ADS creative word, could be extended further and related to fashion industry --vossman 04:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, dic-def neologism. incog 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was just coming to create this page, but it was already here. Beisnj 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Vossman --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

keep yes

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Anonymous editor (talk · contribs). -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Revival

NN Car restoration company MNewnham 22:51, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SiNiSTeR

Tagged for speedy deletion, but "keeping the Capture The Flag scene alive" is a claim to significance. No opinion from me. Kappa 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable biography. "CTF" here refers to a variant of the computer game Unreal, not real CTF. Notable info about his involvement with Unreal CTF can be merged to Unreal Tournament, though I doubt it's worth merging -- there is barely any info about Unreal CTF in the Unreal article (and Unreal CTF is not notable enough for its own article). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:01Z
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per Quarl. Kareeser|Talk! 17:43, 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 deleted by User:Alabamaboy, who forgot to close —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:59Z


[edit] Pinoutmaster

Completely an advertisement for a product. I'd vote to delete. - Bootstoots 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Badly-spelt advertising spam. Notability of product not asserted.  (aeropagitica)  23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 00:47, 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Gaming Productions

Gaming website with no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:WEB. Stifle 00:54, 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 delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sporeball

The game is not "legally published" yet. The associated forum has 7 (yes, 7) registered users. Joyous | Talk 23:14, 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 Speedy deleted as link spam by Lucky 6.9

[edit] VGplanet

Website not ranked on Alexa, Google turns up little, and seems to have little content at the moment. Also, the article in question looks like an advert. - Bootstoots 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertisement -Amazon10x 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleting as link spam. Bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 23:31, 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. Apologies to the new users, but we are a bit wary of people who show up only for an AfD, maybe edit an article or two, and then leave. I hope you guys will stay on and help out with the other 936,000+ articles we have. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netrepreneur

Neologism created by non-notable website/forum --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine, a unique term for budding webmasters!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 86.128.240.163 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment — the term, silly though it may be, gets a lot of google hits and seems somewhat widespread. I'm not sure which way to swing, so I'll pass on this one. — RJH 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — There are enough buzzwords in this industry.
  • Keep it — I do not know about the 'jibber' website, so I will not comment on this term's origins.

But this term is definitely already in use and deserves an entry. I can see why, as there is a need for a word for this, anyway, and this one doesn't sound bad.

  • Keep it — A Google search gives that this name is used quite a bit. — SimonKoldyk
  • Keep it — There is no reason for deletion, the term is well-known on the internet, the writer of this piece just has a starting forum about it, that can't be a reason for deletion. So before you want to delete something atleast check google. Assadar
  • comment - surely this is a case for Wiktionary? Ianb 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no verifiability. Stifle 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Stifle, what about it being in a Salon article [40] ? Simonkoldyk 22:18, 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 ☎ ) 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogging

  ATTENTION!

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

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

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.
    • Do not delete Wikipedia, along with being a constantly updated source for information, also serves as a guide to pop culture. The truth is that now, "Hogging", the word and the action, is an inherent part of our culture, regardless of how long it's been around and whatnot. Being redirected here from collegehumor just increases its establishment and thus credibility among college aged people. To remove this entry is a disservice to the goal and effectiveness of wikipedia as a well-reputed source of information for practically anything and everything. If deleted, I do not doubt that someone will come along and make a new entry for Hogging in several weeks. As for the argument that this promotes misogyny, so do many things, and the fact that these things exist does not preclude them from being included in an encyclopedia dedicated to the proliferation of knowledge.
    • Do not delete this article. I practice what this word defines and I agree wholeheartedly with it being on here.
  • Do not delete. It is a widely practiced art form among college students.

Delete made up name created by people redirected here from collegehumor.com (it's on their main page right now)-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guido (slang term) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's deleted or not. I do know that a "Hog Log" was kept in Bancroft Hall of the US Navel Academy in the late eighties. This isn't a new fad or aborration...it's been around for a while. Anyone who attended there in the early Ninety's will know why "Naval" above is mis-spelled.

  • No, this article should stay intact. It's a real pracitce, not something someone just made up recently, but a timed practice. I've actually read an article where someone researched the topic and discussed it with males many years older than myself. -J. Sims
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.7.153 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 January 2006
This user has never edited prior this comment -- ( drini's page ☎ )
  • Shouldn't be deleted, as it is a real topic, but should be placed under sexual slang. -TheEdborg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.83.250 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 19 January 2006. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This user has NEVER edited before prior this comment [41] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a real term describing a real practice by college age males. This should not be deleted. -23 year old male —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.32.53.82 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 January 2006.
This user vandalized (blanked other people's comment) this page: [42] and has never edited prior this comment [43]
  • TOTALLY REAL! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.97.174 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 January 2006.
This user has never edited prior this comment -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. DaGizzaChat © 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Btw, are anons allowed to vote? I haven't been voting on AFd for long enough to know DaGizzaChat © 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The most important thing to remember is that AFD IS NOT A VOTE so no, noone gets a vote, It's a discussion, usually those like the ones above are discounted (that's why I put the tags, to help the closing admin) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's written in a demeaning way, and will only popularize a practice that is harmful to overweight and unattractive women. Indirectly, this may lead to rapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.239.7.51 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 January 2006
This user has never edited prior this comment
  • Keep the Explanation/Definition...it is areal practice! It may be on college humor, b/c as the explanation says it is practiced by college students! It has been done, and does happen, so why should it be deleted? added 19 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.109.36 (talk • contribs) . -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This user has never edited prior this comment
reply: because official policy says that wikipedia isn't a slang guide nor an indiscriminate collection of information, it's an encyclopedia. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:55Z
  • Transwiki or delete. I've heard this term before, so I doubt they just made it up one day. However, it doesn't quite belong on the 'pedia. Youngamerican 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided---I Just found out about something, I knew nothing about.MMcAnnisMmcannis 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. W/P is not a dictionary, esp. of neologisms. --Kbh3rdtalk 02:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have heard of "pig parties" being the same thing, yet wikipedia is not the place for neologisms. Das Nerd 03:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Delete"- This is not a real practice. This is some sick, sadistic game devised by pathetic ignoramuses. Anyone who submits that this is a real practice has some serious issues. I went to a military school and did not have the need to participate in "hogging". I believe there are some serious misogynists of the "mommy didn't love me so I hate women" ilk pushing for this to be included in what is supposed to be, at least to some extent, a thorough collection of information.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus). Ingoolemo talk 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guido (slang term)

Delete made up name created by people redirected here from collegehumor.com (it's on their main page right now)-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogging -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  ATTENTION!

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

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

Not really made up name has been in use for several years now.. guido is a term started since the inception of the italian american culture in new york. Only recently has it enjoyed a resurgance in fame

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.5.106 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 January 2006 .
This user has never edited before prior this comment [44] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
indeed, Official policy: wikipedia is not a slang guide -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even bother to read the article. The mere fact that it has "slang term" in the title is enough for me.  :) --King of All the Franks 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • don't delete, term has been in use for as long as new jersey has been a state. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 128.227.66.75 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This user never edited prior this comment -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment-cite resources, it is a term that has been apparently used on many popular tv shows Spencerk 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete This is not a new term, it being used on college humor does not constitute any notion that it they who conceived it. And even if it were, is it not the goal of wikipedia to function as a freely flowing font of human knowledge? Let us leave it to the people at Encarta to provide us with a rigid, fixed, and thereby extremely limited view of cultural development. Wikipedia is man's crowning achievement. It is an unbiased, unlimited, and uniform free exchange of information. If this article truly rocks you to the core, then yes, delete it, but as a contributor to humanity's never ending pool of creation, I urge you move it, or add this summary to your already extensive list of slang terms.
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang." Perhaps you are right, we should then begin deletion of the entire "Slang" article, along with all Bargoens(Dutch slang), Boston slang, Canadian slang Christianese, Cockney rhyming slang, Drug slang, Gay slang, Germanía, Grypsera, Grunge speak,Helsinki slang, Hip hop slang, Indonesian slang, Internet slang, London slang, Lunfardo,Medical slang, Polari, Profanity, Sexual slang, Trinidadian slang found on the Wikipedia site, lest its cultural and political significance poison the minds of our children.

--Oldmanpanda 02:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This user has never edited prior this comment -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is valuble regardless of source. Also, comments of oldmanpanda are noteworthy. Mystache 02:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when is Wikipedia not contain slang? Have you seen any other entries like blumpkin or other such slang? Are you kidding? The hypocritical nature of others on this page is ridiculous! I'm talking to you, Frank King, Drini etc. Baltodomer 05:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The only edits from this user have been on 2 AFDs including this one -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment originally unsigned by 140.247.196.28, then signed by Baltodomer [45]
  • Keep. This term isn't something "made up in school one day". There is, for instance, this lengthy Washington Post story from 2003 which discusses Guido culture and says "One slang dictionary dates the emergence of the term guido to the late '80s...In the '80s and '90s, the term guido was often derisive and directed at Italians, but the community was ethnically broader than that." -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.63.35 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 January 2006.
  • Keep Notable epithet. Perhaps a new name is in order, however. Youngamerican 18:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly rename per Youngamerican. --Wrathchild (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no need to delete this. Guido is a term commonly heard and socially relevant. Deletion would be removing a important article from Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treyt021 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - Definitely a noteworthy term and certainly not something "just made up" recently. Cyde Weys 06:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - In use since the 80's. Just because one never heard of a term doesn't mean it was 'made up'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.146.102 (talk • contribs) .
  • don't delete - people actually use it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.0.193.26 (talk • contribs) 20:52, January 19, 2006.
  • Keep.I find it very worrying that wiki administrators suck as "drini" apprently do not even perform cursory background-fact checks on the internet before entering his personal and completely unfounded misconceptions as "resons to delete" in this discussion. The term "guido" and all that it entails is a known term with a long history and it is widely used. And it's all verifiable by spending about 60 seconds with google, etc. Very bad research, drini. Shame on you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.157.99.205 (talk • contribs) 08:38, January 24, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnarok Wrestling

There was an article by this name previously; it was deleted by this AfD. This is a different article but it regards the same backyard wrestling promotion and there's no indication that its notability has changed in three weeks' time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 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 13:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punktuation

  • Also nominated:
    • Dan Revel
    • Ryan Cowie
    • Tim Shotter
    • Rick Thompson
    • Sue Hipperson
  • Delete all: Questionable adherence to WP:BAND. No mentions on either allmusic.com or amazon.com and little mention elsewhere. Creator asserts that the band released two CDs but only locally (see Talk:Punktuation). —Wknight94 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, nn-band. --King of All the Franks 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All I don't think I've ever heard a stupider band name. Kenneth Nishimoto 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as non-notable musical group and non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:50Z
  • Delete all per Quarl. --Terence Ong 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Punkmorten 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Then do it. I have to say im dissapointed with wikipedia, not very open source if you have to be a megastar to get on it, and as for the personal insult from Kenneth, what have you achieved exactly? You know nothing about local music clearly and need to open your eyes a bit. If you have any guts you will apologise for what is an unnecessary comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanlufbra (talk • contribs) .
    • We're a free encyclopedia and a wiki first. We have standards for inclusion, just like all other encyclopedias. Being released under a free licence and WP:NOT being paper doesn't mean we'll let any old thing in. Johnleemk | Talk 13:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.