Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 obvious copyvio - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel High School - www.excelhighschool.com

• Promotion of a non-notable Chinese school. Delete. Georgia guy 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• This positively screams copyvio. Say bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 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 speedy keep after rewrite. – Alphax ^τεχ 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mithridaticum

Seems like just nonsense. -- Egil 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Blank and Rewrite. The text is incorrect. According to several websites turned up through Google, Mithridaticum is a concotion made from dozens of different poisons designed to enhance the body's immunity to said poisons. I believe that competent research would make this a very interesting article. As it now stands, this seems like an advert for someone marketing something by the name of Mithridaticum. Google Book search on Mithridaticum Arviragus 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Expand (full rewrite) per Arviragus. "Kills 89% of recreational users"... hey, where can I get some after a hard night on the AfD pages? Barno 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." (Nietzsche according to Star Trek.) Barno 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense, and even a re-write will just be a glorified dicdef. Ruby 01:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Endomion (Ruby) and Naconkantari. -Rebelguys2 04:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. --Terence Ong 10:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Incorrect text, but subject is interesting. Leave requests at pages for users who suggested rewrite and at chemical/medical WikiProjects Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like nonsense.--Adam ^{User_talk:Kungfuadam|talk]])} 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep now that it is rewritten.--Adam ^(talk) 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete complete bollocks, but post request as MgM suggests (so no surprises there, then). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Hold your horses guys, which ones of you spent time to research this? First of all I'd like to point out that this is a latin word. Second I'd like to point out that anything non-english is hard to come by on the internet, trust me. Third, don't jump to conclusions and assume good faith. Now to the important part, there's two significant sources I was able to find, one is from about.com (from those of you who dont know, about hires experts to write on subtopics), here's the link: [1]. There is a more detailed explanation here: [2] With time this article just like the other ones will grow, for now KEEP it and have it transwikified to wiktionary. —This user has left wikipedia 16:15 2006-01-25
• Strong keep with rewrite. Above comment seconded. It takes trifling work to find Mithridaticum mentioned both on Wikipedia (see Mithridates VI of Pontus and Theriacum Andromachi) and on Google. The AFD'd content is crap, but the topic isn't. Tearlach 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Now rewritten as sensible stub - please reconsider votes Tearlach 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now Carlossuarez46 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. It is more commonly called mithridate. The Oxford English Dictionary even has an entry for this, although under the alternate spelling of mithridatium. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-25 23:52
• Comment: The content has been greatly expanded, and there are still thousands of other sources that could be used. People should really try doing some research around here before assuming they know everything worth knowing. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-26 00:06
• Strong keep due to rewrite. Andy Saunders 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important to antiquitarians. --maru (talk) contribs 04:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hal L. Waller

Delete. Non-notable academic. Article seems to exist just as a vandalism target. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable high school teacher. Crunch 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - only accomplishment of any note is compiling Mark Twain's diaries into a hypertext database. Stop the presses. Ruby 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, never asserts notability through all the feel-good banter. Grandmasterka 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable high school teacher. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:54Z
• Delete per WP:N--Adam ^(talk) 14:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vandalism can be fixed, failing the "professor test" per WP:BIO can't. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from the article link: k12 teacher ... *shakes head* ... —This user has left wikipedia 16:17 2006-01-25
• Delete Ordinary joe. Completely non notable --Mecanismo | Talk 19:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rayisthechosenone 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep YOu're mom's non notable. Rayisnotthechosenone 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.28.67 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. --Addie 15:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Kierkegaards Theorum

probable hoax Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is this article at all related to Kierkegaard? ~MDD4696 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Only by name. I think Dr. J.J. Robinson, Dr. Joel A. Unger, and Two Kierkegaards Theorum were all created as a hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because the "Two Kierkegaards Theorum" has zero google hits. Ruby 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Theory is such a massive falacy that no one would come up with it --LeftyG 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bollocks. --Lockley 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALLS. Puhlease. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Dr. J.J. Robinson and Dr. Joel A. Unger should be deleted too, of course. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be nonsense.Blnguyen 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} article, verging on WP:BALLS.  (aeropagitica)  07:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, although replace 'probable' with 'definite'. Ncsaint 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:54Z
• Delete per nom, it doesn't have an ounce of truth and can't be verified.--Adam ^(talk) 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this "theorum" doesn't seem to be well known.
• Delete as unverifiable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:18 2006-01-25
• Delete per Achilles--likely hoax because both EBSCO and FirstSearch return nothing on either of the two supposed scholars. (There are plenty of J. Robinsons, but these all tend to work in the medical arena for some reason). It should be noted that the databases are only searchable back to the early nineties, but it would be reasonable if the theory is "still debated" that someone would mentioned the author's names somewhere in an article.--eleuthero 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Am I the only one who noticed the misspelling of "theorem" (which might explain the lack of Google hits)? Anyway, a Google search for "Two Kierkegaards" reveals one cite: Philosophy Today volume 16 (Winter 1972), pages 113-122. So it's not completely unheard of, although it certainly seems nonnotable enough to be deleted. I'm abstaining from the vote, though. Powers 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to think this is a fairly well crafted hoax, as they seem to have chosen this phrase specifically in such a way that some superficially plausible Google results would turn up. The article in Philosophy Today doesn't seem to be related to the contents claimed here, and it fits neither the bibliographical information nor the timeline. Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Elaborate hoax. Hopefully this user will settle down and do something useful now. Herostratus 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. J.J. Robinson

probable hoax Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. ~MDD4696 01:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only claim to notability is developing a theorum with no google hits. Ruby 01:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:53Z
• Delete unverifiable.--Adam ^(talk) 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:18 2006-01-25
• Delete per my comments on the above "Two Kierkegaards Theorum." Comment - It seems rather inappropriate to utilize googling as a means for verifying the existence of a scholar. There are still a number of journals that will not come up in a google search--that's why the EBSCO and FirstSearch databases exist.--eleuthero 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:35, 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. BD2412 T 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Joel A. Unger

probable hoax Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. ~MDD4696 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because the "Two Kierkegaards Theorum" has no google hits. Ruby 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:53Z
• Delete as unverifiable--Adam ^(talk) 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:18 2006-01-25
• Delete per above. Latinus 20:35, 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 keep. I've discounted those who've made arguments that no longer apply (dicdef, copyvio) after several users' excellent work cleaning up this article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jural Society

Looks like a list of tests with a stub on top and a Wiktionary template at the bottom. Nowhere close to a good article. Delete. Georgia guy 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. Dicdef. ~MDD4696 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pending an expansion beyond mere definition. There seems to be a jural society movement on the US's West Coast (and elsewhere?) that could/should be included in the entry. - Jaysus Chris 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm working on a rewrite but will not finish today. This is a viable entry. Interesting topic. It will be more than a dicdef when finished. If you're interested in doing more than voting, feel free to add to it. I'm done for today.- Jaysus Chris 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per MDD, this is just a fat dicdef. Ruby 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Trakswiki per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and Cleanup, unless article can be expanded with notable information. -Rebelguys2 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*Transwiki useful info and Keep this, there's a citation about something that actually happened to them. This could be a very useful article with more research. Grandmasterka 05:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki the definition and keep. The article is a stub, but can be expanded.--Adam ^(talk) 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the definition! It's a copyvio!!!!! User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and Cleanup It's possible to expand on this page. Give it time. Rayisthechosenone 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As currently reformulated, this is no longer suitable for transwiki to Wiktionary, since it's now about a particular organization rather than a dicdef. Whether it is kept or deleted should now be based on the degree of notability of this organization, of which I'm not certain myself. *Dan T.* 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Jural Society" (apparently synonomous with "Jural Society of the State of Washington") gets only ~6,000 Google hits, but several are new stories; this organization seems slightly notable.--ragesoss 06:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CVTT

should be deleted because: (1) the title of the article is incorrectly spelled, and (2) the content of the article is contained in an article under the proper title CVVT. MadScientistVX 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect to Continuous_variable_valve_timing to avoid a double-redirect and to catch a typo such as the one the auther of this article made. Ruby 01:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect is already in place. --Lockley 05:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Please do not redirect CVTT to something spelled CVVT. That's confusing. --Perfecto 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no redirect as per Perfecto. -- Kjkolb 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no redirect.  (aeropagitica)  07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, same material was also on CVVT and is already merged. I don't see the use of redirecting this one. Next, someone's going to confuse it with CCTV. Then what? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I guess AndyChrist copied CVTT to CVVT when he created it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:53Z
• Delete per Perfecto.--Adam ^(talk) 14:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Perfecto's perfectly perspicacious perspective. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not worth it, non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:22 2006-01-25
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:35, 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. Babajobu 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juliet Kidd

No page links to this one. Google shows only three hits for '"Juliet Kidd" Lunden' and about 38 for '"Juliet Kidd"'. If the article is kept, it needs to be made more neutral. Greebo | purr 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete non notable singer. Ruby 01:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: She only did the singing on one or two albums? Not even close. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Adam ^(talk) 14:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete evident fancruft for non-notable singer. I have left a note on the user's talk page to let him know about things like WP:NMG and WP:BLP. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:34, 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. Babajobu 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go Volcanic (PRLR episode)

Just a random non-notable TV espisode, can't tell what show it is even, reads like a copyvio from somewhere also Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if it's explained what it is, it won't make sense. Crunch 01:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only aired once, then the article goes on to list places it hasn't aired. Ruby 01:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on the formatting, I suspect a copyvio from TV.com. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio of TV.com page and as synopsis of non-notable episode of Power Rangers series. Confusing Manifestation 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form (copyvio) or merge to Power Rangers: Lightspeed Rescue if the article were rewritten. --Adam ^(talk) 15:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:25 2006-01-25
• Delete any article which falls back on listing the networks on which it hasn't aired has serious problems! Non-notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:34, 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. Babajobu 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Emote (World of Warcraft)

Wikipedia is not a game guideWP:NOT. This is a direct list taken from a popular MMORPG site, Allakhazam, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it's not deleted, then it should be merged with World of Warcraft. If it is kept, then the name should be changed at least. This list is also likely to change with patches and updates to the game occuring all the time. Delete čĥàñľōŕď 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete gamecruft. Ruby 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, game-cruft, MMORPG-cruft, fan-cruft, etc.-cruft. -Rebelguys2 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:48Z
• Delete per nom. Essexmutant 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 14:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 16:26 2006-01-25
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a list that is of interest to only a small group of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Petrovsky

Self published writer who spammed to get the book an award. See [3] Greebo | purr 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For a self-promoter he doesn't have much to say here about himself. Nothing notable presented. Crunch 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete iPublish as in me-publish. Ruby 01:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -Rebelguys2 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crucnh.Blnguyen 06:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:47Z
• Delete non-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs)
• Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —This user has left wikipedia 16:27 2006-01-25
• Delete as nomination. Good call. --Mecanismo | Talk 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:34, 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. Babajobu 17:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astriaal

• Speedy Delete: Non-notable band. Released a bunch of demos and EPs but only finally released a full-length in 2003 (the article says it's their debut). This doesn't adhere to the two-album rule in WP:BAND. No mentions on allmusic.com or Amazon. In fact, I can't even find an official website. Astriaal.com isn't a registered domain. Do they even still exist? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wknight94, please do not bring speedy delete nominations here. In the future, put the appropriate CSD tag and move on. It takes less space and less steps for everyone. Thanks. --Perfecto 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just saw this little note. From my experience, if there's any semblance of a discography in an article - and there was a lengthy one full of EPs in this case - admins refuse to do a speedy saying there's an assertion of notability. I've started explicitly stating that there's an assertion of notability to explain why I didn't speedy it. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Jeez, it seems that half the AfD work these days is deep-sixing bands with no hits or notable members or Grammy awards. Ruby 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep They get a substantial amonut of Google hits... čĥàñľōŕď 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, that's not the criteria for having an article. They seem to have gotten one of their lyric sheets mirrored a zillion times on Google but that doesn't help meet WP:BAND. Notice what doesn't come up on Google? An official web site! Even my Aunt Irene has her own web site. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- čĥàñľōŕď 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. The music industry is extremely competitive, Ruby, sometimes any publicity helps. Grandmasterka 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as {{db-band}}; violation of WP:Music, as above.  (aeropagitica)  07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per WP:BAND--Adam ^(talk) 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I would have speedied it but there is one Keep vote above (albeit a weak one) so let's let it run its course. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• XXSouthern_SlayerXx I have actually seen Astriaal play and yes they do have an offical website and I have edited the page in some areas to at least update it a bit. I was recently talking to the lead vocalist at a concert and he told me that they do not have a google add at all so thats why they don't have an official website listing. 20:15, 26 January 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXSouthern SlayerXx (talk • contribs)
• Delete. --Roisterer 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the speedy tag per JzG. howcheng {chat} 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archgoat

• Speedy Delete: Non-notable band. They've only released a few short EPs which doesn't adhere to the two-full-length-albums rule in WP:BAND. No mentions on allmusic.com (which has almost every band). Amazon only has a split album with Beherit. The website is as charming as the band itself but doesn't show anything that fits WP:BAND - it even has an ad for "Our Debut album" for 2006. Don't be fooled by apparent longevity since they broke up for over a decade. First Afd try failed because almost no one bothered to vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Careful. Allmusic is heavily biased towards American bands and is unlikely to contain bands from Asia for example. It may be a good guide to notability for Western bands, but by no means has it got "every band". - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll echo that. --Durin 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nn band. Ruby 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my previous vote in the last afd. Album sold through Amazon. -- JJay 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Band has reformed and toured Europe in October. Music sold through Amazon. -- JJay 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Which album? The split album? That doesn't even count as one EP, does it? They had to share album space with someone else! —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A band could be the first black metal band from (insert country here), fine and dandy, but if they don't chart, don't win a Grammy, or don't have someone like Keanu for a member, then they don't get an article on WP. Ruby 02:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per {{db-band}}; violation of WP:Music - singles/album chart positions, notable members, awards.  (aeropagitica)  07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This band is nowhere close to an A7 speedy. The fact that everyone is voting that way demonstrates how misguided the criteria really is. Furthermore, those who claim a band needs to have won a grammy or had chart hits to merit an article are setting the bar at a level that goes well beyond the spirit of the band guidelines. Vote based on any standards you want, but the pack mentality displayed above is frankly scary and does a severe disservice to our music coverage here.-- JJay 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Take a look at http://www.metal-archives.com/browseL.php?l=C. If we followed your criteria, every single one of those bands would be in Wikipedia! And that's just the ones starting with C! Do you seriously think it would fit Wikipedia standards to have almost twenty bands whose names relate to Cremation, eight bands named Cabal, etc., etc. (even Chapel of Ghouls is taken twice!)? Even die-hard black metal fans would start looking elsewhere for actual useful info. Recording studios aren't interested in them enough to make a full-length album, most heavy metal reviewers aren't interested in them enough to even listen to their EPs — but you expect the general Wikipedia public to be interested?! That type of reasoning is why CSD A7 had to be created in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Even "Cerberus" has eight bands listed including three just from the US. So, for every scary mythological figure, we'd have eight adjoining articles for some band that used it for a band name. I shudder at the thought. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A Finnish band that has been around for this long, that has music available through Amazon and that headlined in at least seven countries in the last three months is not a speedy. Afd is there for a reason. It is not a formality and is meant to be a vehicle for achieving consensus. It provides a timeframe for editors who actually know something about the group (unlike anyone here) to add new info or improve the contents. Having a bunch of editors scream speedy A7 without providing any serious reasoning does nothing to reach consensus in this case and denigrates the entire process.-- JJay 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Their own website says "Our Debut album... will be released on spring 2006". That's all the "serious reasoning" necessary in my opinion. Even they admit they've never released an album. Hard to get less notable. My cousin from Maine released an album in 1982 so I guess I'll create an article for him. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your opinion has been clear from the beginning. However, I reiterate, this is not a speedy. You proved that yourself when you checked their website. Had the article not asserted "notability" you would not have needed to check anything. Otherwise, while an upcoming album release is one factor in considering inclusion, the past history of your Maine cousin hardly seems relevant unless he/she is now a member of Archgoat. -- JJay 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • When this alleged release is made, then maybe this article will be relevant. Until then, someone with an actual album under their belt is more so. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's your right to discount the material they have released to date. However, please show good faith by changing your vote back to the original delete- or at least justify the need to change to A7. [4]. -- JJay 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This band is notable, try google search: Archgoat band -wikipedia 1.5K results . Dont follow group mentality and assume good faith please. I'm sure someone will want to know about this band at one time or another. —This user has left wikipedia 16:34 2006-01-25
• Delete since the Google search suggested above actually nets under 1500 hits, of which around 450 unique, the band has no entry on Allmusic, and as stated the CD isn't even an independent release, it's shared with another band. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry to jump on the dogpile, but this is just totally nn and fails WP:MUSIC. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly nn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources. Nothing to indicate significance. I don't see that they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, at a start. Stifle 19:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per basically all of the above. Dbinder 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was closing early as speedy delete. --cj | talk 08:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arch of Thorns

• Speedy Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one short EP which doesn't adhere to two-album rule in WP:MUSIC. No mentions on allmusic.com or Amazon. Official website has poor English, hard-to-read text coloring and a cheesy GeoCities popup ad. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete band with no charted hits or famous members. Ruby 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Metta Bubble 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per existing arguments. -Rebelguys2 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per {{db-band}}; violation of WP:Music - singles/album chart positions, notable members, awards.  (aeropagitica)  07:37, 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. Babajobu 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slumpbuster

as Wikipedia isn't a slang guide, I got this one cleaning pointers to Hogging-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The National Organization for Women will thank you. Ruby 02:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Not encyclopedic. Metta Bubble 03:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that you feel this page meets. Stifle 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. -Rebelguys2 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT--Adam ^(talk) 16:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki Well when I first learned american english I was taught that HI is slang for Hello. This term gives 10K+ results on google, I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt. —This user has left wikipedia 16:36 2006-01-25
• Delete about 850 Google hits for this term, of which under 300 are unique and many of those irrelevant. Not worth a transwiki. It is on Urban Dictionary, which probably tells us everything we need to know at this point... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:33, 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 alas, DELETE. Would that it were verifiable. Babajobu 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Brown(female)

another nn slang thing-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Wow, this must be made up. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can see this being not made up, but I can't see this being an encyclopedia article. Ruby 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. While I can't vouch that this is made up, there's nothing in the article offering verifiability or notability. -Rebelguys2 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NFT. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Nn neologism, original research, unverifiable, all of the above? Grandmasterka 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the far more popular "butterface" doesn't have an article, either (previously deleted). -- Kjkolb 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, original research. Was this created by the same guys that created Hogging et al? Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:46Z
• Delete Can't be verified.--Adam ^(talk) 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and unverifiable. --Lockley 05:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable content. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Might be keepable if verified about analysis in academic context.--ragesoss 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 speedy deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bismillah (band)

• Speedy Delete: Non-notable band. In embryonic stages since they only formed in 2005 - definitely falls short of two-full-length-album rule in WP:BAND. No mentions on allmusic.com or Amazon (the only hits on Amazon were for some other musician, Ustad Bismillah Khan). Admittedly the website is impressive as someone had a lot of free time to get good at Flash or whatever. I'm overlooking the problems in the article itself like huge images and poor English. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment please use the {{nn-band}} tag and if the request ends up here on AfD so be it. Ruby 02:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per Naconkantari. -Rebelguys2 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Sppedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 06:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per {{db-band}}; violation of WP:Music, stated by nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a copyvio but it can't be speedied per A8. It could be speedied per A7. Mushroom 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: But A7 says the article was created less than 48 hours ago which isn't the case. I still don't understand why db-band can't be used here. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A7 is db-band, A8 is copyvio. A7 can be used. Mushroom 12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Woops, my bad. I misread WP:CSD. Damn dyslexia... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable band. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:45Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 when combined with the merge votes, and you have to keep in order to merge. If anyone wants to merge, feel free. —Cleared as filed. 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helengrad

This page is political bias, obviously created for last year's election LeftyG 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wellington Ruby 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good information and perceived "political bias" is not a valid reason to delete; Edit the article. -- JJay 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the question below. However, a quick check on newsbank shows the term has been in use for at least 6 years and is cited by major news organizations worldwide. From an October 1, 2005 AFP dispatch I get: New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is known for taking control -- a reputation so strong that her first government was dubbed "Helengrad". -- JJay 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then the article should be re-written to reflect this fact, that her government is called Helengrad, rather than saying the city is called Helengrad. Ruby 03:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• See above where I said "Edit the article". -- JJay 10:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What you you call it when they imply the city is Soviet? Ruby 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article itself does not imply the city is Soviet, the article says that political opponents of Helen Clark and the Labour Party have used the term to do so. NPOV - reporting what other people say.

• There are notable neologisms with articles such as Feminazi or Left Coast, but this one does not have much circulation. If you want, you can write a paragraph in the Wellington article about this term of endearment by the local conservatives. My home town of Vancouver, Washington is called "The Couve" as a perjorative, but that doesn't merit an article. Ruby 03:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The term has plenty of circulation within New Zealand (not just by the "local conservatives" of Wellington), and is notable enough in its own right for an article, especially regarding its origins. "The Couve" isn't a neologism anyway - it's clearly an abbreviation of "Vancouver". If there were notable circumstances surrounding its origin or usage (like there are with Helengrad), then it would deserve an article.

• I'm living in NZ, and have never heard the term before. Sounds like a term of endearment by local conservatives to me... Ziggurat 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - First off, the name exists and has been a notable feature of New Zealand political life, notable enough in my opinion to have a place in Wikipedia (so I did something about it, providing informative external links). Second off, check the page history: this page was created after Election Day - so this page was "obviously created" to influence voters who had already cast their votes over a month prior. Third off, if you have an issue with the political neutrality of the article, then edit it yourself and bring it into line with NPOV. The existence of a politically charged term you may not happen to like is no justification for deletion. Darobsta 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Darobsta --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this will be useful to people, and is not slander, it will be looked up, etc. etc., just basically, Keep --BakugekiNZ 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If biased, throw up a {{NPOV}} tag or fix it. Though "it exists" is not a rationale for keeping an article, it seems notable enough to merit an article. -Rebelguys2 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough -- Astrokey44|talk 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Actually merge and redirect to Helen_Clark#Criticisms, it only gets 174 unique hits on google [5] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this is a tough one. Big Easy redirects to New Orleans, Louisiana; City of Light redirects to Paris, but Big Apple has its own article. The only thing that prevents me from recommending a redirect is that the name is derogatory. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the term is known but it isn't worthy of an article. I'd say transwiki to Uncyclopedia but they already have a substantial article.-gadfium 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'll say keep as a notable term with demonstrated notable circumstances surrounding it. In New Zealand, Helengrad deletes yooouuu! Grandmasterka 05:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Seems neoglistic and one sided. Almost as im implying one side is angelic and the other is satanic. Seems heavily politically motivated as well. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, and this seems like the picked and chosen bits of something else to strike out in a soapbox manner at something. Leyasu 12:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is a notable enough subject to merit an entry.--Adam ^(talk) 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wellington, like "People's Republic of Berkeley" is mentioned as noteworthy in the article Berkeley, California Carlossuarez46 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Redirecting would be POV as it would imply that "Helengrad" is a real term for Wellington and not slang. We have similar articles; Soviet Canuckistan, anyone? - Cuivienen 20:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to criticisms of Helen Clark. Most websites and news reports that use the term ([6] in particular) refer to the Labour-coalition government and Helen Clark's administration of it specifically, not to Wellington as the article claims. There's no possibility of expansion, making the article too short to stand on its own. Ziggurat 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - IMO, this vote should not be about POV/NPOV. The term "Helengrad" is undoubtedly a POV term, but that doesn't mean that an NPOV article about it is impossible. If you perceive a bias in the article, then edit it and make it NPOV instead of voting for deletion. This vote should be about notability - whether the name Helengrad is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Darobsta 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Still not convinced it is notable enough for its own page. Merge into Helen Clark instead of delete. (yes, I know I nominated it for deletion, I can changed my mind)--LeftyG 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• merge into Helen Clark as above. term is used in wellington and by some more rabid antilabour people in some other parts of the country but its not really a very common term here in nz and ceratinly doiesnt need its own page. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least try to give it some credibility. Where are the sources justifying the intro -- "Helengrad ......... has been alternatively applied to New Zealand, the capital city of Wellington and the Helen Clark government"? It can't be merged to all three. Moriori 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• There are hundreds of articles that use the term. References are not a problem. -- JJay 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Darn Chauncey

Delete this article on non-notable webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. If you're curious, the site has an Alexa rank of 611,060 [7] and its book on Amazon has a sales rank of "none." [8] -- Dragonfiend 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa rank just for the host website is 611,060, not for the comic. Ruby 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable webcomic. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just 141 Google hits. And delete the image too. Mushroom 08:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:44Z
• Delete nn--Adam ^(talk) 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom James084 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the 141 Google hits does not tell the full story: only two unique hits are outside the comic's home site. It's nowhere. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Response from the publisher From James Piggot, Admin of StupidChildren.com (the host site of "That Darn Chauncey")

Hi !

We recieved a request yesterday from a fan, who asked if he could put up a Wiki article for us; we said sure. After reviewing the article, we saw it was marked for deletion, and thought we'd weigh in.

First, we would argue that "That Darn Chauncey" is NOT a "non-notable webcomic" TDC has appeared daily at StupidChildren.com for over a year and a half, with over 250 different episodes. It is true that our book has a "none" sales rank on Amazon, but if "Dragonfiend" had examined the Amazon listing more closely, he might have noticed that the book DOESN'T GO ONSALE until Feb. 14, 2006. We "did" have a pre-sale on our main site, and sold several hundred copies. We hope to do even better, after our public release in three weeks (at Wondercon)

As for our Alexa rank, well, we don't think much of a ranking system that only counts people who have a certain toolbar installed (which is why we stopped advertising with AdBrite) Seriously, what does Alexa tell you ? How many people read the comic, or how many comment on the message boards about unrelated things ? We could do tons of things to get more "hits" (no message board for us) -- but we're not interested in inflating BS stats.

We prefer to go by our own internal stats; last year, we had over 200,000 unique visitors, with a significant return rate (we would note that the article stated TDC has having 100,000 readers a day; that is incorrect, and we have edited the article accordingly) I don't know why google doesn't show more hits linking to us. Right now, I can see links to three message boards today alone, which are talking about us; google doesn't show them, either. Furthermore, StupidChildren.com is not the subject of the article. TDC is, and I'd say that a webcomic with over 250 episodes, a regular readership, and an upcoming 112 page BOOK is not trivial (by comparison, RED MEAT has been in existence for ten years, and only has about 500 strips -- we'll have more this time next year)

Finally, let's look at what Wikipedia says about "notable content"

1) "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -- Just yesterday, our comic was mentioned in "Digital Strips" - a podcast which reviews webcomics (with over 100 shows) As we get closer to the release of our new book, we're hoping for significantly more press. Also, the cartoon has been mentioned on litterally hundreds of LiveJournals, MySpace accounts, Message Boards, etc.

2) "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." -- TDC has appeared in several issues of Zoinks! magazine, including the upcoming issue.

Among people that talk about webcomics, we "are" known, and getting better known all the time. One of the coolest things that occasionally happens to us is when someone sees the comic and says "Hey, I've that !"

Having said all that, I personally don't care if we get deleted or not. I like Wikipedia; I use it all the time. I think we became "notable" when we came out with our first book (and got strangers to part with their hard-earned cash to buy it) We get press. We appear in print publications. People talk about us. I didn't write the article for Wiki, but I certainly don't think we should be deleted by people just because "they" don't like the comic.

That's not the criteria for Wikipedia, is it ?

Sincerely,

James Piggot

Stupid Children Publishing

Los Angeles, California

Stupid children

• Keep Seems notable to me (received press, appeared in print publications) Why get rid of a good article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.75.10 (talk • contribs)
• Delete still does not meet WP:WEB. If the wecomic is really well known, citing the press it's allegedly recieved will verify that claim... but until then... it doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No one is arguing that we should keep the content, and this isn't Votes for Redirecting. Anyone who thinks a redirect is appropriate here is entitled to create one. —Cleared as filed. 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troy Rigby

Delete Subject is not notable outside of this one incident, which is documented in Continental Airlines Dbchip 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and which is it, while taxiing or sitting at the gate? Ruby 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --LeftyG 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Continental Airlines --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Continental Airlines; the man's name is worth keeping as a redirect, seeing as its been fairly prominent over the news today. -Rebelguys2 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fairly prominent in the news today -- but how about tomorrow? or next week? or in three years? WP isn't for people's 15 minutes of fame/insanity. Even then, if someone heard his name, they know the whole story. This article doesn't add anything. Redirect is a waste of space. Dbchip 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect -- Astrokey44|talk 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Continental Airlines; it's already mentioned there. PJM 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per PJM; redirect can be deleted if subject loses notability. Grandmasterka 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect
• Redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:44Z
• Redirect for now.--Adam ^(talk) 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and wait a year to see if this is a remarkable incident. Wikinews is that way ---> Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is every odd happening aboard an airliner notable, much less the guy who does it? Carlossuarez46 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see how you people are possibly justifying a redirect on this one. This is simply non-notable. If it doesn't belong in the Continental Airlines article, which it doesn't, why should it be redirected there? Someone jumping out of a plane could happen on ANY airline. Maybe, and this is a stretch, merge it into some page about "aviation incidents", but don't tarnish Continental with this. Cyde Weys 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the Incidents and Accidents section of Continental Airlines, as I stated above. That's why I (and apparently some others) think a redirect is sensible. PJM 21:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is not a newswire - no evidence this isn't an isolated, forgettable incident CDC (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect. per JzG. -Ikkyu2 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westernfishing

Advert/spam for non-notable company Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Ever notice how these ads all look alike? Must be a bot that makes them. Ruby 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Unless someone wants to make it "balanced" --LeftyG 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable even if "balanced'... Grandmasterka 06:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert per nom.Blnguyen 07:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:44Z
• Delete spam. —This user has left wikipedia 16:38 2006-01-25
• Delete vanispamcruftisement Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:33, 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. Babajobu 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RubNub for YubNub

Advertisement for Firefox toolbar. 243 google hits and "over 4000 downloads" make me doubt its notability. Delete. Kusma(討論) 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Would the issue of notability be affected if it were known that RubNub has only been around for about 2 months and already fields about 1.5M commands month? Or that 'rubnub' is one of the most popular commands in YubNub? Or those 243 google hits popped up in less than a month? - Gabriel Kent 22:22, 24 January 2006 (PST)

• Delete At least you get to volunteer for this thing in Firefox, rather than get drafted for it in IE. Ruby 02:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Earlier versions of this article which only consisted of external links, were already speedied twice. Expanded, I still see it as an ad. 23skidoo 05:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was speedied while I was in the middle of buidling it (I know I should have used sandbox, sorry) I was then expanding it based on the very closely related article: YubNub - Gabriel Kent 22:06, 24 January 2006 (PST)
  • If it is too much like an ad (which was not my intent, see above and below), could you please provide suggestions on where it is too 'ADzy' and I will happily change.... - Gabriel Kent 22:10, 24 January 2006 (PST)

Comment, However the community rules, I will stand behind. It may just mean I need to work on it a bit more. I love Wikipedia (been supporting with $$$ and time/effort since the begining!...I am not trying to sell anything...what is there to sell?!?!? Anyway, thank you for your consideration. - Gabriel Kent 22:01, 24 January 2006 (PST)

• Delete. Once a piece software asserts prominence, it's eligible. This one doesn't look like it's there yet. --Agamemnon2 06:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to YubNub. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:43Z
• Delete or possibly merge with YubNub (which was kept by default, no consensus, recently, which indicates that a spin-off or plugin may well fall short) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, info better suited for the owners web page. —This user has left wikipedia 16:41 2006-01-25
• Delete, not a notable software product. Cedars 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• DubNub per nom. rodii 05:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Ellis Dodge

Automobile dealership in California; no claim to notability. Mikeblas 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The claim of notability here is that dealer had an effective ad jingle which made them famous in California. Well, isn't that what a good jingle is supposed to do? PJM 05:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge relevant parts with jingle. The car dealership isnt notable for anything other than the song -- Astrokey44|talk 05:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I remember the commercials, but this does not make the dealerships notable. Maybe we should delete Cal Worthington, as well. -- Kjkolb 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per nom.Blnguyen 07:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree that a catchy jingle doesn't make a car dealership notable, and isn't even worth merging with jingle, especially since it was only known locally. —simpatico ^hi 10:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:42 2006-01-25
• Delete I'd have said keep if there were any evidence that the jingle genuinely is still remembered, but 22 Google hits including WP does not suggest it really is. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Pete Ellis Dodge, Long Beach Freeway, Firestone exit, Southgate. (Sometimes it was Bellflower.) No one who ever heard this jingle, over the at least 30 years it's been running, ever forgot it; I'm certain that you could find several million people in the greater Los Angeles basin who could sing it for you. I'm inclined to find that degree of fame to be noteworthy. -Ikkyu2 06:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here in the Tennessee Valley, everyone, and I mean everyone, knows the Nice Cars spokesman, who has been the star of numerous and prolific off-beat commercials for the dealership. Every commercial ends with him getting a pie in the face and a one-liner. The ads have been running for years locally. Does he deserve a wikipage? Or are memes in California more notable than memes anywhere else (save New York, of course)? —simpatico ^hi 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Every local community knows some kind of jingle for a car dealership, because they play them to death on TV and Radio. If you walk around in Buffalo New York, and say "HUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGEEEEE" They'll know you're talking about Fucillo Chevrolet, but what makes that car dealship more notable to have it's own article? --lightdarkness 01:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, come on, twenty million southern Californians will go to their death beds with this song ringing in their ears. Surely that's worth a keep. Babajobu 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn-bio. Madchester 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thilo Savage

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

Seems to be NN internet site or even nn-bio. 1380 Google hits is too low for a "personal humor website" to be notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is ridiculous to even consider not making Thilo Savage an article... He is more than notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Gdawg99 04:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity Ruby 03:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Alexa ranking of >650,000 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- Astrokey44|talk 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to The Best Page in the Universe. Traffic Rank for ninjapirate.com: 59,316. (not 650,000). That's notable for being some guy's website. I thought BPitU used to mention it... —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:42Z
• Delete self-evident vanispamcruftisement. Just how many web links do you need in one article? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are 4 links, 3 of them are to 1 site and the other one is to the fan page that created this entry. Stop whining. -Bored
• Keep He gets more then a thousand readers for every article he makes within one day. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 212.75.76.125 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he's not "Pretending" to be the ninjapirate. Ninjapirate is a character he plays, just like Maddox is a character George plays, and he has his own Wiki entry. Thilo has recieved an e-mail from Maddox and had one of his articles mentioned on Conan o'Brien. He has two seperate pages and a fan page. There is no reason he shouldn't get his own entry here. This page is informative and took several fans edits and additions. Don't ruin their(our) work. —the preceding unsigned comment is by A Corpse Without Soul71.99.211.14 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this guy really were *the* Ninja Pirate, then maybe he'd deserve his own page. But someone who pretends to be the host of ninjapirate.com? That's not an article. --M@rēino 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Two fan forums, just like Maddox. Mentioned on Conan. Stand-up comedian. And he's Thilo. THILO. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sunni Jeskablo (talk • contribs) 07:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Keep it because reasons to delete it are "unreasonable." An article about a famous "webhost" online should be left alone. Bored @ http://users.boardnation.com/~thilos/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=107 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.192.176.71 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Thilo has a pretty huge cult following. It's worth keeping it. And it's just one article. I mean, c'mon...(Sunni J) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sunni Jeskablo (talk • contribs) 07:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you vote twice? Kusma (討論) 13:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. Influenced by sockpuppets and double-voting. Stifle 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been copy-pasted to their web forum, with the message that they will copy it back if it is deleted. Based on that, I request the closing admin to {{deletedpage}} it if the outcome is a delete. Furthermore I have sent the website a GFDL compliance notice. Stifle 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The above comment is ridiculous, the users at the forum spent so long to make this it seems inane for the admins to delete it and have it lost forever. Keep personal opinions to yourself, and don't try to influence the rest of the voters here. Based on that, I request that the above user be banned from wikipedia for contributing nothing than a biased ACCUSATION based off the OPINIONS of users on a fanboard. Bored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.176.71 (talk • contribs) 18:42, January 26, 2006
  • If you want to keep your hard work intact, post it on your own website, not on this encyclopedia. Also, if anyone has a personal stake in this, it's you. The rest of the Wikipedia editors here only have a stake in keeping Wikipedia a high-quality, relevant source of knowledge that the populace of editors (not a tiny cult fanbase in a web forum) deem notable. Stifle's comment was completely in line and recommends necessary measures given the reaction this has received. It's obvious you and your friends are not at all familiar with how this website works. —simpatico ^hi 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep site has worldwide recognition and a wide array of fans from different sides of the planet. It would be a dissapointment to let them down by deleting a simple article about a popular website comedian.[Comment by Roman] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.178.131 (talk • contribs) 19:30, January 26, 2006
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you vote twice?-Bored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.176.71 (talk • contribs) 20:01, January 26, 2006
• Delete. nn. --GeLuxe 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna Mark Two

Vanity page about a programmer writing games for old computers, 37 Google hits. His company has 49 hits. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable; vanity. -Ikkyu2 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete codes sprites and 2D games. Wake up and smell the first person 3D shooters. Ruby 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per nom.Blnguyen 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:37Z
• Delete as non-notable, dont forget to also delete Javier Rodríguez Cos (a redirect to the article in question). —This user has left wikipedia 16:46 2006-01-25
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable --Pak21 09:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tigeres

Some application suite that I was unable to find via Google (maybe it is still in development?). Makes me think it should not be included. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete very small potatoes. Ruby 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Plug: Please come help develop the inclusion guideline Wikipedia:Notability (software) for articles such as this. --Perfecto 06:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable software, probably created by students in one semester. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:37Z
• Redirect to Tigers or delete. Proto t c 13:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since I suspect it was made up in school by the author. Does not Google at all. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:34, 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. Babajobu 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toobis

Non-notable. Searching Google for "Christopher Scrimes" doesn't return any results. Alexa stats: Traffic Rank for toobis.com: 1,909,433; Other sites that link to this site: 2. Delete. utcursch | talk 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic and non-notable. Ruby 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable person (candidate in a small town local election plus nn website is not enough). Kusma (討論) 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Metta Bubble 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:36Z
• Remain The link is finally there. Googled "Christopher Scrimes" and it returned notable results. IdiotOfTheDead 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IdiotOfTheDead (talk • contribs) .
  • Try using quotes in the Google search, and please sign with four tildes and not with a link to somebody else's userpage. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am IdiotOfTheDead and signed with the link to my userpage because everyone else did. What do you mean by "Try using quotes in the Google search"? >IdiotOfTheDead 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)—the preceding unsigned comment is by IdiotOfTheDead (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You signed with a link to User:Endomion's user page, and did so again. Use four tildes please:~~~~ -- this will automagically produce a link to your userpage (not somebody else's). By quotes I mean this: [9]. Hope that helps, Kusma (討論) 23:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Scrimes. Kusma (討論) 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Encyclopedic? Maybe. Notable? No. Atrian 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xenistat

Claims about a trademarked dietary supplement unapproved by the FDA that has 2 google hits (which might be unrelated). Suspect hoax. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because "The information above has not been evaluated by the FDA" Ruby 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 3 Google results, none English. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable --W.marsh 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to be honest I didn't read past the TM. Since theya re so jealous of their intellectual property, far be it from us to infringe it by including the word in an article title. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:39, 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 No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuldip Manak

Delete. I don't believe this artist meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Very hard to read (may or may not have been wrote by a native English speaker). — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It asserts all the songs were hits, which would be very unusual. Not even all the songs on a Madonna CD are hits. Ruby 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - seems to be a reasonably notable Punjabi singer. Referred to as "famous" and "legendary" in some Indian press. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Referred to as famous and legendary pretty much everywhere, for that matter. --Malthusian (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article is so poorly written that it is very hard to pick any meaningful information out of the text. I believe that it was written by someone with English as a second or other language and does require a rewrite to bring it up to this WP's standard.  (aeropagitica)  07:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Jcuk 12:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Desitunes4u.com like him [10], and that's good enough for me - they're the best English resource on Indian music I'm aware of. Will try to rewrite myself this evening if no-one else does. --Malthusian (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I originally thought to not list this for deletion, as you'll see by my disclaimer at the top of the page in question. I was thinking more along the lines of a rewrite, but as (aeropagitica) said, "it is very hard to pick any meaningful information out of the text." I agree, thus why I listed it for deletion. But if Last Malthusian is willing to rewrite the article, I'd probably be interested in unlisting it for deletion. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Last Malthusian and reports by Indian press. Hall Monitor 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I cleaned it up, but I found exactly zero sources for a biography or even a half-way complete discography, despite the fact that a Google search shows artist after artist naming him as an influence and recording with him. I took some of the wilder claims out and added the scandal about his brother. I've contacted the article's creator to see if he knows any more. --Malthusian (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the same too, when I searched for him on Google, which I neglected to mention earlier. Thanks for trying to get this thing back together! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverifible, per Malthusian. Stifle 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, "Many other Indian music artists have cited Kuldip Manak as one of their favourite musicians and an inspiration" Kappa 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, per WP NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Madchester 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hip hop references

Essentially a catalog of selected allusions from hip hop music lyrics. Unencyclopedic, although Wikiquote "might could do somthin'" with this. FuriousFreddy 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Rap songs drop names of things all the time just to make a rhyme. "Cruisin wid my homies took a right on Minkler, we're all lookin cooler than Henry Winkler." Why document this? Ruby 03:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - A discussion of the phenomenon of hip hop "referencing" deserves inclusion (perhaps with some notable examples), but this discussion belongs in Rapping and/or related articles. This article is pure listcruft. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. PJM 04:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an interesting topic that wouldn't really be covered anywhere else - who says it needs to be comprehensive to be encyclopedic? HasNoClue 06:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Infinitely expandable and completely pointless. What do this references represent? How can anyone be sure they are representative of the balance of opinion among hip hip artists? A bad example of factoids (or should that be quotoids) being passed of as an article. Bhoeble 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bhoeble, Ruby, et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bhoeble. Sliggy 12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a noble effort but fatally flawed per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information - there is no practical limit to how big this list could be. The Sierra Leone references are poignant, but in the end hip-hop is simply documenting popular culture, so this adds nothing to what's already known except the subjective filter of a musical genre and the fans who choose to update this page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I created this entry, and I believe it's worth keeping. Referencing is an important part of hip hop, but interestingly, not all hip hop artists do so. I believe this list could be large, but not infinitely so. (compare to the List of neologisms on The Simpsons, which is huge and (in my opinion) of virtually no use) In the past I've wanted to research how different artists reference the criminal justice system, and how (mostly) black artists reference white popular culture (movies, books, etc.) This is the best place to collect that information. -Danspalding 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I agree that this list as is seems a bit random in its current state, however, I do not agree that it is useless, nor that hip hop is simply documenting popular culture. I think Danspalding (or someone) should expand the article to explain the popular culture phenomenon of hip hop references and the relevance, with context. Bubamara 21:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cirque Intelligence Service

Rumors about a secret service that protects Francophones and plans for a relocation of Israel. Looks like a hoax to me. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Zero Google results. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Why is it only Google results that indicate the validity of a cause for you? 134.117.181.53 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete stupid hoax or too many bong hits. Ruby 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  I hardly think the protection of Israel or francophones is supid nor a hoax, please explain your response.134.117.181.53 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious hoax. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  What are you suggesting is a hoax? What about recent threats to Israel or the ongoing anglophone-francophone debate in Canada are you questioning? 134.117.181.53 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - obvious hoax. Doesn't that mean Circus Intelligence Service? Agent Bobo reporting for duty! -Canley 04:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  From Secret Intelligence Service: "Author John le Carré is a former SIS officer, and the agency often features in his novels, where it is colloquially known as "the Circus". Examples include: the George Smiley series and The Tailor of Panama." 134.117.181.53 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: This anonymous user (134.117.181.53) vandalised the Cirque du Soleil page to add a reference to this non-existent group, which according to that article is tied to the United States Marine Corps and the World Wrestling Federation! I must say I've never seen such an empassioned defence of such a ludicrous hoax on AfD before. --Canley 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Perhaps some of the Wikipedia users here could offer evidence why it is only "Google" search engine results that prove the authenticity of a particular cause. Are any of those here currently arguing for deletion familiar with any of the issues associated with this matter? On what basis do you feel your desire to delete this page is valid? Are any of you involved with the Cirque Intelligence Service? This page was created out of a desire to establish information for others about a legitimate organization. How can those unfamiliar with the security risks of Israel and of the desire to protect and encourage the rights of Quebec offer any sort of opinion on the matter. How in fact do any of the users contributing to this discussion feel empowered enough to make decision regarding this matter? Are you in fact francophones? Those of you that indicate that any desire to protect Israel or the rights of francophones as a 'hoax' is disturbing. 134.117.181.53 08:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am happy to be convinced that this is not a hoax. Please show that the article is verifiable by citing reliable sources. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Must be a wikipedia conspiracy. Better get CIS on it. Atrian 04:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete boollocks. Blame Canada did this much better - at least it was funny. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a waste of bits. Carlossuarez46 19:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Supprimer (Delete) pourquoi? parce que je ne le crois pas... Marcus22 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Hull Universtiy Labour Club

Delete. Typo. Duplicate content exists at Hull University Labour Club -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Another possibility to entertain is a redirect to the correctly spelled page. -Rebelguys2 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hull University Labour Club. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Zzuuzz, people make typos all the time or create duplicates because they don't know about redirects. Next time, when you see duplicates, try to decide which is the correct title then redirect everything else there. It takes less time and effort from everyone. --Perfecto 06:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles. Absolutely no basis to be in wikipedia. Ruby
• Speedy Delete both, nn-club -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with no redirect, as it is an unlikely misspelling. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles as this is a non-notable organisation.  (aeropagitica)  07:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this one. —simpatico ^hi 10:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this misspelling as well as correctly-spelled article as nn-club. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:36Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft: The Light and Shadow

Wikipedia is not a place to store your essays on World of Warcraft. Delete. enochlau (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dissertation on some new age topic. Ruby 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My god! Why don't they just start a blog :P čĥàñľōŕď 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, but I hope the author doesn't think we're harsh if he sees this AfD... just that as has been said, POV essays are not what Wikipedia is for. --W.marsh 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone is that clueless and misguided, I could not care less what they think of us. This is an encyclopedia, not a romping ground for videogame philosophers. --Agamemnon2 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 07:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ha ha! IGN and GameFAQs have stuff like this, not Wikipedia. Delete of course. Grandmasterka 08:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this fancruft POV essay. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:34Z
• Delete as non-encyclopedic per nom. Essexmutant 13:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:32, 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. Babajobu 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War 100

Only 40 strips; Alexa 5,194,773; "syzigy.org" gets three hits on Google, including Wikipedia; "World War 100" gets more, but they're mostly irrelevant and the top page is again Wikipedia. Melchoir 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn webcomic. Ruby 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 05:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable webcomic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:32Z
• Delete per nom. Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB; we're unable to write encyclopedia articles when there are no reliable sources for a topic. -- Dragonfiend 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and give those four teens the nothing in particular they are questing for. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:43, 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. Shanel 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 mile

Could be speedyable for nonsense, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt - it is at least a bit decipherable. But not verifiable and probably not real. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well this isn't speedyable as nonsense since you can figure out what it's talking about... it's just a bit incoherent. Individual streets/roads are rarely notable, but we do have an article on 8 Mile Road for example (important long before the movie of a similar name). Anyway this particular article has obvious issues, might be something for Wikinews if cleaned up but I'm not seeing that it's an encyclopedia article really. Weak delete --W.marsh 04:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly not patent nonsense, as explained above, but not notable either. PJM 04:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in accordance with the thinking of PJM. Ruby 05:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:31Z
• Delete pure Art Brut genius. I'm copying it for posterity, but it doesn't belong here. Nathan Beach 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough (assuming it's real). Latinus 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Seven Mile Road runs all the way across Detroit, through many different areas, and is not the identity of any distinct neighborhood. The article is incoherent. Kestenbaum 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have rewritten this and removed the references to a single act of violence that formed the bulk of the text. It is now a stub that could someday be expanded with more information about the neighborhoods around Seven mile Road and more encyclopedic content. TMS63112 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is kept it should probably be moved to Seven Mile Road with redirects from 7 Mile, 7 mile, and 7 Mile Road. TMS63112 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article still refers to "the area" identified by Seven Mile Road. But there is no such "area" -- it slices completely across the city, through many different areas with wildly different characteristics. Yes, most of them are predominantly African American, but so is almost all of Detroit. It's like making a generalization about "the area" along the 39th parallel in the U.S., including Newark, Columbus, Kansas City, Denver, and San Francisco, and all the territory in between. It's hard to imagine any generalizations about that "area" that wouldn't apply pretty well to the U.S. as a whole. [Oops, forgot to sign this earlier. Kestenbaum 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)]
    • Yes, and it also extends into the western suburbs of Detroit, which are very different from the neighborhoods in Detroit that it cuts through. The artilce probably needs editing by someone more familiar with Detroit than I am (I've been there once) but I see how this could be a decent article, with links to the neighborhoods and suburbs that the road runs through. But I live 700 miles away and I know the road, so I consider it notable TMS63112 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sure, I can see how it could be a decent article, assuming that other at least equally noteworthy streets typically have articles. I haven't looked yet, but what about, say, Woodward Avenue or Brush Street in Detroit? Beale Street in Memphis? Peachtree Street in Atlanta? State Street or "The Magnificent Mile" in Chicago? Fifth Avenue in NYC? Summit Boulevard in St. Paul? Bourbon Street in New Orleans? Each of those have a lot of cultural/historical significance, mentioned in book titles, song lyrics, known to people who have never been to those cities, etc. Kestenbaum 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • State Street (Chicago), Peachtree Street, Michigan Avenue, Woodward Avenue, and Beale Street all have articles. Bourbon Street redirects to French Quarter. These streets are all more notable than Seven Mile, but, let's face it, Seven Mile is probably more notable than Cooter, Missouri or any of the dozens of small towns that have wiki articles. I seem to be the only one who wants to keep this, and I'm not likely to expand it any time soon, so if people prefer, I would be perfectly happy with a redirect to Mile Road System (Detroit). TMS63112 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I could support a redirect. There's nothing to merge though. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom incog 03:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's been rewritten. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to Mile Road System (Detroit)....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Will be useful for searchers and has some non-obvious information and, per above discussion, seems notable enough, if barely.--ragesoss 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Let's not start making articles based on their relevance relative to other articles. Just because George Washington's mother gave birth to George Washington doesn't make her encyclopedia-worthy, and neither does the fact that this street is next to 8 mile make it worthy. User: Klestrob44

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comtel and Comtel (VoIP Equipment)

WP:SPAM. No alexa traffic data for the site [11]. 3 google hits [12]. Interiot 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The original author made sure to edit Voice over IP and List of Canadian companies too when he made this ad, and then he dropped off the face of the Wikipedia. Ruby 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there are actually several companies called Comtel, and wouldn't you just know it theya re all the leader in something more or less similar to this field! Who'd have thought it? This particular version is a copy & paste from the website, and offers no evidence there or here of meeting WP:CORP. I could try harder to find info which might just save it, but why should I care if the spammer creator evidently doesn't? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete both as copyvios. Stifle 14:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, not notable. Thue | talk 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webworldx

Non-notable web programmer --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 04:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nn-bio. I don't count "wwx is a legend at proboards!!" as an assertion of notability. Kusma (討論) 05:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Kusma. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --Lockley 08:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable biography; tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:19Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preparing for College

Copyvio? OR? Either way, WP:NOT a guidance counselor. No edit history, nothing links to it, seems like a quick cut-n-paste job. High probability of copyvio rules out even a merge, so delete Turnstep 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT a how-to guide. Kusma (討論) 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, WP:NOT. PJM 05:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kusma. Ruby 05:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kusma -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - it looks exactly like something I read when I was trying to get into college two years ago... Grandmasterka 06:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per "duh." Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:10Z
• Delete per above. Latinus 20:30, 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. Babajobu 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twin Cities Boroughs

I live in the Twin Cities, but haven't heard of them having "three boroughs", the best of them being Brooklyn Park. Actually I haven't heard of the Twin Cities having boroughs at all, but maybe that's because I spend too much time on Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a very poor article. Ruby 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I used to live in the Twin Cities, and I never heard anyone speak of "boroughs." Even if there are such things, they should be discussed in the Minneapolis-St. Paul article. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've lived in Minneapolis my entire life -- Brooklyn Park is a suburb, definitely not a borough. What a strange thing. Grandmasterka 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Very poor article stub.  (aeropagitica)  07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:31Z
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• merge into Minneapolis-st Paul]]. if thats the twin cities meant - or is it dallas-fort worth, napier-hastings, or any other twin cities? (and before anyone suggests it, napier-hastings is also "The Twin Cities" with capitals). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the Wikipedians in the Twin Cities. So much for what the article says that "the Minnesotans there consider...." Doctor Whom 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polkacide

Non-notable band vanity. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this nn-band advertisement. Kusma (討論) 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but expand, if the band is so notable there should be something more to be say about it. I still think the original speedy deletion vote was justified. Kusma (討論) 13:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn band Ruby 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. Weak keep based on Calton's findings below. Untagged. PJM 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per {{nn-band}}.  (aeropagitica)  07:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn band. --Terence Ong 08:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable band (see below). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:09Z
• Keep They've been around for at least 20 years, pretty well-known in the San Francisco Bay Area, have been played on the Doctor Demento Show [13], 11,800 hits on Google (427 listed as unique -- I'm not quite sure that works, since someone on AfD claimed that they only show the first 1,000, which, if true, makes it a 427/1000 batting average), 286 hits on Google Groups, and four in Google Books (including a hit from the The Rough Guide Music USA in 1999). Also, appearances on polka compilations (including this one: see Track 11).

All this I turned up in about 15 minutes (except the "well-known in the San Francisco Bay Area" -- I already knew it, which is why I bothered to look), so no, they're not a "non-notable band". --Calton | Talk 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you add that to the article? Technically the article still qualifies as {{nn-band}}, which does not mean that the band is not notable, just that the article does not assert why it is. Also, I still don't believe that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I revised the stub so that it no longer meets A7. Also, I see that they have two albums listed at alllmusic.com. PJM 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the weaknesses inherent in WP:MUSIC dissuade you. If a band is featured on a nationally syndicated radio show, as well as worthy of mention in a notable music guide, it's safe to say a band meets basic notability standards. Expanding A7 was such a poor idea. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the A7 expansion has worked out quite well. AFD is no longer crawling with garage band stubs. However, in this case I'm certainly guilty of taking a poorly written stub at face value. I look forward to avoiding this type of oversight in the future. Humbly, PJM 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is when bands like this nearly get speedied, and acts like Fiona Sit DO get speedied due to people not doing research before tagging. It doesn't hurt a thing for people to be able to see these acts on AfD - it invariably helps improve the articles to reach notability. But i'm just ranting at this point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see your point and by no means do I think there's no risk of human error. But would it not be nice if all users (authors) would take the time to look at the policies and guidelines relating to their subjects before they post articles? That would definitely help eliminate most of the bad taggings. PJM 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I said in my RfA that I would be extremely conservative in deleting per nn-band; I always double check, at the very least on allmusic and Amazon, and I think I might have deleted maybe one or two, and those beyond any shadow of doubt. I have untagged as including an assertion of notability far more than I have myself tagged as nn-band. Not everyone is so careful, partly because we trust people to do a check before tagging. But in the end if a band is speedied because of a really bad article which completely fails to let on how important they are, it's really not that big a deal - someone will be along soon with a better one. Of course, that does rely on admins checking db-repost carefully to make sure the content really is similar, and where it is not, untagging. That mop comes with a long stick with which to beat us. Ah well. But in the end, nn-band is a good thing. We really were getting garage bands at the rate of dozens a day sometimes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, when you have an AfD template and a CSD template, it's not easy to see what was deleted so we can make sure the article is an improvement, even in an initial stub size. God forbid we have to go through a deletion process to see if perhaps the people creating garage band articles were not aware of our notability standards, and if the community can actually clean them up. A bit snappy at the newbies, perhaps? I don't know, but when an article like this (and it's not the first and won't be the last) is tagged nn-band incorrectly, the chances of losing the article without many people knowing are greater, and hurts the WP as a result. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Losing a potentially legitimate article that way is unfortunate, but as JzG noted, a truly notable subject will find its way back. I think that's a pretty fair assumption. PJM 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And that we're to the point where we can say "Hey, let's speedy notable articles if we can't gleam notability at a glance, because they'll just come back anyway" shows that we're in a sadder state here than we might be willing to admit. If we spent less time attempting to speedy articles that might be nn and took that time to establish notability, we'd probably be better off, but I'm in a clear minority on that one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not how I meant it at all - now you've lost me. I for one do not feel that carefree about it, despite my error in judgement on this one. I can see where you're coming from on this, but speedy deletion is a necessary "evil", if you will. Unless you think going through piles of garbage in AFD, or during a random article browse, is a good thing. PJM 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I recognize I'm in the minority - I see it as a very good thing for the encyclopedia. It's doubled as a sort of article review in many cases, and that only improves the encyclopedia. Speedying articles willy-nilly because they don't appear to be notable at first glance and because it's easier to throw a tag on than research it isn't an "evil" we should be accepting. I've ranted enough for now, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Calton's excellent research. --badlydrawnjeff 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton Flowerparty■ 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton. Flapdragon 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: but only because of Dr. Demento. Otherwise, this band is still not exactly overflowing with notability. Two albums in 20 years on allmusic and one unavailable album on Amazon. And it's supposed to be major labels, right? As far as the speedy delete criteria, it's up to the article creator to establish notability, not the deletion nominator. IMHO anyway. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if I nominated this. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All valid points on CSD, wknight94...that's certainly the way it should be. But I also see the value in helping those that, for one reason or another, don't help themselves on the Wiki (and I'm no bleeding heart case, believe me). PJM 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Calton --OntarioQuizzer 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton. Good catch. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton. I don't think we should be faulted for voting 'speedy delete' initially though, as there was no assertion of notability, even if it is notable. If you saw how many articles did not have to go through AFD you might temper your disapproval of A7 a little. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-26 09:27Z
  • I cycle through AfD every morning. I don't vote on everything, but I look at almost every nomination. If it's something that looks more notable than it should be, is it difficult to take a few seconds and hop on Google to verify the articles, and perhaps actually add to them. The A7 expansion encourages lazy voting and denies those of us who might actually want to improve the article an opportunity to work with an already-established article as opposed to starting from scratch and possibly having someone speedy the recreation again out of turn. Too many articles get deleted through AfD that shouldn't be already, why allow for more of them to be deleted without an opportunity for improvement by people who wouldn't notice them otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • (Replied on User talk:Badlydrawnjeff —Quarl ^(talk)

2006-01-27 22:15Z)

• Keep per Calton. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep expand --Addie 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaban

This article provides little context, is made up almost entirely of sentence fragments, and is very difficult to understand. Also it sites no refrences, and the info in the article doesn't seem right. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made up. Tobyk777 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to be an article about a surname. Ruby 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete FYI: The author appears to be on a mission to eliminate all links between Spain and the Philipines from Wikipedia. -- Richfife 06:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 09:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:09Z
• Delete - per nom. Latinus 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since I had trouble even understanding it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:10, 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. --JoanneB 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Kelly (Canadian politician)

Independent candidate who won less than 3 percent of the vote in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke electoral district. No assertion of notability besides being a candidate. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the deletion comment, I was filling the followup while the comment was added. Although he did not win that many votes, his performance greatly affected the number of votes that Don Linsay recieved, and thus had an impact on the final count. Most of this is what he said at all-candidates debates, I am currently filling in details about sources of the information

• Delete. My copy of the Calgary Herald indeed confirms he lost the election, coming in last in a 5 way race with 1290 votes. Theoretically it could be merged with a list of independent candidates, but as far as I can tell no such list exists. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 08:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failed politician manqué. Come back when he's been elected to a major national office. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. Yes he was not elected but he deserves to stay up inspite of that. He put his name forward for election but was not successful. I think that counts for something. The information here is a bit rough. I'm going to post the information he submitted to me in his profile shortly. User_talk:Tovnd
• Delete if not re-written - I think that there is room on Wikipedia for the odd-balls of politics and, in fact, that is one of WIkipedia's strengths. There is not room, however, for rambling vanity articles like this one. If someone wants to re-write this, great. If not, delete as vanity. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. This article is a bio about a person and that is exactly what it is. This bio was submitted by Paul Kelly himself, how is that Vanity? (Second vote by User_talk:Tovnd)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Ground Zero | t 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I have cleaned up the article and inserted references and links, it is no longer a vanity piece. There is someone who keeps putting up a rewrite of the drivel Paul posted in a press release, that person should refrain from doing so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal pandering site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.92.62 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2006
• Do Not Delete. Paul Kelly has become a local household name in Renfrew County. Everyone in the riding knows him, and he has become something of a local celebrity for his ludicrous and farcical statements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.117.5 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 January 2006
• Redirect to Independent candidates, Canadian federal election, 2006 or similar. -- Mwalcoff 00:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis article should be kept, many other articles of less notable people are kept--69.156.148.99 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• There's a very real and ongoing divergence of opinion on whether unelected candidates merit Wikipedia articles or not; the current compromise position favours keeping a single unified list. Merge into a Independent candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election list. Bearcat 20:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think he merits inclusion. Ardenn 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless Pile Day

Non-notable holiday, if not a hoax. No indication of its existence on Google. Wikipedia is NOT for something you made up in school one day. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: article itself admits that it is non-notable. --Mareino 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless article. PJM 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: I've seen worse holidays. Go delete them. Section9 05:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Section9 is the creator of this article. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Look at all of these.Section9—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Section9 (talk • contribs)

If there is a particular holiday article that you feel is "unworthy", you can certainly list it here in AFD. However, I would not recommend it unless you can make a legitimate case for its deletion. Beyond that, vague fingerpointing is generally ingnored. PJM 06:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "Useless Pile day may also be known as Worthless Pile Day in certain regions of the United States"? By whom? Who would care? Grandmasterka 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} article. Can't be defended by the author recommending deletion of other pages before their own.  (aeropagitica)  07:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, not some nonsense here again. --Terence Ong 08:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:08Z
• Delete this useless pile of - er, well, WP:NFT anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: How long does it take to delete an article? Section9 02:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G1. Mushroom 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David G. Kendall

Delete. Just a bit of housekeeping. This page was a redirect to article David George Kendall, which was itself deleted for copyvio. Lockley 05:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 05:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion R1; broken redirects can be speedied. No AfD (or RfD for that matter) required. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:36, 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. Babajobu 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Prince

delete. this person's bio does not seem encyclopedic enough to warrant a page Mayumashu 05:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. A Google search for "Mark Prince coffee" brings up nearly 2 million hits, but... eh. per TheMidnighters below. —simpatico ^hi 07:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete --Terence Ong 08:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search of "mark prince" coffee returned 126 unique results. --TheMidnighters 09:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Claims his coffee website sees 500,000 people a month and rising, which is quite believable considering Alexa chart [14]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:07Z
• Delete as not notable enough to have own article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an article about a coffee geek created by user:Coffeegeek. Let's join the dots here... I will userfy it for him. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:13, 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. Babajobu 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SendAnInvite

Apparently they got an invite to come here and announce their new site.-- Perfecto 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB. --Perfecto 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as advertisement -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was already previously deleted as copyvio. I'm sure speedying it will assure a comeback. --Perfecto 06:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Advertising is not there. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's a widely believed fact. ;-) Spam is not on there, either, though it's often cited as a speedy delete reason, too. Spam is sometimes said to be included under "vandalism" (G3) but the definition given is "Adding inappropriate external links for advertisement and/or self-promotion." If an article consists of just external links, it can be deleted, though. -- Kjkolb 07:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Bhoeble 09:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:04Z
• Delete Obviously advertising - non notable website Grandwazir 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable: fails WP:WEB. Bcasterline 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Let's uninvite them. Delete. Stifle 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crolf

Hybrid sport invented by some guy, unreferenced. Neglected article created by 67.171.36.202 (talk · contribs). Not sure if this is notable. Weak Google hits (175 unomitted). krolf.dk hangs my browser. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 06:12Z

• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, smells like vanity to me. Ramanpotential 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 09:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is like "base-ketball" but without a movie. Ruby 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT, which this probably is. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:18, 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. 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: [15] -- 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. Babajobu 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfectcompetition.net, round 2

It was deleted in April as too new. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfectcompetition.net. But the game has not grown: it's forum shows 2,778 members; 673 topics; 2,710 messages. Not notable.

• Delete Renata 07:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to break the 2 million mark on Alexa, less than one post per member on the forum - not, I think notable per WP:WEB and little evidence of notability by any other criterion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG; these things are like the zombies in ... that zombie killin' game. House of the Dead. Yeah. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per zat Guy. Latinus 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Why is Industryplayer notable and included? Have a look at their forums? They supposedly have 2386 posts and only 323 "active players". SL2006 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably because nobody had spotted it and nominated it for deletion yet. --kingboyk 16:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have just nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industryplayer Renata 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per failure to assert notability. —Cleared as filed. 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xess

A pointless page. The band is neither well known, nor well documented. The page consists of one line of the band advertising themselfs as two genres that dont exist. Doesnt meet Wikipedia's Policy for bands to be given articles, nor do they have any information on the band. Possibly Advertising. Leyasu 07:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: see first AFD —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:01Z

• Keep as per previous vote. Notable in their own country. Proto t c 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable in their own country doesnt constitute Wikipedia Policy. Leyasu 10:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes it does. Proto t c 11:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

When i checked, a band must have good notablity in far more than just their own country, as only note-worthy bands with a good amount of sources and good articles are allowed by policy. Leyasu 12:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Article does not assert the bands importance on the charts, awards shows, or as the pioneers of a recognized genre. Ruby 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Ruby. --Terence Ong 14:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as not internationallly notable. I would assert that Lithuania is not a medium or large country for the purposes of WP:NMG. Stifle 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuus

Article about a webforum claiming 5000 members. However, website is unreachable -- no DNS entries for www.cuus.cn, cuus.cn, etc. (for me at least). No Google hits for Chinese Undergraduate at the United States. Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 07:33Z

• Delete. I agree with the nomination. -- Mikeblas 08:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Oscarthecat 08:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 14:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, website unreachable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and let this article join its subject in 404dom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:21, 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. Babajobu 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kollaps (flash)

Flash animation website; no assertion or evidence of notability. Traffic Rank for kollaps.ru: 3,187,900. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 07:43Z

• Delete -- Longhair 11:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 12:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete flashcruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as flashcruft. Stifle 14:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsourcing typing

Reads like a (blatant?) advertisement for "OutSec" (www.outsec.co.uk). Article's creator and only editor was User:Richard Phillips, who signs his name at the bottom and gives his title as (surprise!) Operations Director, OutSec Limited. The article concept on its own does not seem like it could be expanded/changed to have its own (non-advert) article, thus, delete.-- PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, almost looks computer-generated. Gazpacho 08:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant spam/advertising. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:00Z
• Delete vanispamcruftisement for a non-notable company. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This belongs on a corporate website rather than an encyclopædia.  (aeropagitica)  17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 20:28, 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 article was speedily deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cemetery Of Scream

Non notable band. Notability tag ha dbeen applied and ignored. Comes across as possible advertising. Normally would leave open for expansion, but after ignoring of the notablity tag (mostly due to non-notablity) the article should be deleted. Leyasu 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the article to make notability. Delete. Jawz 08:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable band. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:59Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of communist countries

Even ignoring the POV title, this list is a hopeless stub. There are only 5 Communist states in the world right now, and the likelihood that The Revolution will suddenly erupt and create a hundred more is rather slim. There is no point in having a separate article for a list with only 5 entries and little or no chances of gaining any additional ones in the near future. Besides, it's redundant with material already present at Communist state. Delete. Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jawz 08:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a redundant list. A category might make sense, but there's no need to have a HTML page with five countries on it and nothing else. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Categorify, if it's not alread been done. Delete this, though. Proto t c 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There's Category:Communist states, but it's not limited to current govs. ×Meegs 11:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A better list already appears at the end of the referenced article at Communist_state#List of current Communist states. ×Meegs 11:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs 12:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - A list of formerly communist countries might be more useful. Ruby 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but I disagree that the title is POV (you make like or dislike communism but it is an ideology and there are and/or have been communist countries which is not meant to be pejorative just a fact) Carlossuarez46 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - all info here is already in Communist state. Latinus 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant in a bad way (RAIR? Redundant array of inexpensive redirects?) . Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. The title is POV, there's a perfectly good category for it, and it appears to be a list created just for the sake of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 14:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfied since it was created by the subject. Left a note about WP:AUTO on user page. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leenn

Vanity, nothing but an advertisment. Lightdarkness 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. --Lightdarkness 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gazpacho 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hirudo 08:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why not speedy? -- Mikeblas 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't see advertisment under speedy criteria --Lightdarkness 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Axver 08:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, just advertisement Dakota ~ ε 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. No Alexa traffic rank. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:58Z
• Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy since it was very obviously created by the subject under an account with the same name. In fact, I'll do it now... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:31, 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. Babajobu 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Sacci

nn criminal Hirudo 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There's lots of Category:Mass murderers here, so the quantity is notable. The article needs details (how many in the family?) and references, tho. -- Mikeblas 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd still lean towards deletion for not being exceptional enough to merit an article, but since the correctly-spelled name does turn up some legitimate press as per Sliggy I can live with a Move to Richard Sacchi. Hirudo 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think this person's name might be misspelt. A google on Richard Sacci only turns up this article plus copies. A google on Richard Sacchi turns up some external news reports/references. Also, the Wikipedia article on Eastchester (CDP), New York (where the murders took place) spells the name with an "h". In any case, I agree that this article needs more details and some references. Sliggy 12:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Delete on reflection, as there are hardly any sources even for the Sacchi spelling, and those that are available are woefully short on detail (all agree that his grandmother and one cop were murdered, but no other details are given). Also, having read User:JzG's comments below I think nothing would be lost if this was done away with. Sliggy 18:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can be bothered to fix the fact that it is mis-spelled, written in unencyclopaedic tones, unreferenced, contains speculation and is pretty much a stub. I don't doubt the subject is real, but there is no need to keep its seat warm until somoene comes along with a good article, and why should I care enough to do that if the creator didn't? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, belongs on Wikinews and we can't transwiki, stupid laws... Stifle 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cal Worthington

Not notable car dealership owner. No claim to notability in article. Search gets about 2800 hitts. [16] Mikeblas 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as pop culture reference. Relatively obscure now but Cal & his tv commercials were familiar to millions of southern Californians in 1960s and 1970s. Comparable to Madman Muntz. I'd hate to see him go. --Lockley 08:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also thee 1980s (shudder)

• Delete non-notable vanity piece. --Oscarthecat 08:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 11:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with My Dog Spot. I don't know him myself, but this search and the fact that the two articles have been made apparently independently, makes me agree that Lockley is right. Andre Engels 12:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with My Dog Spot -- or, really, merge My Dog Spot with it. Much as it pains me personally*, this has pop-culture resonance. And Google gives it 26,000 hits -- including, God help us all, a website archive of his commercials. --Calton | Talk 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*Note my name. Imagine what happens when I meet someone from southern California. Imagine having to listen to that damned jingle one more time from the southern Californian. Cringe.

Note. I only get 889 hits at Google. [17]. -- Mikeblas 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There's at least 2900 hits [18]. --Interiot 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable pop culture figure of the past, regularly joked about by California-based talk show hosts like Johnny Carson. Monicasdude 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep borders on the trivial, but is well known in California. Carlossuarez46 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cultural icon in California, and was the subject of many Johnny Carson satires in the day. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Johnny Carson reference, also national notability per articles in Washington Post Oct. 26, 2005; Sacramento Bee Dec. 21, 1998, USA Today Feb. 12, 1996.
• Keep per lengthy amount of information on amusing animals. --Interiot 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Unfortunately very slightly notable. — RJH 16:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sperm Burp

Non-notable name for burping after fellatio. I couldn't verify it through casual Google search and didn't want to click on any search results. Delete; if verified would still be better to merge it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 08:09Z

• • NB - this vote is being vandalised by User:129.35.81.19, who keeps changing votes. Proto t c 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable nonsense. --Oscarthecat 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article was requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine. It's easily verifiable as slang with a little research. [19]. That said, maybe there's a good reason to delete the article ... -- Mikeblas 08:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article request was added there four days before creation of this article by User:DigitalPimpette, the author of Sperm Burp. Kusma (討論) 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge?, although to me it sounds like a neologism... Jawz 08:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this neologism. Ugh. Grandmasterka 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete before I friggin' vomit. —simpatico ^hi 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Being a requested article doesn't mean the article should actually exist. Delete neologism. Proto t c 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. --Terence Ong 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete disgusting term that gave some kids a few giggles to write up. Ruby 12:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Surely this ought to fall under some Speedy delete criteria. DreamGuy 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it must happen, and someone musta called it summat! Jcuk 15:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Flapdragon 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; slang dictionary definition. - Liberatore(T) 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef slang. Kusma (討論) 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this was already deleted once as nonsense but without AfD. There is absolutely nothing encyclopaedic to say about this: it is is a trivial and obvious neologism. Tell me honestly, did you need to read the article to know what it was about? It's utterly worthless. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fellatio-cruft. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:25, Jan. 26, 2006

[edit] Author defends her article

- This is not slang. If I wrote an article called blow job, this is slang for fellatio. There is no proper term for a sperm burp. If you know of a proper term for sperm burp, please share it, and I will gladly rewrite. - In defense of neologism, I would point out there are lots of subjects and terms on Wikipedia that fall under this category. At what point do we judge the newness of a term to no longer be new? - Personal opinions about the character and suitability are not descriminating factors in deletion. There are many articles on Wikipedia that could be offensive to people. - I did consider merging this article into burp, but I felt it should be kept seperate because of its sexual nature.

My vote is *Keep. DigitalPimpette 6:51 pm 1.25.2006

• Delete - dicdef or neologism. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I say delete and transwiki to wiktionary.--Brian1979 15:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SdlBasic:code:painting, SdlBasic:sample:colors

Wikipedia is not a code repository. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 08:17Z

• Delete as per nom. Jawz 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, author mistook WP for a free web host. Gazpacho 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks if anyone wants it, otherwise delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's written in a language invented by the author. Gazpacho

Note: I bundled SdlBasic:sample:colors at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 11:03Z

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SdlBasic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 11:04Z

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Quarl. Ruby 12:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Makemi 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:38, 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. Babajobu 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike mika

Non-notable vanity biography of a bipedal mammal. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 08:20Z

• Delete, is this an advertisement about a company or their company motto?Jawz 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this mammal, perhaps BJAORN. Grandmasterka 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:BALLS. Stifle 14:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe this is an article about a real person, and am nominating to delete it as a non-notable biography; I don't think it is complete bollocks. The "bipedal mammal" statement is cute but informationless vanity. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 22:26Z

• Delete nnb. -HiFiGuy 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• He's the head of the largest studio of the largest independet videogame company in the US. He's written million plus selling games, and made substantial contributions to the craft of games. The bio is pretty short, but it is not innaccurate.
• Comment: I did a little bit of research on this one, and it seems like Mr. Mika and Backbone Entertainment are very much on the way up. However, this guy is the head of a studio of a division of a company who's own page kind of admits that it's far from the biggest thing in video games. (I'm a moderate fan of video games and I'd never heard of "Foundation 9 Entertainment".) So until this guy has more direct and verifiable accomplishments until his belt (which he undoubtedly will) I still think this article should be deleted. Grandmasterka 08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, other topics will have to be AfD'd separately. Babajobu 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integral Cosmology

Non-notable pseudoscientific supposed-subbranch of cosmology. The Integral Cosmologists are "clairvoyant, visionary, channeller", etc. Scant Google hits for "integral cosmology". I have some background in Astrophysics, and have never heard of this. This article was previously created by the same user and deleted, but this is apparently not a repost according to MarkGallagher. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 08:24Z

• Delete. 85 hits on google with the first one being Wikipedia. Other hits seem to mention this all encompassing view of cosmology, however, at this point in time I don't think it deserves its own article. Perhaps it would do just fine as a mention in Cosmology. Jawz 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete False advertising, pseudoscience posing as cosmology. Ruby 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - makeup. Latinus 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Doing more research, I discovered there are also articles on Integral ecology, Integral yoga, Integral psychology, etc. I know enough physical cosmology to tell that Integral Cosmology is bollocks, but would like someone else to comment about the other ones. Perhaps they can all be slight-merged to Integral theory (philosophy), iff that is a notable pseudoscience (else they should all be deleted). There is also Esoteric cosmology, which is apparently not related to this Integral stuff. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-26 10:10Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Moyes

Non-notable DJ. About 500 hits [20]. I can't seem to verify the "most popular DJ in Russia" claim. Mikeblas 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete seems nn Renata 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep claims to be first English DJ in a Russian club. Jean-Michel Jarre gets a blurb for being the first western musician to play in modern China. Ruby 19:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. And I don't buy the 1st DJ claim either: I know of English DJ's who played there way back just after Gorbywhatsit handed over to that bloke that used to drink too much... Marcus22 21:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. I'm open to change if there are references added for the {{fact}} tags I added. Stifle 14:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet Television

Delete unverifiable advertisng vanity Dakota ~ ε 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

delete. Obvious vanity. They didn't even bother to talk about themselves in the third person. --대조 | Talk 08:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No googles, unverifiable, advertising, vanity.--Dakota ~ ε 08:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, vanity. Puppet Television, is still at the early ages of its birth and pre-production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:54Z
• Delete per Quarl. --Terence Ong 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because "The website, the episodes, will all be up later this year " Ruby 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:26, 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 speedy delete as CSD G1 (nonsense). Mushroom 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTL Style

Every single edit in this page is total nonsense with no encyclopaedic content. Ben W Bell 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Spam. Delete. Jawz 08:39, 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Study Wiki

Non-notable wiki. No Alexa rank or google rank for website. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 08:40Z

• Delete merely an advert. --Oscarthecat 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - maybe someday. Renata 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -Rebelguys2 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Christcruft.  :-P Cyde Weys 21:32, 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 Merge and redirect. Babajobu 07:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hupogrammos Disciple's

Band member. But worthy of article of his own? Vanity+non-notable imho. Oscarthecat 08:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the first paragraph into Negura Bunget (his band), and leave a redirect. Lose the second, huge, paragraph, which smells of copyvio. Proto t c 09:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed to Proto. Renata 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if copyvio; otherwise, merge and redirect. -Rebelguys2 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect assuming it isn't a copyvio. Stifle 14:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin M. James

Senior artist at a studio, but notable? Oscarthecat 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say so - did the art for a game that sold over a million copies = his artwork is in over a million households. Keep if referenced and cleaned up. Proto t c 09:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I cannot find anything on Google. Renata 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems non-notable. -Rebelguys2 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Latinus. Stifle 14:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elddir

Non-notable web game -- Longhair 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:53Z
• Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:25, 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 Result : Speedy Deletion (non-notable)

[edit] The waverton collective

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Not notable. -- Longhair 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable band. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:28Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts Last Conflict

Non-notable fan fiction. No Google hits. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:07Z

• I'd Speedy if I could. Not only is it nonnotable fan fiction, it's not even written yet. Delete Night Gyr 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it non notable fan fiction. --Terence Ong 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds interesting, but since the work has not been released, and "little to nothing is known about the plot", it can not possibly meet Wikipedia:Notability. ×Meegs 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. Delete, FFINN. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 18:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why is it even here? Jaybenad 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I haven't counted the "votes", so I don't know what a strict numerical result would be, but my gut says "don't delete". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otley Run

An article about a particular pub crawl. The author has designated about a third of it as "trivia" but in the context of an encyclopedia, I think that is rather low. Not verifiable from mainstream published sources. Delete. Bhoeble 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, every town in the UK has a pub crawl, not one of them is special, nor are they encyclopaedic. And WP:V, also. Proto t c 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:26Z
• Delete per Proto. Maybe merge some of the trivia with Headingley -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Proto. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep Farily well known to the average students at Leeds uni. Probalby verifiable by local/university press. --Salix alba (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a list of student habits or pubs. Stifle 14:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - potentially provides insight on life in a studentified area.Jamse 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The consensus seems to be to delete this article. Would the same apply to Campus 14? Lan3y 19:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Less than 36 hours seemed quite soon to be declaring a consensus, so I checked out the policy page - this says an article must be given five days on Afd. Regarding Campus 14, some of the points in the nomination do not apply to that article - specifically, the comment on how much trivia is in the article. Jamse 21:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, allow me to rephrase. Let me just make it clear that I am not proposing to delete Campus 14. What I want to know is whether people have a general objection to articles about bar crawls, as Proto and others have said above, or whether it is something specific to the Otley Run, that merits it being deleted. I do not believe that the % of "trivia" content is a valid reason for deleting an article; the test for inclusion should be whether the article has potential to be encyclopaedic. This is what I would like to ascertain. Lan3y 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood. Well, I guess my position's already clear - I think these entries can be encyclopaedic. I think the notability or otherwise of something like this is a matter of POV. For those interested in drink culture in different towns it could be notable, for interested in student culture in Leeds it could be notable. For a pensioner in New York, it's not likely to be notable! Jamse 01:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• KeepThe Otley Run exists and has a reputation among British students as one of the best pub crawls in Britain. It has been mentioned by the BBC. I have added a link to the main Pub Crawl page which provides a decent article. There are 870 hits on Google for the Otley Run. I am unclear on the reasons for deletion, unless there is a concern here for saving space. This is not a Pub Crawl that someone has invented and placed on Wiki; it is a famous Pub Crawl. Should the listing be changed from Deletion to Cleanup? I am new here so am unsure of the reasons for article deletion. I have read the deletion policy, but fail to see that this article qualifies for deletion, though can see a reason for Cleanup. Unless a stronger explanation can be given for deletion then I vote to keep. SilkTork 21:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Expand/Clean-up - This article was created as it was on the list for requests for creation. So someone must have wanted it. If we're going to delete this article then Campus 14 and Monopoly Pub Crawl should be deleted aswell. So to save the article, it should be expanded to include as much info as the other pub crawl pages, and also cleaned up (trivia section removed or reduced?) Barry m 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Expand & Clean-up - Im one of the people who edited this article and had created the Trivia section. I am quite a newbie to wikipedia and I believe the Otley Run article should be kept because it is such a coherent part of student culture in Leeds. I am a student myself in Leeds and it has always been a popular excursion. However I agree the article should be tidied up and also expanded to include history of this crawl. Alternatively it could possibly be merged with a possible article on the A660 road if this article were to be made in the future considering that the majority of public houses on this route lie adjacent to this road.--Wrh1973 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Face (slang)

Non-notable unverifiable slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't suitable for a dictionary anyway. Created by Face (slang) (talk · contribs) (!). Wikipedia is not for thigns created in one school day. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:23Z

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Shadappaya you face, er, delete. Bits of slang (WP:NOT a slang dictionary]]) mixed in with WP:BALLS. --Malthusian (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Added it earlier for Cleanup, but i also agree now to Delete Husky ^{(talk page)} 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Defaceinitely Delete, per nom. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• ah, you're all a bunch of face holes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.234.203 (talk • contribs) }
  • Faceholes eh? Go face your face and face face in Laura Bush's face until she faces. --Faceusian (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, obviously. Stifle 14:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• well, I have reviewed the rules of wikipedia, and I see now that you must delete my article. Not because it is non notable. It is in widespread common usage. And not because it was made up in one school day. It was not. But because this is new research, probably because it is a reletively recent phenomenon.

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kük

Supposedly a Scandinavian god that steals babies and goats. Unverifiable, possible hoax. (This doesn't seem to bear any relation to the Egyptian god Kuk.) Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:29Z

• Delete, since it's very likely a hoax. The name's not mentioned anywhere else, Scandinavians languages don't use the letter ü, kuk=penis in swedish, started by a person as his first edit etc. - Bobet 13:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bobet.Obina 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, joke article. Punkmorten 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and according to info from Bobet. --Lockley 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as test/vandalism. Stifle 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, per Bobet's vote and since the trickster god is Loki. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jural Society. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Wheel station

Fictional place in a game with no information and no claim to notability or encyclopedic value. No content worth merging into the main game article, and unlikely choice for a redirect. Night Gyr 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually going to list a bunch of Orbitercruft here... someone's gone to the trouble of making an article for every ship and place in the game, even the ones that exist in real life, and those for which there's really nothing encyclopedia-worthy to be said beyond inclusion in a list in the main article. We can't have articles for every fictional thing, so I'm going to be listing most of Category:Orbiter_(sim) and redirecting them all to a single main entry for orbiter stuff. Night Gyr 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you go through the trouble, I can already tell the result: merge and keep redirects (because it is required under GFDL). So, I think you can just go ahead and merge all crufts. IMHO, there is no need to go through AfD. Renata 16:11, 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux reactor

Non-notable web portal. No Alexa traffic rank. No Google rank. I think it just started. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 09:45Z

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - article asserts originality but the site has no traffic. Ruby 12:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Robin Johnson 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no Google/Alexa --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:29, 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H-unit

Delete. Obvious hoax. Searches cannot verify any aspect of this article. Ncsaint 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article as it appears now is definitely a hoax, as it completely changes all the details from the original version, and the original version fairly clearly established their non-notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Terence Ong 10:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Antaeus Feldspar. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:25Z
• Delete hoax. Ruby 12:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or nn. Robin Johnson 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as hoax. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Just found there official website, www.hunit.com/, where they promote the safe sex message, one at the forefront of H-Units mantra.* Dean Kerr 17.07, 27 January 2006 (GMT) This edit was actually added by 86.8.171.226 (talk · contribs), whose only other edit was this one, claiming that "governments and NGOs" have tried to censor H-unit "with the latest ... being Wikipedia itself.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. —Cleared as filed. 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orbiter stuff

Lots and lots of articles about every fictional place or thing in the game Orbiter (sim). I've listed a dozen or so here:

• Washington (Orbiter sim)
• Tycho Base
• Orbiter (sim) add-on
• World of Colliers
• Lockheed Starclipper (Orbiter sim)
• Von Braun Ferry Rocket (Orbiter sim)
• Baikonur (Orbiter sim)
• Canberra (Orbiter sim)
• Cape Canaveral (Orbiter sim)
• Clavius Base
• Emergency Depot No. 3
• Johnston Atoll Spaceport
• Moscow (Orbiter sim)
• Phobos Base
• Planck Crater Lunar Observatory
• Port Lowell
• Prime Base (Orbiter sim)
• Serenitatis Base
• Sinus Roris Base (Orbiter sim)
• Tchalinko
• Lockheed Starclipper (Orbiter sim add-on) (this was tagged afd by the original nominator, but wasn't listed here —Cryptic (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
• World of 2001: A Space Odyssey (this was tagged afd by the original nominator, but wasn't listed here —Cryptic (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

There's a bunch more that need to be tagged and linked here in Category:Orbiter (sim), nearly every article in there, as well as several associated templates and a few dozen associated images. Someone's put a lot of work into something that's thoroughly unencyclopedic and has no potential to be so. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not gamefaqs.com. Night Gyr 10:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a single concise article on Orbiter (sim) should be sufficient for WP. --Oscarthecat 12:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all this stuff into a single article. Ruby 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Eusebeus 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is salvageable into Orbiter (sim), and delete. Robin Johnson 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: you cannot merge & delete; under GFDL you need to identify author, so you need to leave redirects. So choose either Merge & redirect or simply delete. Renata 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• I vote delete (even though it is pitty that so much work went into this) Renata 16:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the whole lot - Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and perhaps suggest to the original author(s) that a single article would be appropriate. Gaius Cornelius 16:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Merge and redirect at the very least. -Rebelguys2 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Oscarthecat. NicM 19:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC).
• Delete everything except for the one main article. Cyde Weys 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the second set:

• Long Duration Exposure Facility (Orbiter sim)
• Shuttle-A
• Shuttle-A2
• Shuttle-PB
• Shuttle-PB Mk2
• Shuttle-PB Mk3
• Space Shuttle Atlantis (Orbiter sim)
• Hubble Space Telescope (Orbiter sim)
• Orbiter (sim) API
• Orbiter (sim) MFD API
• Dragonfly (Orbiter sim)
• DeltaGliderIII
• DeltaGliderII
• Delta-glider
• Deltaglider EX
• Orbiter (sim) standard distribution

A handful of these have extensive content, but they're still not encyclopedia worthy. I tagged three as speedy (those aren't here) because they were only external links, but the two API articles are just a couple of sentences each. It's kind of sad to see that someone put so much work into these, but this info just belongs in the manual or on a site specific to the game. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Night Gyr 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the lot, this is going way too specific. --Agamemnon2 13:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete every single one. Wikipedia is not a game guide or a free host. Possible to put relevant information into a single article on the game, and then credit the author on the talk page, which should satisfy the GFDL. Stifle 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree to some form of cleanup, but I would say that complete deletion seems too extreme. Why are they unencyclopediatic. --GW_Simulations 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- and redirect the lot to Orbiter (sim) - Longhair 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. incog 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SdlBasic

Non-notable BASIC implementation. Not sure why it even needs to be a new language: SDL is a library, not a language feature. Few sourceforge downloads, weak forum presence, etc. Wikipedia article advocates creating subpages with code examples (a whole section titled "Code Download (Hosted on Wikipedia)"); see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SdlBasic:code:painting. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 11:00Z

• Delete per nom. Leyasu 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's just the wxBasic interpreter with a different library tacked on. Ruby 12:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there is a need for it, the wxBasic language is extremly usefull and easy to learn and when coupled with the SDL library it creates a powerfull MULTIPLATFORM engine (the main use of this is for creation of games, and the MULTIPLATFORM is a major improvment on wxBasic) the language also includes a IDE for devlopment that works on macos, linux and windows. This is a MAJOR improvment on wxBasic and it does need to be a new language. I have fixed the problem with creating subpages, by hosting the examples on my website. R4000 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of the problem with the example code articles. However, sdlBasic is still not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, at least not by itself. It might be OK to merge it into wxBasic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 18:19Z
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope R4000 isn't scared off; I tried to hold people back for a few hours as he was new and working in good faith. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for subjects of verifiable significance, not a free web host for your own work. Gazpacho 19:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge 20,000 Google hits. Ashibaka tock 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Which shows exactly why you shouldn't rely on Google blindly. sdlbasic -wiki -forum 623 hits. —Ruud 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trivial software, no user base. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. I wish R4000 all the best with his project. Stifle 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have cleaned the article up and rewrote it, it is now more infomational and provides a more detailed description to sdlBasic, and i would like to know why some of you belive it is not worthy of becoming a programming language... the same could be said about lots of languages that act as layers for other librarys, but they havent been deleted, are you just targeting my article because i am new? If so i think you are very selfish and it seems you are targeting me, but if your not please say so! R4000 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm... generally, stylistic things and userboxes like what you've added go on User pages, not articles. Ashibaka tock 03:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a ton of Google hits on this search string. Current version is reasonably well written and can probably be improved without too much difficulty into a good encyclopedia article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I can see non-notability, and wikipedia is not a free webhost/instruction manual, however I would reconsider my vote if the article significently changed. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• (My opinion holds that this implementation of Basic is not notable, the information here is unencyclopedic, and the article should be deleted.) Note that the article author has created a bunch of subpages like SdlBasic/Links and SdlBasic/Wikiproject and templates like Template:SdlBasic-stub. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-29 20:44Z