Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 30 February 1 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Coffee

[edit] Robby White

Delete, this has to be a hoax.--M@rēino 00:06, 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. The Land 11:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da Games

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Drdisque with the reason non-notable fanfic website hosted on free server, but websites cannot be speedied. No vote. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:02, 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. The Land 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sternchat

Delete as spam/advertisement. The article consists of nothing more than promoting the "hilarious" Sternchat.com. I have not checked for notability given the obvious advertising nature of the article, but if the article is drastically altered to remove all POV/promotional material (which would pretty much delete the article anyway) I might consider changing vote Bugturd Talk 00:16, 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 Keep. The Land 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merritt Boat & Engine Works

Delete as advertisement/spam. I initially nominated this for speedy, but I retracted it after more content was added. The additional content killed justification for speedy, but its still just an ad. Bugturd Talk 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain in agreement with unsigned comment below. The article has definitely improved. --Bugturd Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote back to delete since it appears that the article is to be a list as per WP:NOT comments below. --Bugturd Talk 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • My response:
  • This is not an ad, they are not selling any thing. The article is about a famous classic manufacturer of sportfishing boats, best known for its work in the 50's and 60's. There are countless articles written about them, entire online discussion forums dedicated to discussing them with thousands of messages posted daily and hundreds of photographs, etc. The article is just getting started, you should not delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusdavis (talk • contribs) 01:00 31 January 2006
  • Then you should you make that case in the article by writing an encyclopedia article, instead of (as it appears you are doing) creating a catalog of every boat Merritt has ever built. That level of detail WILL be deleted and condensed by subsequent editors, so you best not invest the time in doing so. For the moment keep -- as long as it doesn't degenerate into list of boatcruft ("The 1963 models, as opposed to the 1962 models, began using mahogany instead of teak for the cabin trim..."). --Calton | Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Wikipedia is not a list. If the article turns into a "why Merritt is notable" (as Angusdavis purports it is), then keep. If it stays as a list, delete. --M@thwiz2020 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Merritt Boat & Engine Works is a notable boat company. However, the current artical needs to be re-focused on the busness. (Signed: J.Smith) 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite, beacuse right now, it's borderline boatcruft, and a list. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. -ryan-d 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, send it for cleanup. It's pretty clear that there's some historical interest here; the article needs to be focused on that. -Ikkyu2 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no strong opinion either way on the inclusion of this article, but it needs a rewrite if it stays. As it stands the article is part list and part poorly written history. I'd take a crack at it, but I get sick on boats, so I've just added a cleanup tag.--Isotope23 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, BUT get rid of the list of boats, except for those which have some significance. Boats as far as I am aware, are just private possessions like cars. I bet you we couldn't find a single Wikipedia editor who would think that the encyclopaedia should contain a list of all car registration numbers with details of their first owner, even if we could find that information out. At risk of breaching WP:AGF, I have to ask, does the author have a commercial interest in this particular boatyard? How else would they know who bought each boat? Or are boats required to be registered in a public register under U.S. law? If they DO have a commerical connection and there is no such registration requirement, this seems like an unbelievable breach of commerical confidentiality. Rant rant rant. Sorry. SP-KP 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep and, there are a number of Yachts which are individually notable out there in the world (due to manufacturer, owner, specific characteristics, history, design example of something, etc). Whether these particular yachts are sufficiently notable or not is an open question, but I suggest letting the article editors work that out over time. Standards will prevail. No reason to delete or apply premature chainsaw effort to the article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Data on boat ownership for boats that are or have been federally documented by the USCG is a matter of public record, so there is no confidentiality issue here. I am the author and I am an enthusiast of these boats as are many other folks. Feel free to delete the article or edit it as you see fit. In its defense, I will say that if magazine articles have been written about the history of these boats, tracking down each one, etc., it is silly to say it is not appropriate. For example, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, would it not be appropriate to document the provenance of those computers, who owned them, how they were used, etc.? Anyway, it was just a quick attempt at an article. I came here after reading about the congressional staffers abusing the system and I decided to try for myself to create my first article by writing about something on which I had some very unique and deep knowledge. I agree the writing is poor and could be improved. The unique contribution I have made here is the research. Do with it what you will. --Angusdavis 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • For example, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, would it not be appropriate to document the provenance of those computers, who owned them, how they were used, etc.? Nope. And you listed 25 boats, none of which seem particularly distinctive for reason of ownership, history, precedence, or technological or design advances; nor as exemplars of any trend in boatbuilding design evolution. What the list and its content (generally) is, to put it bluntly, trivia. (Besides, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, I doubt they'd get an article here to begin with.)
    • This site is an encyclopedia, a digest of knowledge, acting as an introduction to or overview of subjects. Writers should put in the article what's most important, distinctive, and telling for the layman: "Why are those boats worthy of an article?" is the question that you should be answering in the article, and leave the fine-grained detail for the specialist magazines and coffee-table books. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The debate here is about whether the article is to be deleted immediately, never to return. Debate on what the article should or should not contain should be directed to the article's talk page, as it is not relevant here. Ikkyu2 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Angusdavis presented his misconceptions regarding what is appropriate as an article period/full stop; I merely corrected them. If this bothers you, make use of that spacebar you can find at the bottom of your keyboard. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Pokémon items. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:50, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] Potion (Pokémon)

Game cruft, should be at least merged into b:Pokémon before deleting. kelvSYC 00:33, 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. The Land 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Revolt of the Masses

Delete as essay. I did not try to read it. I made it to the point where the author states that it is an essay and placed the nom Bugturd Talk 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete / transwiki. It seems to be a translation of the essay La rebelión de las masas by José Ortega y Gasset. That is out of copyright, but the translation into english may not be. In any case, it belongs on wikisource, not WP. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikisource and delete - who wants to read a (possibly copyrighted) essay in an encyclopedia? And, even if it is original, it falls under WP:NOT - original thought. --M@thwiz2020 01:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not somewhere where you can write essays. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given that the book was written in 1930, it would still be in copyright. However, an article on the book would be useful. Capitalistroadster 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's according to US copyright law. I doubt the author was American. If he died more than 70 years ago this may still pan out. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki/Delete. Translation of source material. Transwiki if it's really out of copyright. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... when will kids learn to use paragraphs??? Regardless of the copyright issue so at best it should be a transwiki and cleanup, unless someone writes an article about the essay.--Isotope23 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Aargh, my eyes hurt. Not sure if it can be transwikied if the copyright position isn't clear. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a copy/vio from this site.[2] Couldn't it be speedied?--Pomegranite 21:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Prodego talk 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per others. Arbustoo 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.. Very long according to Special:Longpages; no links, and I see no reason to keep. Georgia guy 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wall of text.
  • Delete: Way too long. Unecessary essay. Ck lostsword|queta! 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable club. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maine East Scholastic Bowl Team

High school bowling team, not notable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:05Z



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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainspring (CMS)

Non-notable software. Neglected article created by 24.11.91.246 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:06Z

  • Delete the "let's put our software on Wikipedia and see if someone will buy it" article. --Bugturd Talk 01:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:SOFTWARE criteria or speedy under no content. --M@thwiz2020 01:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no content/advert. Jawz 02:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jawz. Royboycrashfan 02:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. I'm in IT, in Michigan, working with 3rd party CMS... and I've never heard of them.--Isotope23 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn and advert. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nominator wants it withdrawn, no votes to delete. - Bobet 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Finale (Everybody Loves Raymond)

Delete. Only episode for Everybody Loves Raymond series with a page; should be merged with List of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes (Seasons 5-9) Kinu 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops... didn't put 2 and 2 together. This should obviously be a Merge, not an AfD. Rescinding my vote (and AfD nomination, essentially). If an admin would close this and subsequently add the Merge tag, I'd appreciate it. --Kinu 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep per Kinu and CC. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like enough material for a stand-alone. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, anything to do with the ending of that wretched, unfunny garbage ought to be documented thoroughly. --Agamemnon2 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Briangotts. One of those episode articles has to be the first to be created (so the only one is a bad argument), and last one is a pretty good choice for a place to start. - Mgm|(talk) 13:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Series finale of a popular sitcom. --Optichan 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: No harm in keeping this. Non-standard isn't a sufficient reason unless maybe it was an unnotable show in the middle of an unnotable season broken out for no explained reason. This is the highly-rated last episode of an extremely popular show - so it makes perfect sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:57, 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, overwhelmingly. --WikiFanatic 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacSchool, WinSchool

Non-notable educational software. No assertion of notability/importance. 203 unomitted Ghits for macschool winschool. Neglected articles by Cybiko123 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:22Z

See also: K12Planet (website, notable?), KDX (chat software, notable?) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:27Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macmine

Non-notable website. Neglected article by 24.7.64.55 (talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for macmine.com: 2,434,058. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:31Z

  • Delete, orphaned article. Jawz 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable website. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Miles Cotter

Vanity biography, looks non-notable. No Ghits for "lawrence miles cotter", no related obvious related Ghits for "lawrence cotter", few Ghits for "Blue Dawg Sports". Neglected article by 12.29.245.130 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:34Z

  • Delete, perhaps speedy. Royboycrashfan 03:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, non-notable. Only 1 google hit on "Lawrence Miles Cotter". Mariano(t/c) 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, resume. --M@rēino 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "His children are James, Carolyn and Katehrine." If you can't spell your own kid's name, no page for you. Makemi 19:29, 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. The Land 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LCHS

Non-notable search engine. Doesn't even have its own domain. No Alexa rank. Website does not load for me (times out). Neglected article by 203.186.238.142 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:37Z

  • Delete - does not establish notability, I cannot reach their site. Jawz 02:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Prodego talk 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - fast and convenient, a notable search engine
  • Speedy keep - The original site is quite difficult to reach, but the article provided two new websites that are easy to reach. I think the search engine is quite good because it can search Google, MSN and Yahoo at one time. As it is newly developed, I think the article should keep so that more people can know more about this search engine and the ranking in Alexa will boost.
    • Wikipedia isn't to promote new sites and boost rankings. It's to document things that already have a proven track record. Has any national or international news outlet published about this site? Is there information available from anyone not related to the developers (aka reliable sources)? - Mgm|(talk) 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Can be reached, but is still advertising. Nearly no article content. Linkspam. - Mgm|(talk) 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. The only 2 votes for keep are unsigned. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This "search engine" does nothing more than send your search to other search engines. It also tries to change your home page and other annoying crap. Waste of space. Peyna 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Delete' - per nom. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Seattle Christian School

  • Delete - not a notable institution Nfitz 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep - much improved, and as pointed out, notability isn't strictly a criteria Nfitz 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was trying to nom for AfD and you beat me to it. Looks like one of the students is unhappy with the school. (Judging by the writing style, that might be justified...sorry...couldn't resist). --Bugturd Talk 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite I think it would make for an alright stub, but right now it just has ramblings of a disgruntled student. (Spelling will need to be fixed for any possible rewrites though.) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bugturd and Nfitz. Royboycrashfan 03:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep Wikipedia:Schools - Notability isn't an issue [3][4]. Just tag with NPOV and clean up. čĥàñľōŕď 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So are we now going to list every Sunday School on the planet? Nfitz 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh hang on ... perhaps not just a Sunday school. The two links on the article both pointed that way (the first listed only Sunday hours, and the second pointed to a church, but with not details. However this suggests otherwise. I'd still like to get a better feel how big the school is? Nfitz 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Enrollment: 49 Early Ed + 62 Elem + 23 Junior = 134 Total. [5] --Rob 11:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Notability isn't an issue, but yikes, this thing is not quality. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 04:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notable school, it's got quite an edit history in one day so someone is trying to improve it. Grandmasterka 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve.--Gillespee 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep of course. Jcuk 08:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pending verifiable information on accreditation and government licensing. I'm not clear on whether this is a real school, or just a collection of homeschooled kids in a church program. More signficant than its status, is the verifiability of status, which doesn't seem to exist yet. The links provided don't mean much. Also, I don't understand why the church web site, say nothing of this. I may well be missing something, so correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll happily switch to keep. The one place I could find a little info was at ACSI (which accredits K-12 Christian schools), but that wasn't helpful, as they're listed as a member, but not accredited. So, now I really have no idea what the status of this school is. --Rob 11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Links just show two church services and bible classes. NN even if an ordinary primary school. Marskell 11:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. -ryan-d 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, even by stunningly low nn school standards. Eusebeus 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps I misread the policy, but I thought 'cleanup' tagged poorly written articles on valid topics were supposed to be... well... cleaned up, not deleted. Cynical 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't poor writing, or need of cleanup. Nobody can fix this article without verifiable information. Currently, there's no confirmation this church operates this school, as the church doesn't even mention the school it supposedly founded. It's worth noting that the Seattle Times entry for the school, mentions the church's web site, but gives a dead-link. If we can't tell people if the school is currently open, how can we tell them useful information? --Rob 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The schools website seems current. Based on the size of the staff, the enrolement estimate seems reasonable. Not sure where the (now deleted) reference to $450 tuition comes from, as that was what was making me suspicious; for it is listed as $4,125 to $4,550 on the website. I'm tempted to change my vote. Nfitz 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that was quite helpful, as I couldn't find it previously. I now, just found confirmation it is a state approved school, with this PDF document from the state. So, now I'll reconsider my vote (but I still wish to find more independent information). --Rob 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article needs cleanup. Carioca 19:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) The article is not verifiable, so, I removed my support vote. Carioca 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, per Rob. I find the verifiability issues here and the willingness of users to ignore them very troubling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete even with rewrite, I still don't see real notability, at least not that hundreds of thousands of other schools couldn't claim. The references make it clear that it has been mentioned in Seattle-area newspapers; what school isn't frequently discussed in its local papers? Ergot 02:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been cleaned up. Choalbaton 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on Seattle press this school has been around for years. Maybe we should allow editors more than one day to build the article. -- JJay 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe editors should follow policy and include sources with their contributions, in the first place, and not waste the time of others. --Rob 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article was the creator's first contribution.[6] Don't bite the newbies, eh? -Colin Kimbrell 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point Colin Kimbrell. I notice the article was AfD tagged after two minutes. Maybe the editor would have provided sources if someone asked or used the unreferenced template. Of course, AfD is also a great way to welcome new editors... -- JJay 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You should see the first draft - it was borderline attack Nfitz 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Seems kind of tame to me and might even be true. The last two lines could have been and were dealt with by editing. -- JJay 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Uh, "might be true", doesn't cut it. Verifiably true is the standard. There is something seriously wrong, when somebody makes an unverified statement about an organization, that's not sourced, which could do serious harm to the organizations reputation. Declaring in public an organization has financial problems has a great way of becoming a self-fullfilled prophecy. If somebody decided not to send their kids to a school, or not take a job there, because they read it was closing at Wikipedia, the school would be more than justified in holding us to blame for any such harm. I realize it is a harsh thing to say, but the original version of this article, should never have been written in the form it was, and was of net-negative value to Wikipedia. --Rob 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Rob, I know you mean well, but please, try to stay calm for two seconds. See above where I said that editing was the solution. That to me is the better approach as opposed to deleting an article on a school based on a vague unreferenced line on "financial problems". WP:AGF applies to newbies as well, so instead of tagging the article after two minutes, a further option would have been to question the submitting editor. You also need to realize that not everyone has your skills in concocting these school articles. People contribute based on their abilities. Until the wiki completely changes the rules regarding article creation, you are going to have to live with the fact that many articles start as pathetic little stubs that do not meet your lofty standards. That is the nature of the beast. It is a net positive. -- JJay 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ...as per nominator? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the new version. Delete from history the original version that contained a *potentially* defamatory claim about the school. Nothing signficant of the original version was used in the current version, so GFDL attribution requirements shouldn't be an issue. --Rob 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with West Seattle or delete. If this is the "much improved" version, I shudder to think of what the original must have looked like (and no, I won't punish myself by looking at the history.) Denni ☯ 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging (such as with West Seattle) only makes sense if there is some coherent treatment within the merged article (see Evanston, Illinois#Private and parochial schools). Sticking a loosely connected fact in an inappropriate way in another article is a disservice to both articles. -- DS1953 talk 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand - per above. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sai sankalap

Biography of an author. His book has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,718,331 [7]. No assertion/evidence of notability. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:53Z

  • Comment: Has only one book and an official site. RebeccasRead.com ha a bio of him, and BookPleaseures,com a review of the book. Mariano(t/c) 08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN & probably from the book jacket. --M@rēino 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep: acording to wikipedia's policy WP:BIO#People_still_alive, Sai only needs to sell 5,000 books to be notable. Tesco (UK equivalent of Walmart, ie massive supermarket) are selling his book [8], which leads me to assume that he must have sold 5,000 by now? however, he has no publisher, & is marketing the book himself. was the page created for advertising reasons? Veej 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tesco site only proves they're offering the book online, not in stores. There's no evidence that anyone's actually buying it. --Aaron 22:44, 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. The Land 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Moroder

Not notable. Google at 30 hits -Dr Haggis - Talk 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 04:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Honestly, are people just using "speedy" to add emphasis? Is "speedy" the new "literally"? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but not this time. I voted speedy since it's a non-notable bio. I would have slapped a {{db-bio}} on it; the guy isn't notable at all if you get out of the scope of auto mechanics. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There's an assertion of notability there. It's up to AfD to decide if it's good enough to make the article worth keeping. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Alright, but I've put on speedy articles with similar notability assertions (winning contests no one outside of their field or local area has heard of) and had them speedily deleted, meaning that someone with a delete button either a) agreed with me or b) has a quick finger on the delete button. In any case, I'll keep your comments in mind while weeding out new pages. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously a talented auto mechanic, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for an article under WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable bio. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BIO refers - non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:11, 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. The Land 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salaamizzle

"Spiritual tradition" with no Google hits. Neglected article by Maggiem1987 (talk · contribs) (sole contributions). Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:01Z


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NewsReel (by RGMedia)

This article is about a fledgling news syndication web site. It doesn't look like this site has ever been mentioned in the media, blogs, etc. so I don't think it is ready to have an encyclopedia article yet. No backward links in Google [9], no Alexa rank for news.rgmds.com. [10] Rhobite 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a beta, and was taken off the search engines by its owner until testing is complete. The article clearly states it's a beta. Secondly, blogs are not adequate measures for anything as they are owned by individuals who can not possibly view every single news site out there (especially if it has been temporarily taken off search engines), so it makes sence that it would not be mentioned on blogs. Furthermore, NewsReel is a free service and does not promote its owner's company, and gives all article credit to the respective sources. Finally, NewsReel recieves quite a bit of traffic from the public domain (even in its uncomplete state). Howeve, if you wish to delete the article please do not remove any redirects as NewsReel will soon be listed on Google, Yahoo, other search engines, blogs and will be ranked by Alexa. I think that it is too much of a hassle to delete something that will just need to be rewritten in a month or so. This adds another problem as by Wikipedia policy, you cannot re-post a deleted article. This would force others to take more time to reword a perfectly fine article.

Personally I think that the article should remain standing or be temp. removed and allowed be re-posted in its exact entirity when it is seen on other sources. 68.196.163.237 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN. Even after it's listed on google, it still won't be notable for a long while. (Signed: J.Smith) 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. The article should not be posted until in "its exact entirity" and notable. Being too much of a hassle to delete and rewrite is no reason to keep it. --Bugturd Talk 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until it becomes notable.--Gillespee 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:47, 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. The Land 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ver Haege

spam. not notable. seem to have broken up (see last edit). google Derex 02:07, 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. The Land 11:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UKMCC

Patent non-notable webforum. 467 registered members. No Alexa traffic rank. Neglected article by 195.10.45.155 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:08Z

  • Delete, not notable, just another Internet Forum Mariano(t/c) 08:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Fetofs 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable. Prodego talk 23:08, 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. If this is even remotely notable, please re-write in a decent manner. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:59, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] Uk.rec.walking

Non-notable usenet group. 22,000 posts via Google Groups. Neglected article created by 62.254.173.34 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:10Z

  • Comment: Is there an established community standard for usenet newsgroup notability? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, non encyclopedic. Mariano(t/c) 08:05, 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. The Land 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukcb

Non-notable IRC (chat) server. Reached 1000 registered users in June 2005 [11].


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophomore Conspiracy

A long-running geocities page with a name with zero google hits. I'm really sorry guys, I have to ask you to come back when your site is verifiable.-- Perfecto 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB --Perfecto 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it meets WP:V, but it definitely fails to meet WP:WEB.--M@rēino 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How do you say that, Mareino? Do you have reliable sources? --Perfecto 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. To quote WP:RS, "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website." Since Sophomore Conspiracy only makes very limited claims, those claims can be verified simply by looking at the Geocities website. The problem as I see it, again, is that it is not a WP:WEB notable website. Non-notable is reason enough to delete an article. --M@rēino 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable is all that matters. --Aaron 22:49, 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 Keep, solely at administrator's discretion. The current content of the page is principally a quote from Politics as a Vocation by Max Weber. It is prima facie NOT original research, so I'm not deleting it.. The Land 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate end

Original research. Neglected article by 128.103.191.243 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:15Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Givemebeats.com

This spamlink/website is probably not notable. Only 57 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Givemebeats.com". For the 1 external link provided, the Alexa ranking is 1,414,665, and 0 other sites link to it, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. Only 1 other article links to this (Givemebeats, a redirect), it has only been edited by 1 user, and not since 12 December 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 02:17, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Seaborg

I'm renominating this page for deletion. This is the second nomination; the page was first nominated on January 22, 2006. The result of the debate was keep. The archive of the debate is here.

Why it deserves to be renominated so soon: Many people voted keep out of concern that the nomination was bad faith and a violation of WP:Point. The previous nominator nominated 18 biographies of people in category:atheists for deletion after his own articles on Christians were nominated. I count 8 "keep" votes in the original debate that cited "bad faith nomination" as a reason. Hopefully, this time we can debate the merits of the article.

Why it deserves to be deleted: Besides being the son of a Nobel laureate - hardly an accomplishment - this person hasnt done anything notable. Hes the president of an organization not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. And he has a little more than 400 google hits. Delete--Pierremenard 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete as NN. --Bugturd Talk 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Notable moments[12], quoted as major source in notable publication[13], published in industry journals[14], public speaker[15], listed in "Who's Who in America" per biography[16] -- I don't see how he's non-notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: he shook President Johnson's hand once; Ameritrade didnt want to let him bid on google and someone wrote up an article about it; published an academic paper; and gave a speech at an atheist convention. As for Who's Who, I admit it weakens my case, but it lists "110,000 of the nation's most noteworthy people" and "31,000 brand new listings" each year. --Pierremenard 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To delve further into that vein, he's also listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, and Who's Who of Emerging Leaders in America. I do see your objections -- he's not a household name by any stretch, but he's good at what he does, and respected within a notable community. How much does it take, exactly? :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I confess I am not sure of his importance as an "emerging leader" - you may be right about that. Nevertheless, as far as science in engineering, google scholar records 2 publications, 5 citations which definitely rules out his importance as a scientist/engineer. --Pierremenard 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's a bit extreme to say that this "rules out" his importance -- it weakens his notability as a published scholar, but that's not the only facet of this individual. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree - I meant only that it rules out his notability as a scientist/engineer. You are right to point out that the google scholar result does not rule out potential notability as something else, i.e. as an environmentalist. --Pierremenard 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My vote remains keep. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough.--Gillespee 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable, specially if looking for 'encyclopedic' reasons. Around 600 non wikipedian google hits. Mariano(t/c) 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    (I think that looking at the number of google hits is stupid, and it seems that some retards keep using such criterion; just look for Mariano Cecowski in Google and you will see someone really non-notable. But the guy being nominated seems pretty strong. I give you the chance to revert your vote.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.4.11 (talk • contribs)
    WP:CIV Eusebeus 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    Dear Eusebeus, thank you very much for the chance of reverting my vote. The google count was more a comment than a reason. I still think the guy isn't notable. Regarding the WP:CIV, you could take a look at it yourself. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 10:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mariano, You misunderstand. My WP:CIV was directed to the unsigned comment left in response to your vote!
Silly me, I should have checked the history. By the way, use the {{unsigned}} template for such occassions. Sorry again, and good wiking. Mariano(t/c) 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Jcuk 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If he was notable as a scientist, this would show up in his Google Scholar search, which is low. If he was generally notable, it would show up in his Google search, which it does not. --Pierremenard 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) The comment to which I was replying in the above (which was not Jcuk's comment) seems to have disappeared. --Pierremenard 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The earlier nomination was one of Jason Gastrich's string of revenge nominations as part of his vandalising efforts. This fellow is indeed very borderline and the earlier AfD was derailed by the issue of WP:POINT, as per the nom. As it stands, I agree with the delete voters - not quite notable enough yet. Eusebeus 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Director of the World Rainforest Fund and son of the man who discovered plutonium?! C'mon, this is a no-brainer. Scientists generally tend to have fewer Google hits than the average "notable person" ... but a lot more hits in the scientific literature. Fight systemic anti-scientist bias on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys 10:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So we're going to start listing family members of notable people now? - Mgm|(talk) 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Nice if those red links could be filled out so we could get a better picture of the man. Marskell 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article describes him as a director of a couple of non-notable organisations and a failed fund raiser, and as such he lacks significance. Sliggy 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. And no, not simply because of the family connection. Turnstep 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable person associated with non-notable organizations (the "World Rainforest Foundation," for example has only 97 Google hits. Makes Kadee Strickland look like Meryl Streep. Monicasdude 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like an OK article. JIP | Talk 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than being related to someone famous, it seems he raised $13,000 for his charity. Or 1.3% of his goal. If the amount of money he was able to raise is any indication of notability (and I think to an extent it is, being indicative of the level his work is at), he fails quite badly. -R. fiend 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The guy's more notable than Googling him makes him out to be, but I don't have time to dig out proof (hence the weak part of my vote). He's a bona fide academic, lectures, writes for environmental journals, and heads up a couple legit non-profits. Ikkyu2 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete family relations don't confer notability. His only other claim to fame is the "World Rainforest Foundation", "Greater Lafayette Open Space Fund", et al., which apparently can't meet their fundraising goals. In my opinion, that falls short of notability on simple precedent; Wikipedia does not have articles about other people who have started mre successful charitable organizations (Dan West of Heifers International or William Cunningham of Focus Hope for example). I just don't see anything here that puts him (notability wise) head and shoulders above anybody I could pull off the sidwalk.--Isotope23 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article at present fails to establish any notability. --DDG 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep He does appear pretty non-notable, but now it's here, it's not doing any harm if it stays. We have more important things to do. SP-KP 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, he's more notable that me, but less notable than his dad. Per SP-KP, there isn't any harm in having the article, it's not a horrible article, it's not vanity, he's not a high school kid or undergrad that created his own article. While the article's value to the encyclopedia is almost negligible, it's not entirely valueless. The lack of existence of articles on the organizations is of little value to our discussion unless those organizations were deleted persuant to an AfD. Non-existence is different than being propertly deleted. Peyna 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. When this much rationalization has to go into why it should be kept, then it's usually because it really shouldn't be. --Aaron 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: There's just not enough information in the published record to write something substantial about him, that isn't him remembering his dad. (I say this as someone who tried to come up with more information, but couldn't.) Calwatch 06:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have more scientific publications than him (he has only one fide ISI's Web of Science), and have raised more money for environmental groups in which I'm an officer than he has (also, I've shaken hands with Al Gore;)), and I'm certainly not notable. This is not anti-science bias: notable scientists may tend to have fewer Google hits, but they have numerous and/or high quality publications. Being the son of someone notable isn't enough.--MayerG 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Chain

Unverifiable trivia game submitted by its creator. No media coverage. Nn web results. Fails WP:V.-- Perfecto 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Sorry, you have to gain notoriety somewhere else first. --Perfecto 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Google hits: "Brain Chain": 589, "Brain Chain" Alicia Vaz:0. Mariano(t/c) 08:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an obvious advertisement. JIP | Talk 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant and repugnant advertising. I've nowiki'd the links for the duration of the debate, as is policy for suspected advertising/pagerank spam. --DDG 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously avertising. --Anoma lee 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kings of Easter Island

Delete. This list is sourced from one book and disputed by essentially the entire scientific community. The article should be deleted and the list placed in a article on the book, Atlantis, the Seven Seals. The main Easter Island article could refer to this book and its dubious list. -Gavin 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not verifyable, most probably a hoax. Mariano(t/c) 08:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like what you're after is a merge. This can be handled by individual users without recourse to AfD, if'n they want. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If someone wishes to create an article on the book, a merge will work. -Gavin 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:10, 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 Speedy deletion for nonsense. enochlau (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brick monster

I can find no reference to an actual brick monster; delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day--Hansnesse 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • BJAODN. Jawz 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This Brick Monster article is very explanatory and should be kept in existence. it explains a theory on what causes people to fall over bricks slightly sticking up! You're just giving into the apavementists!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Should not be deleted.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because some people choose to believe there is not a monster that causes mischeif of this type does not mean that they should ignore theories. Why not delete the page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism just because it may not be true? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Nidiron (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have nom'd this article for speedy delete as WP:NONSENSE since the author has decided to delete AfD discussion. --Bugturd Talk 03:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is not nonsense. I am a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the phrase, "Brick Monster" is used in the same way as this article discusses it. While some might consider the post to be stupid, publication must start somewhere. This is why I co-authored the article. If you do not believe that people actually discuss the brick monster, listen to this: over 120 UNC students on the popular website facebook.com believe in the brick monster, according to enrollment in the "groups" section of the page. This, of course, is a minimum number of students, because this is the number of people who clearly know there are groups for people who believe what they do. There could also be other people out there that do believe, but do not know that they are part of a larger group of people. Thank you, Matthew, Co-Author and UNC-Chapel Hill Student—the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.23.192.126 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Publication must begin somewhere, but not here. --Agamemnon2 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google says less than 1,000 hits (650some to be more exact). While this is a narrow test, it doesn't establish notability. One could even call this a neologism. Jawz 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nom, after the VfD discussion was deleted.. speedy delete. Jawz 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment (again), Facebook has tons of usergroups with hundreds of members. Joining one doesn't mean that they all believe in the same thing; it is like myspace where some people join just for the fun of it or to have a zillion group listings on your profile. While I consider this article to be nonsense, there is always the avenue of trying to include "popular" (yes, this is probably POV dangerous) facebook groups on the Facebook article. My 5 cents. Jawz 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

just because Facebook has a popular group doesn't mean the article is notable for its own article on Wiki.

You are correct. A Facebook comment or group may not be justification for the article, but in the same right, Wiki has an article about the Flying Spagetti Monster. Belief in "pastafarianism" has no basis in reality. Does it make it wrong for the author of that article to have posted it. How about Christianity? The religion has basis in fact, in the sense that we know a man existed and was executed by Roman guards. Other than that, there is more faith in it than there is fact. Should we then delete all references to Christianity? How about other religions. When you start drawing lines, they better be concrete and for good reason. I challenge you to find many differences between a belief in a "Brick Monster" and any mainstream religion's belief in a G-d or pantheon of gods. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 52.23.192.126 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~. Jawz 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Took the liberty of adding it to BJAODN already. Ashibaka tock 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original thought, and authors behaving badly. Not speediable, since it unfortunately meets none of the criteria. Also, I took the liberty of restoring the comments deleted by User:24.225.32.94 for everyone's viewing pleasure. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The author's comments notwithstanding, WP is not a place in which original research is published.  (aeropagitica)  06:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for restoring the comments that were deleted. The original AfD Discussion was not deleted by either myself or my co-author, Nidiron. I understand the concern that this page is not valid, but the concern seems based in illogical thought patterns. If people can put articles about religions, spoof religions (i.e. Flying Spagetti Monsterism), or general beliefs, this article should be allowed on precedent. Looking into the situation further, the article clearly states that there are multiple theories behind the idea of the Brick Monster, and one of these ideas is that it is not real. If you have suggestions about changing the entry, I would be happy to take any advice you might be willing to give, discuss it with my co-author, and correct any basic problems. It falls into the "legend or myth" idea, I suppose. I would gladly make comment at the beginning. This would allow people to look up what a "Brick Monster" is, but it would let them know that the actual existance of such a creature is actually under debate. --Mneidich 07:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. non-encyclopedic original work. Nice, but patent nonsense. Mariano(t/c) 08:26, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:kingdom of loathing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, withdrawn by nominator -- nae'blis (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slater & Gordon

Existing for nearly a year with no substantial information. Little noteriety and no references apart for it's own website. Delete čĥàñľōŕď 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- notable, nationwide law firm. - Longhair 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Perhaps Australia's most famous law firm.--cj | talk 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable Australian law firm. Michael Cannon published a book on them on Melbourne University Press in 1998 see [17].

45 Google News articles on proposed class actions against Telstra and Multiplex see [18]. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I have expanded the article. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Great work with the expansion, Capitalistroadster! --Canley 11:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has proper footnotes now. - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Always going to be keep. "Little noteriety[sic]"; you've gotta be kidding? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Excellent work (including by the AfD nominator) to fix this article and make it verifiable.--M@rēino 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:Well, at least it took a AfD nomination to get some info in there. How do I go about withdrawing a nom? čĥàñľōŕď 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you just did. :) Since it's a keep, I closed it myself as a non-admin (if this is a fsck-up, please tell me, folks). -- nae'blis (talk) 21:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DriveSavers

This appears to be an advertisement xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A small one, yes. Delete. Jawz 04:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable. Just another Ad. 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisment. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable firm that pretty much leads the field of data recovery, but needs some pretty dramatic cleanup to de-advertise it. I'll try and work on it. FCYTravis 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that it has been cleaned up and sourced, I would vote to keep. Calwatch 06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter S Petralia

An evident autobiography of someone with 71 "most relevant" Google hits.-- Perfecto 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for vanity. Wikipedia is not ResumeWiki. --Perfecto 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Jawz 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a resumé and doesn't make a claim as to the notability of the subject.  (aeropagitica)  07:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 20:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis

  • Delete: While this is a lovely little idea for a band, they've released only one full-length album (with a short tape and a split tape) which doesn't meet WP:BAND's guildeline of two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on either Amazon or Allmusic. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that the two full-length albums thing is only one of the things that could make a band notable. A band with one album will still be notable if they toured nationwide (whichever nation that may be) or if they stormed the charts. - Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I learned that the hard way. I hate the tour line in there. What constitutes a tour? Playing in two different clubs in two days? What constitutes a national tour? Do they have to play from one end of the country to the other? If they only do half the country, is that only a half-national tour? What is a medium-sized country? If they played a gig on one side of Malaysia and then played one on the other side of Malaysia the next day, they're in?! How about one that got me - if they're an opening act or a headliner of a tour? Some opening acts barely even get on posters in the concert venue where they're playing! They're still in? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Mariano(t/c) 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wknight94. Essexmutant 11:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like I said about Dilute To Five Percent Before Skin Application, will never meet WP:MUSIC with a name like that. --Malthusian (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wow, at least this name is mildly amusing. "Dilute To Five Percent Before Skin Application" just sounds dumb. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, a band like Fuck theoretically wouldn't, either, but they're actually a decently popular indie band. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • With a discography of that size, I wouldn't consider bringing that band to Afd. At first glance, they look more notable than 90% of the bands here. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, right, but it just goes to show that a name doesn't mean everything. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Fuck I can pronounce. Fuck I know the meaning of. If I want to rave about how great Fuck is to my friends, I can finish saying their name before they get bored and wander off. 'Fuck' commands a bit of respect - personally I think it's childish, but to some it says "We're edgy, we're cool, we don't care what your parents think". Those other band names just say "We're a bunch of medical students" and "We have disgusting acne". :-) --Malthusian (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
            • LOL. Actually, that first one more likely says, "We just checked a medical book out of the local library". I would hope that actual medical students had more pressing things to do than start poorly-named and ridiculously-themed death metal bands. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC... and Fuck rules!--Isotope23 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to vote keep, but they're not listed on their label's website.--M@rēino 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable Prodego talk 23:22, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teresa Zilko-Miller

Delete - Non-notable, 6 Google hits. Current article is a text dump from: http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/hood1.htm Vsmith 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Can start again if this person is notable. -- RHaworth 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Current contents plainly non-encyclopedic and non-biographical and this person is non-notable. --Lockley 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chigga

This is definitely real. I know the rapper Chigga. All of the information is accurate. I even bought all of his albums.

Comment: You know him, and you still had to pay for his albums? Find nicer fictional friends ;x Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most likely fake. Evil saltine 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The one who just edited the original nomination was the same person who made the article. Rory096 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as unverifiable, non-notable and nonsense. Rory096 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like gar-bage' to me. --ShadowPuppet 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Royboycrashfan 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete this crap... A fourteen year old rapper being shot by the competition? Seems like a spoof on Tupac Shakur. Grandmasterka 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete this spam nonsense? Jawz 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. crap incog 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete if a provision for this sort of nonsense exists. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. When the author edits a nomination, WP:AGF goes out the window. --Aaron 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, non-notable and nonsense Prodego talk 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Haikupoet 02:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Love

One item in his IMDB filmography, and he's not even a named character in it. It's semi-verifiable, but is it notable? Signs point to no. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nice nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, actors need to have at least a speaking/named part (preferrably more than one) before being included. - Mgm|(talk) 13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Mgm, and so does my Magic 8-ball. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Although his only credit seems to be the lead role, it's only a short film. Not enough for a Wiki article, I think. If he ever does several more films with notable roles, then it'd be different... But now? No. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who the heck is Adrian Lam o? He is not even in IMDB... None of you people have done anything constructive you are a bunch of critics...Doe he and all these people have nothing better to do but criticize other's notabliltiy? very unsexy..-Lauren
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.199 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 February 2006


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

The result of the debate was weak keep. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:01, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] Katafalk

  • Delete: Non-notable band per WP:BAND guidelines. Only one full-length album as opposed to two recommended by WP:BAND. No mentions on either Amazon or Allmusic. Has a discography so I didn't speedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure about this one. It might not be international notable, but seams to have at least some repercution in the netherlands, a decent google hits, and a nice web page. From WP:BAND: a national concert tour. Cons: band is only 3 years old. Mariano(t/c) 08:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, has/had gigs at multiple festivals in Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The keep is weak, because they also performed at scores of non-notable venues. - Mgm|(talk) 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Performing in different countries raises them far, far above the typical garage band we see here all the time. Turnstep 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Mariano. Seems worth keeping. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:06, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] Flag of Choson

I can't figure out what the context or relevance of this is, and my requests for clarification (several months ago now) have not been responded to... AnonMoos 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Quick search found nothing. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with North Korea, since Choson is their colloquial name and all. Although it might make sense to add a {{fact}} tag to it if merging does occur. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Context: this is the flag of the fictional/proposed Republic of Choson. The article for the Republic of Choson currently redirects, but if you dig into its previous revisions, you find a description of the proposed country. I don't advocate a merge / redirect to North Korea, since this is a flag of its replacement (smile). I'm going to revert the redirect on Republic of Choson, mark it with a fact tag per Buchanan-Hermit's suggestion, and categorize it as a Proposed country. And that page already includes this flag. So this page, specifically for the fictional flag, can be deleted. --Lockley 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, that sounds oike the best solution... AnonMoos 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any article for a flag of a nation, proposed or extant or not is completely valid. -- Reid1867 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article about a flag of a country someone invented??? I do not know Korean history enough but "flag of Choson" may have valid historical meaning. Pavel Vozenilek 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Devil Makes Three (band)

Doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. I figured it wasn't quite up to speedying because it claims that it has put out two full-length albums, but a few minutes of research provide no evidence that they are produced by major labels or any notable independent label. —Cleared as filed. 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. They have lots of news coverage, like here, here and here. They won a local GoodTimes Best of 2005 award for Best Band. They are quite genre defining and unique. The article should stay. JoeSmack Talk 07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per media coverage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've heard of them myself, and I don't live in the music biz. Notable enough for me... Georgewilliamherbert 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well i'm sitting here in a coffee shop in the heart of VT hearing them for the first time--i had to ask who they were. apparently they're notable enough for me which lead me here to find you worrying if they are notable enough for you rather than questioning why you don't have more information about them!! kind of ironic a site which has bypassed the traditional publishing mechanisms is using the same to choose to limit what they allow! no doubt the major labels appreciate your support! as online self publishing grows i guess you'll choose to ignore those who choose that far more enlightened route.
  • Keep per the above.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecopsoc

Delete in line with convention of not listing non-notable university clubs. EcopSoc is not notable outside of its discipline. Sumple 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Please cite that convention. New South Wales University Theatrical Society and Studio Four are two such clubs that have survived AFD. I'm sure there are countless others. čĥàñľōŕď 04:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Delete as unverifiable čĥàñľōŕď 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article seems to be confused as to whether it refers to the Political Economy course at the University of Sydney or the students association for students in the course. If the latter, we would need some verifiable evidence that Mark Latham and Anthony Albanese were members rather than merely students in the course to consider a keep. If the former, should be merged with the University of Sydney. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Does not appear to be an officially registered club/society: University of Sydney Union Club Directory --Sumple 10:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and nn-club. Mushroom 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The club is hardly very notable, given that half the tiny article is about the department, rather than the club! JPD (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And those two examples Chanlord listed above should probably be merged with the school. Unfortunately, both those and the school article are a bit of a mess, so doing so would be more work than it should be. -R. fiend 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The fact that it isn't registered and its non-notability are influential factors. enochlau (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sethaphile

Article asserts notability, but the claim seems to fail. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete a7 per nom.
  • Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User removed afD nom, delete, nn. Jawz 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't believe the article can be speedied under A7 as it asserts notability (as silly as the assertion may be). As such, this AfD should focus on determining whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. Voting Speedy delete isn't really an option here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity biography. An assertion of notability is a statement requiring judgement - simply saying "I am notable because I am a human" would not be an assertion of notability. So it is reasonable for others to disagree with whether the statements in the article constitue an assertion of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 11:22Z
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom and A7. -Aaron 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. Catamorphism 07:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanguinary

  • Delete: Non-notable band per WP:BAND. Released only one full-length album - WP:BAND suggests two full length albums on major labels. No mentions on Amazon or AllMusic. Discography present so I didn't speedy. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Kohler

Searched on Google, found nothing on this; seems like a hoax to me, though I may be completely wrong. The closest is Catherine Kohler Riessmann, but this article asserts that the name begins with a K and she married a man with the last name Westley. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not; if it is, I'll withdraw the nom. Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article reads as a work of fiction, not a notable biography. If the person is real, the article should be cleaned up to reflect her notable status, deleting the author's purple prose.  (aeropagitica)  07:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 07:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. G-J 21:29 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was already speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far-Less

No claim of notability (NN Band) Pete.Hurd 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • One sentence band bio, no claims of notability in article. Band has minimal presence in AMG, no bio. Google returns WP article very high in list, no press coverage of band via google. Pete.Hurd 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The band has a discography but the article requires a claim as to notability. Mentioning that the band exists isn't enough.  (aeropagitica)  07:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 11:18Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Aday

  • Delete: Not sure on the applicable standards here but it looks like a case of reflected glory. She's the daughter of Meat Loaf and the wife of Scott Ian but doesn't seem to have done anything notable herself, at least not according to WP:MUSIC. Maybe a merge to Meat Loaf? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She was (is?) a full member of Neverland Express, Meatloaf's group. Being a member of a notable band is criteria for keeping I think? Mind you the article could do with cleaning up. Jcuk 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, there's no mention of "Neverland Express" anywhere else in Wikipedia, including Meat Loaf. In fact, there's no mention of it on Amazon either. I've seen a few similar articles (relatives of notable people) deleted as hoaxes ---- maybe this is another one? Whatever Neverland Express was, the article says she was a touring member, not necessarily a full member. This is why I nominated - everything sounds very suspicious. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Now I see Neverland Express is Meat Loaf's touring band or something? How notable could it be if I had to find that out on Google instead of Wikipedia? So basically Pearl Aday was a backup singer on the touring band of a guy that hasn't had a hit in a decade?... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You mean you've never had to make an article about a very notable band before? Just because WP doesn't have an article on it doesn't automatically mean it's not notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I assume your question is rhetorical - but the answer is no, I haven't. Is there something notable about this band that wouldn't just be in Meat Loaf? Regardless, the question is whether someone who has essentially been a backup singer needs a separate article. If yes then so be it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • My question actually wasn't rhetorical, but it probably should have been, given the amount of deletions you've been putting up the last few days. Just because it isn't on WP doesn't mean it's not notable, and I think this should stay, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, the bottom of the article admits its taken from her website. I think that makes it speediable as a copyvio, does it not? -R. fiend 17:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought the same but it didn't look like the given URL was the same as the article. Maybe that note just means the web site is a reference? Or maybe it's a copyvio of some other page underneath that URL. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You have to go to the "biography" section of that page: [19]. Looks indentical to me. -R. fiend 17:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Regardless, if it is or not, I've cleaned it up somewhat and added wikilinks. It still needs some referencing regarding what albums she's been featured on, I'll try to get to it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Isn't copyvio in the edit history still an issue? Anyway, my vote is delete regardless. It's still a vanity piece, referenced only from her own site, which is not a good source. Not convinced singing backup on a couple albums is any more notable than playing 3rd violin some recording of Beethoven's 4th symphony that you'd find in a bargain barrel at music store. Perhaps recreate as a redirect to Neverland Express, if/when that gets an article. -R. fiend 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm sure it can be dealt with without deleting the entire article. Also, there's an interview with her and Meat Loaf available from the UK Times here [20] that helps further establish notability. A little bit of googling goes a long way. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: One simple test I have regarding reflected glory is, "would this person have an article if they weren't related to X"? I'd think the answer would be "no" in this case - but I could be wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • After doing some research, it's a certain maybe, and that's without mentioning a sort of precedent regarding children of famous people. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The answer has definitely been maybe as far as my Afd track record goes with such scenarios. Louis Osbourne was an article about Ozzy's son who had at least done some DJ'ing at clubs and was in a documentary about children of rock stars. His article is gone - merged into Ozzy's as a section (and I see has since been removed altogether). Eduard Einstein was the son of Albert and his only notability was being a schizophrenic who spent most of his life in institutions. His useless article remains - mostly on the basis that his name appears in www.schizophrenia.com. Those two establish no pattern whatsoever. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has appeared on a number of Meatloaf albums according to her Allmusic.com article see [21]. The London Times article further establishes verifiability. As to notability, we have kept backing musicians with a reasonable record of credits on significant records. She appears to qualify on this count. Capitalistroadster 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Merge into Meat Loaf or Delete as non-notable. If we have to go through this much navel-gazing to decide if she's notable, then she's not. --Aaron 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - esp. since the page mentions a forthcoming solo album. She also performed a duet on Couldn't Have Said It Better, rather than merely a backing singer. This is someone who's appeared in a notable role on an album with a worldwide release, not someone from a student band with homemade CDs. The Meat Loaf article is too big for a merge. The JPS 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Forthcoming album" argument is a little flimsy. It certainly wouldn't be the first planned album that never materialized. And the Meat Loaf article isn't even giving a length warning message so I think it would merge fine. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If her forthcoming album was her only point of notability, then you might have a point. She has a fairly solid resume. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There's far worse things on wikipedia. Human judgement is sufficient for the length of the ML article. Take away the "Forthcoming album" and she's still notable. How many non-notable people have fan sites? The JPS 02:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Lots of good points here. I'm just saying an alleged forthcoming album isn't one of them. And neither is the Meat Loaf article supposedly being too big for a merge. As for other arguments thusfar, I still don't see much notable outside of Meat Loaf - but so be it. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalroadster as notable. Turnstep 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the article she's done a lot of good work. Absolutely no merge- this woman stands on her own. -- JJay 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Young (Cryptome)

Any Tom Dick or Harry can maintain a website. Doesn't make you notable. This article doesn't seem to grasp this concept. Delete Bombycil 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review the Cryptome article before determining that his site is non-notable. Also, we're voting about the person, not the site :)
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I userfied the article but it has been recreated so I will revive the AfD. -- RHaworth 19:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Young maintains a site that's well-known in the press and in the tech world. He's been covered extensively on c|net and slashdot, been bashed in Reader's Digest, visited by the FBI, subpoenaed by a state attorney general, and has extensive notability within his strata. Perhaps a niche topic, but not a non-notable one. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Cryptome, unless he has some other claim to fame. Peyna 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as meeting notability standards. Cryptome is hardly a Tom, Dick, or Harry website. Turnstep 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy personality, interesting stub. -Colin Kimbrell 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate personality, biography was done on ABC News also covering his architectural practice. Borther-in-law was CIA agent. Calwatch 05:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Partner Synergy

Non-notable business term. A Google search reveals exactly 1 hit - used in a letter by a CEO of Celphi Corp in 2004. Delete Bombycil 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Jawz 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:08, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Webster

A sad story but not really notable. Hundreds of people are murdered every day - do each of them deserve a Wikipedia page? I think not. Delete Bombycil 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. His murder seams to have certain importance within the gay community, specially in Canada and USA. "Aaron Webster" murder has 17,400 non-wikipedian google hits. Some links: Memorial, Prime time crime, Eagle. Mariano(t/c) 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 4 1/2 year old crime that didn't achieve the kind of symbolic status to make his death more than just a senseless murder. Eusebeus 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio--Kalsermar 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and rewrite I live in the area and this is a HUGE news story. It definitely deserves its own article, but needs a lot of clean-up and such. But yes, this news story is definitely notable around these parts -- one of the most famous Vancouver hate-crimes in recent history. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge On second thoughts, Keep, cleanup and expand. Worthy also of a mention in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Seems to be a notable enough incident to merit an article with 15,800 Google hits for "Aaron Webster" murder. Cactus.man ✍ 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I echo all the comments by Cactus.man above. --Dogbreathcanada 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- as someone with experience on both sides of the news media, it bugs me how "local man killed" gets two column inches while far less notable events get features. An encyclopedia is the place for this. It's the sort of thing that someone, in some unknown future, will want to remember and research as relevant to our time. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - do we have any kind of guidelines on inclusion for articles on criminals and/or their victims? Peyna 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not that I know of. My own rule of thumb is that if someone's murder results in riots, national outrage, triggers a civil war, or the passage of legislation to keep it from ever happening again (such as Amber Hagerman), then the victim certainly rates an article. Crypticfirefly 06:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Nominator should remember that notability is how notable /the world/ finds a topic, not whether or not we feel it deserves an article. If the hundreds of people who get murdered each day got as many google hits and discusion as this person, then, yes, they would all 'deserve' a Wikpedia page. Turnstep 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see that at the time this story got quite a lot of coverage (e.g. Chicago Tribune-- not even in the same country-- had an article of decent length on the incident), some 1,500 showed up for a vigil/demonstration, etc. Crypticfirefly 06:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and expand. I remember the story, it made news outside of the Vancouver area. Darkcore 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Cactus.man. Ardenn 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs some rewriting, for sure, but definitely keepable. This was national news in Canada, even got some news attention in the United States per Crypticfirefly, and a much more thoroughly encyclopedic article is very possible. I didn't even have to read the article to remember this — one look at the article title and I knew exactly who and what it was. Any chance I could conscript a Canuck and/or queer contingent into a little group project to get this one up to snuff? Bearcat 10:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this was a reasonalby high-profile case up here, certainly in the gay press. At the very least it meets the Pokemon Test. Should also have articles on Henry Durost and Janko Naglic, for that matter. Carolynparrishfan 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, dear gawd... Bearcat 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A lot of media coverage, a lot of notariety. Skeezix1000 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, this person was just known less than Matthew Shepard. --FlyingPenguins 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've done some expansion on this. Certainly there's still more that could be done, but hopefully I've made a decent start. Bearcat 06:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. and thanks for listing it here. By doing so, it has become the latest thing I've learned on Wikipedia. -- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat and others. Ground Zero | t 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because the article denies notability of the subject (e.g., not first murder of its type, just more press coverage than the norm). Monicasdude 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. David Sneek 17:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep/move to something like Aaron Webster controversy or something -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stranded (film)

This is a television show, not a film. In addition, we already have a stub about this at Stranded (television program). Rory096 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would suggest deleting both articles as neither provide any claim as to the notability of the programme itself. Definitely delete the nominated article as factually incorrect.  (aeropagitica)  07:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per aeropagitica -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this one, expand the one on the television series. Being shown on [Discovery Channel Canada]] tells me it wasn't just a run of the mill thingy. The entry should at least mention what it's about, though. - Mgm|(talk) 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Catamorphism 07:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domainer

Rubbish, unencyclopedic, vanity. Delete Ardenn 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Transwiki --Ardenn 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Term is used in an article in Business 2.0 (Dec. 2005). Among other places. Crypticfirefly 07:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a real term used in the domain business. The definition is accurate and not self interested at all. -Unsigned comment from 70.104.175.24.
  • I can not beleive anybody would try to strike an accurate entry such as this from Wikipedia. This simple example illustrates the weakness of search engine's and central repositories of info.. they can be undermined by special interests. Oh well, better get a domain name and publish the truth myself. -Unsigned comment from 63.130.192.13
  • Positively ridiculous. Google this term and see how many listings appear. Deletion requests such as this undermine the spirit of Wikipedia. What a pity. -Unsigned comment from 63.130.192.13


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

The result was keep and cleanup. Arkyan • (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Schilling

Frank Schilling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

First AFD nomination. This guy isn't encyclopedic at all. His article fails to show why he needs or deserves an article. It's just plain unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a junkyard. Delete GreenJoe 19:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Suggested. Picture is untouched (not shopped) Guy helped define industry which itself is still defining the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameboy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep since CNN says "In this case, that's Frank Schilling, a reclusive man who has quietly become one of the world's most powerful and respected domainers." and while I think that it's a bit silly, if a CNN article says you're one of the world's most powerful anythings, I'll concede you may meet notability criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, wealthy domain name squatter, but wealth/success does not equal notability. Lankiveil 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak keep Success does equal notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough per FrozenPurpleCube (similar reasoning appears to have prevented consensus for deletion here). Needs cleaning up; some time ago I removed some unsourced or unlikely statements, but they just keep coming back...(example: "Frank Schilling coined the term 'domain investor' during a Tech TV interview with Matt Markovich in 2002". The domain name "DomainInvestor.com" itself was first registered in 1999 [22], clearly establishing that the term was NOT coined by this gentleman in 2002). ReidarM 07:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon Ingram Translation

  • Delete Move - A 19th century translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle doesnt make an article. We dont have separate Wikipedia articles for each modern translation of an old text. Transwiki the bottom portion to Wikisource. Stbalbach 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource. But why delete the top portion? It seems to do no more than explain what this text is, but might be useful. Crypticfirefly 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are many (better) translations of the ASC. This just happens to be in the public domain because its pre-1920s. It's non-notable otherwise. --Stbalbach 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but if moved to Wikisource, the explanation of which translation this is would be useful for that very reason. That's what I thought you meant by the "top portion." Crypticfirefly 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok just some confusion on what I was trying to say, we're saying the same thing. --Stbalbach 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to wikisource. We already have Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Banana04131 04:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This text cannot be put on wikisource as the Ingram translation because it it clearly states it is a combination of two translations. Since they are both PD it is alright as long the person who combined them released their work under GDFL. I am assuming that person is a WP editor but that needs to be verified before moving to Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noid - Origin

True origin of the word "noid", a word I know only from a pizza commercial. I really can't make heads or tails of it, but in any case it looks like original research. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, the Noid is from Domino's Pizza. Over 600,000 hits w/Google, so it is somewhat notable. I don't know if it deserves its own article, but it should be deleted and merged into Domino's Pizza. Jawz 06:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that this page does not describe the Domino's word, but the word "noid" as a precursor to "nerd", which seems to be entirely original research. bikeable (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per apparent WP:NOR--Isotope23 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is true, then merge into Noid. If this is false, then delete with extreme prejudice.--M@rēino 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified, then probably need to rename. Peyna 23:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Funny. "I promise to get a noid atchu." -- Marvin147 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin_Bradley (porn star)

Delete. It is a simple vanity page, non-famous person Ciperl 07:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • While I feel that noting WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors is appropriate right now, this is an insignificant, non-notable porn actor, and as such I say Delete -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in accordance with WP:VANITY. haz (user talk) 08:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to check a porn database, instead of his IMDB entry before deciding on his notability> - Mgm|(talk) 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Participating in the commercial sex trade is not notable per se. Monicasdude 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is no evidence that this was created by the subject (i.e., vanity). It is not adulatory. There are lots of articles about porn stars, and B Bradley is more notable thatn many of them. He has appeared in at least four porn films produced by major porn studios (Falcon is the biggest studio in gay porn). This article has a photo of the subject, and is properly categorized and linked to other articles. Zeromacnoo 03:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with Zeromacnoo. Jonathunder 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. We routinely delete female porn stars who have appeared in many more movies on well known labels. --kingboyk 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But why? Isn't the aim of Wikipedia to expand? Are those creating content able to keep ahead of those deleting content? Of course, the best way to scare off contributors is to delete thier work. Zeromacnoo 04:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I shall Abstain. I don't know anything about gay porn and was basing my reasoning on appearances in 4 films, in an industry which churns out films on a daily basis. Others say he is famous in his sector so I shall defer to them. --kingboyk 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't think this qualifies as vanity. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- If this one goes there are hundreds of actors, Star Trek characters, etc... that should go with it for the same reason. It appears not to be vanity, and he is as notable as the multitudes of semi-notables that make it into Wikipedia. The problem with setting a high bar for notability is that this remove people who later become famous, remove information that a few users might be looking for, etc... The only problem with setting the bar low is that the article takes up a few electrons on a hard drive. -- Samuel Wantman 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this actor is famous enough more than most star trek things Yuckfoo 08:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I fully agree with Zeromacnoo here; Benjamin Bradley is by far famous enough to allow for a dedicated article. Spheroide 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough as per WP:BIO for living people. Hall Monitor 21:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I really think it should be replaced with the much more famous Benjamin Bradley (http://www.harcourtschool.com/activity/biographies_science/bradley/) A black slave who in the 1850s invented the steam engines for warships. He used the money he made from selling the patent of the engine to buy his freedom. But then again, I'm new to the Wikipedia community and don't know all the protocols yet. Ciperl 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Deleting an article to replace it with one of the same name is not a Wikipedia protocol. The Wikipedia protocal is to give one article (the one for the less famous person) a disambiguated name, e.g. "Benjamin Bradley (porn star)" or "Benjamin Bradley (inventor)", and put a note at the top of the main article directed readers to the disambiguated article. Alternatively, both articles can have diambiguated titles, and the main "Benjamin Bradley" article would consist only of links to the other two articles with a little text to help the reader find the right article. Ground Zero | t 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, it would make more sense to move this page to "Benjamin Bradley (porn star)", as soon as the inventor pages is ready. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I will work on the Benjamin Bradley, inventor of steam engines for ships, article and then maybe someone can help me learn how to put it up and create the disambiguated titles. Ciperl 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that we can move the current article while there is a vote for deletion underway. It will probably have to wait until the vote is complete. If the article survives, it can be moved. In the meantime, Ciperl can start his/her article by clicking here: Benjamin Bradley (inventor). Don't forget to add the article to a category or two, e.g., Category:Inventors and Category:Slaves by placing [[Category:Inventors]] and [[Category:Slaves]] at the bottom of the article. Zeromacnoo 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure you can move it. Just make sure you update the AFD tag so that the link to the deletion discussion still points here. --kingboyk 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, inappropriate criteria cited for nomination, famous =! notable, and article meets WP:BIO. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. --Deathphoenix 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staple Singers/ Freda Payne

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the series or season. Stifle 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: relisting 31/01/06, which in your star-time is still 31/01/06. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. I've closed a tonne of these articles in that exact same way (see this AfD log and do a search for "List of Soul Train episodes"). Closing now, but sent me a message on my talk page if you disagree. --Deathphoenix 13:36, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow Tigers Junior

This caught my attention while categorizing articles beginning with the letter G. It appears to be a non-notable flag football association of some sort, with 10 unique hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete nn-club, makes no assertion of notability, tagging as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the speedy tag. This is a sports club playing in a league, and that is probably an assertion of notability by itself. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Valid speedy, I would say, pretty much all amateur football clubs play in leagues, most of which are utterly non-notable (I would say regular television coverage of the league would be a minimum for notability). A football club wouldn't have much reason to exist if it didn't play in a league. --Malthusian (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question How does one handle a copyvio on AFD? The material is quite blatantly lifted from [23] and [24]. NickelShoe 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just tag it is a copyvio. Blank the article, and replace it with {{copyvio|url= ADD THE WEBSITE HERE}}. That will expand to a tag which gives you instructions for adding an entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Then just say at the AFD that it has been tagged. Two things can then happen when the AFD closes:
      1. If there was a consensus to delete anyway, it will be deleted through AFD.
      2. If there is not a consensus to delete, the article will stay until the copyright process runs its course, giving the contributor a chance to explain (perhaps the contributor owns the copyright). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, tagged as copyvio. NickelShoe 15:55, 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 no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevalliers of Aspall Hall

No real assertion of notability; belongs on a geneaology site, not Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bertha_Chevallier-Boutell OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another case of people forgetting that Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia, or getting all starry-eyed at the suggestion of so-called "nobility". If WP:NOT doesn't cover "breeding histories for chinless layabouts" it damn well ought to. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. While not a fan of the British nobility, this page does have a lot of interesting and usefull history which someone might want. It does need tidying up however. --Bduke 21:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ehhh, keep, pending any copyvio problems. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If decission is to keep, then merge all the Chevalliers articles into this one. Mariano(t/c) 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP2

non notable phone. Delete. WP 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A good nomination should better resemble an argument and not so much a vote. Instead of simply declaring "non notable", you might like to consider explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable. Other points you might like to touch on are quality and size of the article, its connectedness within Wikipedia, the amount of Google activity surrounding the subject, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:09, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawnyell Alexander

I am nominating this article for deletion. Alexander doesn't appear to be a notable figure and doesn't yet meet any one of Wikipedia's importance criteria. Google returns fifteen results for "Dawnyell Alexander". Please offer your comments. Adhall 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent nomination. This is the sort of thing we like to see when arguing for an article's deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:07, 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 speedy delete as recreated content. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Wind (band)

Previously nominated for AfD and deleted. Ineligible for Wikipedia in accordance with WP:MUSIC. haz (user talk) 08:42, 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. The Land 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best-selling female singer

Wikipedia is not an open forum, and this page seems irrelevant. Not sure what the article is trying to do - it just echoes info on the individuals' separate articles. haz (user talk) 08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the value of this article, but I'm baffled as to how it could be considered a speedy deletion candidate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ridiculous article. Eusebeus 17:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic --Craig Stuntz 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopaedic. --Dogbreathcanada 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic speculation. Bearcat 10:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopaedic. --Ardenn 07:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Noteworthy and interesting. Itake 06:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online RSS Creation Resource

Was created as a vehicle for the promotion of the RSS Letter.com website after identical text was removed from RSS (file format). There is nothing in this page, which couldn't be better handled there. Delete. --S.K. 08:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Traffic Rank for netimechannel.com: 910,053. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 11:13Z
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and watch contribs by Eiffer for similar. ∴ here…♠ 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chimpo

  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}}

"Chimpo is the representative figure for the Fargo North High School technical theatre crew." Does A7 count for figures? -- Kjkolb 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. What the Hell is a "representative figure"? A mascot? Figurehead? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Congressman?-Colin Kimbrell 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we had an article on Fargo North High School, we could possibly mention it there. As we don't, delete. Capitalistroadster 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 11:12Z
  • Delete per quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Capitalistroadster always makes sense on AfD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. The Deviant 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The technical theatre crew of a big high school might number around ten people. The mascot of ten people is not noteworthy. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Don't delete our beloved Chimpo. He has served us well, and we want to share him with the world. You ask what he is, and I answer: He is our mascot, representative, or any other such designation you think he should be. We at Fargo North love our great Chimpo and Don't want him to leave. Please join me in the call for keeping Chimpo on this great site. We at Fargo North will expand our summaries to include much more info on Chimpo, our school, and its programs. Thank you. Driken
  • UNDELETE TOO. Please let the great chimpo stay. I assure you that there is indeed a Fargo North High School, and all the members of our drama department love him dearly. Let the little guy live, he even has a website, chimposez.tripod.com. thank you user:crashnburn1988
  • Delete. Doesn't seem sufficiently notable, or even verifiable if you come down to it. -Colin Kimbrell 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Chimpo, while technically a mascot, can easily classify as a figurehead, giving ample evidence that his article, with later additions, should indeed be kept active. -doubleplusungood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.184.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Simply not notable. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Also, to be undeleted, it would have had to be deleted already; the term you're looking for is keep....Scott5114 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Scott5114 above (and others above making same point). James084 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that it is not a vote that has been occurring here. It is a debate. The bold text, at least in many of these entries, is presented not as a vote, but as more of a thesis statement, showing what the writer's overall opinion is on this matter. Driken 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Doubleplus and I have talked, and I can speak for crash as well, we concur that this site holds no value.--Driken 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Ardenn 08:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:52 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was Delete: By the way, it also refers to 'face-to-face marketing' or 'charity mugging': students who stop you in the street and get you to sign a standing order to a charity... The Land 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chugging

Article is a description of a slang word with no sources. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a hoax. "Chug" as a word does exist, but in my experience it refers to skolling a drink, not "deviant sexual practices". Meanwhile, according to Google, there are a variety of other meanings for "chugging", including begging for money, sickness, or even the sound of an engine (remember trains "chugging" along?). An article could be written here, but we're better off just scrapping this one and starting afresh. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
What, you thought I haven't heard of chugging? Binge drinking is practically a sport where I live, which I guess explains all the alcohol poisonings and unplanned pregnancies. -- Kjkolb 09:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable sexual practice / neolojizm. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 11:11Z
  • Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Edgar181 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I might have bought it as a UK term, until it gets to the part where it says it's common in the US. Nonsense. User:guest
  • Delete per nom. James084 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and MarkGallagher. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nebulous concept that seems unverifiable in present state. dicdef maybe, but without sources, I wouldn't even offer it to Wiktionary. --DanielCD 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete N. —This user has left wikipedia 18:52 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Sjakkalle as non-notable.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)

[edit] Pseudoflux

Original author fails to demonstrate the importance of this topic Adhall 09:43, 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. The Land 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with plot twists

Given no definition of a "plot twist" there are far too many films that could be included in this list. It already includes many that are dubious and will continue to be a magnet for such content. Yes, some of them are famous plot twists, but this would be better discussed in plot twist. violet/riga (t) 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent nomination. It's always good to see someone making an argument for deletion in their nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unwieldy list. The plot twist of each movie can be mentioned in the appropriate article.Logophile 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list could get ridiculously long for no real point, a bit like having a list of films with male lead actors. Ben W Bell 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Could also be categorized. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 11:07Z
  • Delete per logophile -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 12:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I don't think this would make a particularly valuable category, for the reasons User:Ben W Bell raises. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nearly all movies have plot twists, listing them based on this adds no value. - Mgm|(talk) 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all listcruft :: Supergolden 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Did the creator of the list think this would be even remotely manageable or even meaningful? 'Cause I don't. Haikupoet 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No, no, no, no. Most decent films should have plot twists. Sandblast this pointless list into oblivion. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – I just found List of video games with plot twists too... violet/riga (t) 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:52 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Magic MagicDraw UML

This article is a clearly promotional material from a software developer. Delete Adhall 10:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising spam. Ben W Bell 11:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an advertisement. JIP | Talk 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising. Latinus 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. Advertising/non-notable. I've nowiki'd the links for the duration of the debate, as is policy for suspected advertising/pagerank spam. --DDG 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:52 2006-02-05


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

Split and/or duplicated discussions are harmful. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Gazeebow_Unit. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gazeebow Unit

This article was nominated before. It's been listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review. This Newfoundland rap group has attracted national interest and appeared on a flagship arts program of Canadian national radio, This fact was noted by the person voting keep on the original AfD but seems to have been disregarded, which in my opinion was probably an error.

I think it may well be a good idea to arrive at a consensus on this. I'll note that, while I'm unsure about how Wikpiedians will react to this kind of content, I think it may well be worthy of an article. Since there are some people who seem to want it to be deleted without a proper discussion in this forum, I thought I'd like to make sure that it gets a chance, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep seems notable enough due to the description and they are real. There are bands and groups out there that don't release records or albums and exists only on radio stations, but if it they are a regular then I think it is indeed notable. Just because most of the world cannot hear their stuff doesn't mean they don't deserve a listing. Ben W Bell 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll go keep as they have received attention (WP:MUSIC) haz (user talk) 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. The undeletion was completely out of process when the DRV debate is near unanimous to "keep deleted". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy per Sjakkalle. Besides that, this group easily fails WP:MUSIC, and the article tellingly reveals "....having released no records and having no website...". One mention on radio is simply not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mi vida loca

Simply a pointless article. Ben W Bell 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Mi vida loca is a 1993 movie[25]; however the current article perfectly fits WP:PN. — Hillel 12:53, 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. If you think it should be transwiki'd and it hasn't been (I didn't bother checking), please explain why at my talk page and I'll do take care of it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:16, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] "no, ifs, ands, or buts"

Would be better placed in Wiktionary, but seems not to warrant a Wikipedia article (WP:NOT) haz (user talk) 11:00, 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 refer to copyvios. Babajobu 13:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illanoiz

Total copyvio from the page http://www.4horsemenrecords.com/level1/artists_indiv.asp?ArtistID=1 Ben W Bell 11:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CrazyBrotherClan

Tagged for speedy as "Non-existent gang", but not a candidate, especially when BlankVerse on the article's talkpage has a link claiming its existence. So it will be a question of notability or the reliability of the source. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the source does seem to suggest that a gang calling itself "Crazy Brothers Clan" did exist somewhere, sometime, somehow. But it's unlikely to be the same one, as this one claims to be based in Long Beach, while the one in the source is in conflict with the "Tiny Rascals", who according to this are based in New England. Unless their conflict consists of launching ICBMs at each other, it's unlikely the gangs in the source and the article are one and the same. All other info is unverified and likely unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Sounds like a fictional gang. Horridly written. The Deviant 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is only an extreme example of the type of street gang article that is typical on the Wikipedia. They are filled with unverfiable information and original research. In my opinion, almost all of them should be deleted. BTW: There does seem to be a Tiny Rascals or Tiny Raskals gang in the Los Angeles area. BlankVerse 09:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tri cities poker tour

Appears to be a flashy title for someone's home poker game. Delete Essexmutant 11:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. The Deviant 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity at best. I'm deleting the links now in any case since neither work. 2005 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm normally an inclusionist but...$150 pots? Needs a 0 on the end to be notable. I've seen bigger pots in the smallest game at my local casino. CTOAGN (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Dogbreathcanada 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would hesitate to include some of the lesser satelite games that do enable entry to the WSOP (2006 or otherwise), so this tour of hopeful entrants that doesn't fails that bar. --Alf melmac 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Blagg

  • Delete Vanity. Seems to be one of a complex of vanity pages by contributors to the same not notable website. Uucp 11:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
for those who missed it, an anonymous user at 166.77.6.4 blanked this AFD page on the afternoon of 1/31. I have restored it and put a warning on his page.Uucp 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete part of the "Phat Phree" vanity spree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. Sliggy 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "mirror mirror on the wall" article. Latinus 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Polk

  • Delete Not notable. Had a public access TV show in Kent State, Ohio once. Uucp 11:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete part of the "Phat Phree" vanity spree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. The Deviant 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Amiott

  • Delete Vanity, not notable. Uucp 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to play ball and elaborate on this, but is seems that explaining the non-notability of somebody who has never done anything of significance is akin to proving a negative. What do you want me to say? He's a writer whose byline appears in no magazines in ProQuest, or on any books in Amazon.com. He's an actor who has never been in any movie. He participated in a small town improv group for a couple of years. I feel as though I'm just re-typing the bio here -- he hasn't done anything noteworthy. Uucp 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a good choice for merging into Cabaret Dada, or, alternatively, just straight out deleted. The article also references Save Toby, which I note is also up for AfD (although it calls it a "book"). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think vanity and not notable are clear and concise in themselves (did you see the article?). The Deviant 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You, presumably experienced with the ways of AfD, I, presumably experienced with the ways of AfD, and Uucp, who will soon be experienced with the ways of AfD to the point where he nominates instead of votes, may know enough to interpret "vanity". Not everyone who comes across an AfD subpage will; some of them will be the author or subject of an article, and might take exception. Also, "non-notable" these days means nothing more than "I want the article deleted"; nearly everything that comes up before AfD, pass or fail, is "non-notable". An explanation is far better than a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • All good.  :) The Deviant 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no verification for claims of subject's significance. Ziggurat 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David R. Levy

nn-bio, vanity page of 19-year-old poker player (isn't that illegal in the USA?) If Googling beware of David Levi, who is a professional player, but unrelated. Delete. Essexmutant 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete please do not userfy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity entry. As noted above, this is not the professional with a similar name. 2005 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no idea if it's illegal all over the US, but it's non notable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Zumock

  • Delete vanity, not notable. Uucp 11:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete part of the "Phat Phree" vanity spree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jef Etters

  • Delete not notable, vanity Uucp 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, Feb. 6, 2006

[edit] January 28, 2006

Non-standard day page - I might have just redirected it to January 28, but it's best to not encourage linking to dates like this (as it bypasses people's date display preferences). — sjorford (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second - investigating further..........................

Okay, I just noticed the "This date in recent years" section on the existing day pages, which links to January 28, 2006, January 28, 2005, January 28, 2004, and January 28, 2003. I hadn't noticed this before. Is it a Good Thing? Is it just intended for inclusion on the Current Events pages? Please help unconfuse me... — sjorford (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Furtherness: list of links to similar pages here. — sjorford (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, bypasses preferences. We have a standard in the manual of style about dates. Anything that links to pages like this should be linked to the date without a specific eyar attached. - Mgm|(talk) 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've put a list of all such pages I can find on my Playpen - in particular, there seem to be a lot of pages included as templates on monthly pages for the first six months of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Is there some sort of organised project that's creating these pages? I'm tempted to withdraw this AFD until more is known. — sjorford (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As was discussed the last time this came up, the developers (specifically at the time, Tim Starling I believe) said it was trivial to adapt the MediaWiki logic so that prefences are respected for this date types too. I am actually kind of surprised that it hasn't been turned on yet :(. Even so I think the single date pages are a great idea Keep :-). Pcb21 Pete 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NB at that time I wrote User:Pcb21/Date FAQ. It attempts to explain why the current method of linking is next to useless, and why the single date method is much better (but perhaps not perfect). Please do ask questions if there is anything not clear there, as it was typed in rather a hurry. Pcb21 Pete 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that's good info...okay, so what do we do about this page, and also January 24, 2006, January 25, 2006, and January 26, 2006 which have all been blanked? If they're going to be part of your new system, fine, but at the moment, these four are kind of a dead end, and aren't included in the January 2006 page. — sjorford (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes I think it would be fine to delete just these four for the time being to keep things "clean". When the time comes, they can always be re-created. Pcb21 Pete 08:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am against such a recentism and detailism. This is not newspaper. Such "articles" would only encourage people to add non-encyclopedic stuff. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note this stuff has been part of Wikipedia from the beginning - the only question is to lay it out in a big gloop (as a single month), or more finely grained (single day). Most people regard up-to-date coverage ("recentism") and plentiful detail as two of Wikipedia's strengths, btw. Pcb21 Pete 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete\ per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:54 2006-02-05
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save Toby

  • Delete Website for a man who pretends he will eat his pet rabbit seems to exist primarily to drive Internet discussion. Succeeded in getting a listing in Snopes describing it as a hoax. Alexa says rank 90,757. Google says 70,900, many of which are promotional pages created by the SaveToby folks (such as CafePress pages selling their merchandise, any many blog posting pimping the page). Never achieved meme status. I don't see why Wikipedia should be part of the failed promotional efforts for this not notable website. Uucp 11:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete According to the Snopes article, it's just a hoax, and not a particularly interesting or famous one either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep... absent any solid criteria for what constitutes a notable Internet meme, or any chance of having any, I have to resort to "well I've heard of it". At least we've got a reliable source in Snopes. --Malthusian (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed from weak to unqualified keep per Jeff. --Malthusian (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Malthusian — I've heard of it too, and when I've asked people about it they've heard of it, and because of Snopes, the hoax itself is verifiable. —Cleared as filed. 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Little is known verifiably, and there's no proof the stunt had a great impact on anything. If an article has to constantly say "the website claims...", then you know something is wrong. If all the details were to become know, than the question is: so what? --Rob 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Snopes mention plus Alexa rating = notability, regardless of what one thinks of the site itself. Turnstep 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. MSNBC article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 14:35Z
  • Keep notable internet memes. An MSNBC article [26] and Washington Post article[27] allows it to meet WP:WEB, which normally sucks for internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per drawnjeff. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor hoax. Pilatus 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as a notable hoax, one of those rare worthwhile animals not unlike a "score 5, flamebait" on slashdot. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Like the others, just about the first web meme nominated here that I've heard of. If it reached my cave... Has some sources too (per Badlydrawnjeff) --kingboyk 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have difficulty calling it notable, especially, but at least, well-known. -09:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Tim Rhymeless
  • Keep per notability standard. Calwatch 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fairly notable. Englishrose 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De nuke

Appears to be a random mod or map for CS. Stifle 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable / fancruft. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 14:28Z
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Edgar181 14:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. It's one of the maps that ships with the game, like de_dust. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with game article, if it does indeed ship with it. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all the articles in Category:Counter-Strike maps into Counter-Strike maps and do not create fancruft pages for every map. Kusma (討論) 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Counter-Strike maps as above. --Spaceman85 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 13:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel_teleproters

Delete. Article title mispelled. Changed the only link on Wikipedia to point to article with proper spelling. Noble 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing we usually do on Wikipedia when we have duplicate articles at mispellings is create a redirect to the proper article. I've done so here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:46, 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 speedy deleted by user:geogre. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt K. Watlers

Non-notable, dubious. Adrian Buehlmann 12:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelo Systems CMS

non-notable content management system. Page reads like an advertisement. It doesn't even get any google hits. Therefore, delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:47, 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 Speedy deleted, no assertion of notability. Ashibaka tock 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman verone

Non-notable article about an unsigned recording artist. I would have deleted it as such, but I'm not so sure since Google search turns up quite a lot of results, even though they have been inflated by blogspots etc. Delete May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:00, 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 change to disambiguation page. haz (user talk) 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obtuse

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is. haz (user talk) 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Since Wiktionary (probably) already has an article on Obtuse, we can safely delete this one with neither fuss nor, with care, the slightest muss. And if anyone says "transwiki to Wiktionary" on this one I'm telling User:Uncle G on you! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:44, 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. Babajobu 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamid Yazdani

Unverifiable. Writers.net doesn't list them, yet their site is given as a reference. With the book coming out bit it sounds a lot like advertising for a non-notable writer. - User:MacGyverMagic 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. Edgar181 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I couldn't find any "literary circles" that had ever heard of him. In his own mind maybe, or at his weekly Book Club meeting. --Dogbreathcanada 07:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - has published books. Google reveals numerous hits. Announcement of recent book on news site here [28] --OscarTheCattalk 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Despite what's said above, this author is listed at writers.net [29] with significant publishing credits, in several languages. He's no Kadee Strickland, but that's not a criterion for deletion. (However, the announcement linked above refers to a book by his father, which doesn't directly show notability for the son, but supports the basic verifiability of the article.) Monicasdude 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:54 2006-02-05


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

[edit] Apex White Supremecist Group

Seems to be vanity? In any case, is uninformative and should be deleted in accordance with WP:NOT. haz (user talk) 13:31, 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 speedy delete as non-notable band. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They might be grapefruit

NN band, two google hits, admits to having only one song, so fails WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure whether having a Cafepress shop and a rival band is an assertion of notability, so I'm listing here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:45, 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 speedy delete --Durin 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ozny

I suspect that this is a nn-bio. I don't speak whatever language this is, but I know English, Spanish and smattering of other Romance languages, and this looks like a personal page to me. Esprit15d 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn-bio. Kappa 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable biography. Looks like vanity to me. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy A7/nn-bio. I don't even need to know the language to recognise one of these on sight. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this "Hey, I design webpages!" non-notable bio. Tagged as such. Ifnord 14:53, 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|deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FaceIT

Counterstrike gaming team, currently inactive. Assertion of notability is that it has been called "an all-star team", but all unsourced. Delete. Kusma (討論) 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 14:15Z
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, notability not even claimed. What is an "all-star" gaming team? Any awards or tournament wins? Ifnord 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no amount of CS-playing is notable, unless you succumb to scurvy in the process. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:55 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klaus kinski (band)

Non-notable band. Google only turns up hits for the German actor with the same name, as far as I can tell. Delete. Deli nk 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:54 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Durin 15:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Face Down in Mexico City with an Ice Pick in the Back

Non-notable band. Delete. Deli nk 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. Non-notable band. Ifnord 14:49, 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 speedy delete as copyvio --Durin 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo boccazzi varotto

This page is a copyright violation of this page, as it is a direct translation with no changes. It needs to be substantially reworded or deleted. Esprit15d 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case speedy copyvio. -- Andy Saunders 14:33, 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 keep -Mysekurity 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bestival

nn Erwin

  • keep looks delightful to me. Derex 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 113,000 Google hits, hardly nn. Melchoir 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American-Hoster

Apparently spam. Russ Blau (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a blur between neologism and spam. Non-notable website to boot. Ifnord 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 20:00, 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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Federation

I can't quickly google any usage of "European Federation" as it is used in this article, strongly suggesting that it is original research. Also, the lede for the article, The European Federation is a hypothetical future federal state encompassing the continent of Europe, brings "WP:NOT a pair of crystal WP:BALLS" to mind. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Europe for a similar AfD) Delete. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to European integration Astrotrain 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Atrotrain. —This user has left wikipedia 20:07 2006-01-25
  • merge into European integration (as that needs more info) --LeftyG 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to United States of Europe this is closest to the view and name of the article. While we're not a crystal ball, we do need to have articles on major political themes. The idea of a federal europe is often discussed in the UK press and politics. --Salix alba (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to United States of Europe. Stifle 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with United States of Europe (a much better article) under the name Federal Europe. This is because a Federal Europe is an oft-discussed political concept; but United States of Europe or European Federation seem like hypothetical proper names for a much more specific imaginary entity, so I think the article should have the more general name. Robin Johnson 09:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I agree merge to Federal Europe --Salix alba (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't a vote, just a comment: If you people want to merge it to something, merge it to an article called European federalism, which is afterall an existing ideology, while both "Federal Europe", "European Federation" or whatever, are mere hypothetical guesswork names describing the end-product. Aris Katsaris 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't thinking of "Federal Europe" being a possible name of the end product. United States of Europe or Republic of Europe are both possible names for the single speculated entity that is a (small-f) federal Europe; European federalism isn't. Robin Johnson 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment by relister: There seems to be a general consensus that this needs to be redirected (and possibly merged). The question is, where do we redirect (and possibly merge) this article? --Deathphoenix 14:34, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Roop

Delete. Notable slam poet, but would a sculptor whose only claim-to-fame was winning sculpture competitions be notable for inclusion? See also: Rev. Jack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rev. Jack. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Disobedients

Delete. Non-notable band. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:58, 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 Speedy Delete by Pathoschild, CSD A7 --lightdarkness 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.Titty

Obvious hoax, not even questionable. Picture is Biggy Smalls. ...not to mention the article's horrible structure. Also, all other "contributions" from this contributor are similar. The Deviant 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Repeat offender, so block user too? --Oscarthecat 12:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --DanielCD 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I put the hoax tag on because if you look at the history of half these guys it might just have been true :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. -- Daverocks (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. The only claim to notability is being the "fattest rapper". Of course, it's a hoax article, through and through, but I think it is speediable. Turnstep 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sing-A-Ling

Junk article. Joke/Hoax, Not Notable, etc. Everything else from this contributor is like this, no reason to think this is any different. The Deviant 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom. --Oscarthecat 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 20:00, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raj Abhyanker

Vanity: "highly accomplished...". Selling a book on Amazon [30] is not sufficient to be notable IMHO. The review of the book on Amazon is actually not extraordinary. Edcolins 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the extra adjectives that were of concern. please reconsider. kind regards, raj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.188.46 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not prominent enough. Choalbaton 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - an exercise in frivolous vanity or free advertising? nowhere near notable enough for an encyclopedia. Veej 21:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid database fields accounts

Detailed, nerdish page about AOL Instant Messenger accounts. Importance not established. Un-encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. haz (user talk) 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Oscarthecat 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I feel THAT this article IS too technically DETAILED to be worthy OF inclusion in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It also reads MORE like a PRESS release than an encyclopedia ARTICLE. And what's with ALL the capitalisation? JIP | Talk 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gillsconnect

Unnotable vanity; unencyclopedic DanielCD 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, meaningless to most readers, and possibly nonsense.Bjones 15:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:59, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New investigator

Reads almost like a dictdef, seems to be exclusively used by NIH in a single set of resources. I'm not sure if this belongs on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the whip! :-) No. The definition of new investigator is quite extended across other funding agencies, not just the NIH. But, yes the entry is too short. I need a bit of time to collect some more material (see latest changes). I would like to deal with the problems of investigators starting their careers as independent researchers in a very competitive environment with limited funding. The NIH graph is quite worrying. I wonder if there are other studies for other grants that show similar trends.--Miguel Andrade 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep an interesting article with the clear possibility for growth. Perhaps a title clarifying that it is for research, rather than PIs or something, would be nice. Makemi 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I am inclined to think it should be merged into an article on the general question of research grants and applications for them. However I can find no such article. In Australia, the term "Early career researcher" is used by the Australian Research Council, but there is no mention of it in that article. --Bduke 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ardenn 07:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Noble

musician un-notability, delete. Melaen 15:21, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowiki

un-notable php script, delete. Melaen 15:24, 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 redirect to Corps. Mailer Diablo 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army Corps

This article already exists at Corps and is unnecessary. haz (user talk) 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Corps -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Duplicate articles don't need to be deleted...redirecting helps readers search and keeps editors from making the same mistake again. NickelShoe 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dongs

I can't find any evidence of the band's existence.[31] Non-notable at best. Optichan 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete hoax, nn.--Adam (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Worl, they are from Singapore, with all that implies on the searchability front. Assuming the article is true, they seem notable enough. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. A Google search for "The Dongs" Singapore doesn't come up with anything to verify this. Given that Singapore is a first-world city where English is an official language this verifiability problem is surprising if they were a notable band. A further search for "The Dongs" Singapore band again came up with no verifiable information see [32]. Capitalistroadster 22:51, 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 no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Coming

No Idea what on earth it is about, Delete --Differentgravy 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Differentgravy 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm guessing that it's an album title. If someone edits it so that it is clearly about an album listed on AMG, then I will change my vote to Keep.--M@rēino 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm undecided on this... this kid looks like he's trying to help and he has an interest for music... Here are some other articles he's created in the same fashion:
  • Comment But, they haven't put the artist name on this one, and the title "Beyond Coming" sounds a bit of a joke. --Differentgravy 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I left him a message, asked him who's the author... —This user has left wikipedia 18:45 2006-01-25
  • Neutral. Some of these titles are a little generic, so I haven't looked too much into them. However, after a search on Amazon.com I was able to at least verify that the list at Shakaya (album) is, in fact, an accurate list of the tracks on the CD. I'm not sure whether to delete or slap a {{context}} tag and leave it. -Rebelguys2 18:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment why not be wiki BOLD and help the guy out by editing it a little? Jcuk 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep Its an album by an Australian girl Chloe. I havent heard of her myself, but I'm not up on my Australian stuff....anyway she seems to have an article so it seems fair her debut album does. Jcuk 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I tried to "be bold". The result of my research: none of these albums are sold in the USA. Now maybe they are Australian, or maybe they're vanity tapes, or maybe they don't exist. --M@rēino 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment who gives a flying fig if you can get it in America or not. Jcuk 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd was largely overlooked because 60.231.251.160 (talk · contribs) blanked it at 14:05, 26 January 2006. Relisting to today. —Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep The article in its present form doesn't say very much- but Chloe is notable enough in Australia. [33]--Adam (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems that Chloe's song Crash charted in Australia last year - I vaguely remember hearing it on the radio although not who it was from. For those of similar vintage to myself, it is a cover of The Primitives song from the 1980s. According to her site, the album is due for release in Australia early this year. While some might consider an article on this premature, the fact that she has enjoyed chart success with "Crash" going top 10 justifies an article for mine. Capitalistroadster 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)"
  • merge with main article on "Chloe". the main page is even shorter than the album list and could do with some padding. --Sumple 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not much now, but it is a stub with promise. Agree with Jcuk 69.196.238.107 02:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Ambi 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Album by charting Australian performer. By the way Capitalistroadster, I was a big Primitives fan in my teen years. Cnwb 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colegrove (surname)

Surnames don't seem to be notable for articles. delete --Revolución (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting background of the surname. Youngamerican 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - my surname is tracable back over 12 centuries, but since WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of Genealogical entries, neither it nor Colegrove deserve articles. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 17:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides useful background. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Background to what? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The name itself. Although, on further thought, I could see the name itself merged into something and made into a particularly informative disambiguation page. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • We could have articles on a million last names, what purpose would it serve? As far as I know, personal names and last names should be in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. --Revolución (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Into a souped-up disambiguation page. We have plenty of those centering around family names, and said pages are quite useful. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've created a disambiguation page at Colegrove. --Revolución (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandlapper

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wiktionary. This is verifiable--Adam (talk) 16:00, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Golf

Is an irrelevant article, does not assert the importance of the subject. I am renowned for citing WP:NOT, but I guess I'll have to do it again. haz (user talk) 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A load of Google hits on this, but the book this term comes from does not seem to be particularily popular or significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cowboy Caleb

Half the text which is in this article should actually be in The Cowboy Bar. However, even if we leave out this information, what's left behind is nothing more than a non-notable guy...there are so many people that run moderately popular blogs. Also, this article reads like an advertisement.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --BorgQueen 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Think nom has it right. We don't even know the guy's real name, and blogging in itself is not the most encyclopedic of things. -R. fiend 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Cowboy Bar and delete. Main problem is the advertisement language. If someone can clean it up - then keep. --Vsion 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable blogger. *drew 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable blogger. I've never heard of him before. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per Vsion's suggestion. __earth (Talk) 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Singopo 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cum Dumpster

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. ShadowPuppet 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -Nv8200p talk 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete un-enclyopedic MLA 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Craig Stuntz 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Kusonaga 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ, delete this. --Antrophica 10:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • dicdef Derex 05:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, unencyclopedic. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dicdef. It's got a reference, throw it to Wiktionary to see if they want it - David Gerard 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I added a comment to a forum at Wiktionary. Funny that I checked the Wiktionary link a while back and it worked, but the article there has now apparently been deleted. Seems, they don't even want this. --DanielCD 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish car licence plates

Nothing notable here Nv8200p talk 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - article certainly needs expanding, but there are other pages showing individual country's license plates, so why delete this one? --Oscarthecat 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs expanding, but should be kept like US and Canadian license plates or German car number plates (we shouldn't delete one European country entry and leave others) High Plains Drifter 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Legitimate topic. Choalbaton 17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — article is weak but topic is legit. --Craig Stuntz 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above Jcuk 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand. There is ample precedent for articles on license plates by country. Doctor Whom 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bashaw

Non-notable bio. No prominent Google links for this individual at all EuroSong 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn.--Adam (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. [34] returns no results.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. Latinus 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  21:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tree people records

nn, possible vanity Adam (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:58, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Ooi

I'd say he's pretty non-notable, all he has achieved are a few contributions to a few Malaysian blogs.. Keep, see down. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. He's an influential Malaysian blogger. See Technocrati [35]. Try even Google [36]. And take a look at Reporters beyond Borders [37]. He might not be known worldwide but that's because the blog covers mainly Malaysian related stuff and majority of its readers are Malaysians. So, deleting this blog might constitute systemic bias. __earth (Talk) 06:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Earth. Ardenn 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only that, but Jeff Ooi was even mentioned by BBC News in the Malaysian lock-up detainee abuse scandal and also in two other BBC articles! [38] [39] [40] He's undeniably the most influential person in the Malaysian blogosphere. Seems a bit disturbing to me that you nominated an article for deletion based on a personal opinion and without doing an in depth search first. No offence intended though. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I did do an in-depth search, but couldn't find these BBC articles which you refer to now. All information which I had found didn't seem to make him meet the notability-guidelines. I apoligize for my oblivion. Thanks for the information, and for this reason I'm changing my vote to keep.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no problems about that. Though just curious, what led you to think he was in the Singaporean blogging scene? :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled upon Cowboy Caleb (who is Singaporean, according to his article) by accident. After I nominated that for deletion, I started wandering around in more articles relating to the Southeast-Asian blogscene.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ The Blade

Reads like a press release, the notability of this hasn't been established despite being recreated after a speedy about a month ago.[41]. Could technically be speedied now, but i'm putting it here to resolve the matter once and for all. Delete Karmafist 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as recreation of previously speedied material. Or just a delete if we have to. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DJ The Blade says: What's the problem here? It's a short bio, i've seen biographies for many artists.unsigned comment by Djtheblade (talk · contribs)
  • Delete no evidence that this person is notable or significant, as outlined in the music and biography guidelines, despite his "Turnip based lifestyle". The speedy delete criterion A7, unremarkable people, could also apply. Sliggy 17:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete Page is harmless DJ The Blade says: Does this page use up a lot of your server space or something? unsigned vote by Djtheblade (talk · contribs)
  • Delete possible speedy given that there is no assertion of notability. Article is nonsensical in parts "DJ the Blade also took a keen liking to deep vein thrombosis" and "turnip based lifestyle". No evidence of meeting our musical notability guides. Capitalistroadster 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was edited by someone else, not by me. It was originally a proper short biography of me until some idiot edited it. unsigned comment by Djtheblade (talk · contribs)


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goobuntu

A page on a supposed secret and in development Linux distro from Google that may or may not exist. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Confirmed by Google:

Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project called Goobuntu, but declined to supply further details, including what the project is for. [42]

  • keep since it does exist now.--Snargle 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Snargle --Kafuffle 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I agree. --Willy Arnold 13:35, 31 January 2006 (EST)
  • 'Comment: man, freakin' Google. Nomination withdrawn and let's get some real info and sourcing on it :P RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:37, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Pitt

I'm not sure that this artist meets the criteria for inclusion of biographies. The article states that the artist has several exhibitions since the 1980s and is listed in an "Encyclopaedia of Watercolour Landscapes". I'm unable to find any trace of his exhibitions, and can't find the "Encyclopaedia of Watercolour Landscapes" in the catalogue of the British Library. Altogether he looks like a local Suffolk painter with no indication of a wider audience. Pilatus 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Very low unique Google hits, and seems to fail WP:BIO for living persons: (Painters .... whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.) Also, two of the external links provided appear to be to his own site. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:10, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syphernet

There is no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Pilatus 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From DancingBeaver(The Founder) - You try Paying some money grabbing solisiter £300 to sign one little bit of paper!!


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helmer Syndrome

No hits for the good Dr Hendrik Helmer on Google Scholar, and there is no "Glassgow University of Human Science" in Germany. Delete as Complete Bollocks. Pilatus 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. Google finds no syndrome, no doctor, no other referenced doctor, no university. Self-referential joke: the "syndrome" is that "people believe what they read on the net". Weregerbil 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever happens, you have to admit it is pretty ironic. Maybe WP:BJ? Bad ideas 07:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Hoax. Creator has already tried to remove the AfD tag. Not BJAODN worthy, IMO. Turnstep 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as ridiculous. Bobby1011 18:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flecko.net

Advertising Seinfreak37 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Seinfreak37 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert. Latinus 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fixing it up. Under construction. FleckoTarrasque 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What you have added can hardly be considered encyclopediatic. Mentioning that "it is overrun with tards" and "features a wide variety of topics, ranging from inane bullshit (music threads) to highly enlightening subjects (how robust your man-titties are)" is not helping matters - Seinfreak37 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It gives you a sense of the history and mechanics of the site, current and past, and now features bios of significant members. The original creator of the wiki also misspelled Max's last name and added a sub-par description of the site. FleckoTarrasque 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This page was previously AfD'ed, with the result being seven votes in favor of deletion, and none opposed. This site may, somehow, someday become notable, but that day is not today, nor was it 24 October 2005. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Note that the site is the home of the popular Madness Interactive flash game and a copious amount of mods, not to mention a modding resource community. FleckoTarrasque 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence presented that it meets WP:WEB.

I further note that Tarrasque is listed as a significant user so it has a whiff of vanity about it. Further, the founder of the site "doesn't post quite as often as he used to, uninterested in the forums now that he has more important things to worry about." Capitalistroadster 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I am the Andrew mentioned in the entry. The piece is a ton of fluff, characterized by extremely poor writing and containing little of importance. I took the liberty of making certain changes (such as the removal of my last name) in the article. Further, most of the content of the entry is suited more for a particularly poor Uncyclopedia entry than a Wikipedia entry. At the very least, the pieces on the forums and users should be cut out and the entry should be relegated to a brief mention of Flecko.net being the home of Madness Interactive and Max's other games. Andrew 00:24 February 1 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed the speedy deletion tag because this version of the article is far more expanded than the one originally deleted back in October 2005. howcheng {chat} 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: You're absolutely right; when I looked at the article, I somehow missed the AfD box (I guess because it ran into the TOC?), looked at the history and saw that it had been through a previous AfD and when I looked at that revision, the AfD box went to the original AfD. Somehow all of that conspired to confuse me into thinking it was simply a repost, and I didn't see the second AfD nomination. My apologies. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Center

Appears to be a local community outreach group, but I don't see an assertion of a level of notability that would cover it being in the encyclopedia. A lot of effort has gone into writing this initial revision, hence my AfD instead of speedy, perhaps the community has some ideas. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Reluctant delete unless there's an alternative. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Saint Francis Seraph Church, with Sarah Center redirecting there. Taken as a whole, this church, which also runs a school, should qualify for its own article.--M@rēino 19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a reasonably notable local social service agency, with a couple news articles that show up on Google. It is also a pretty well-written article. I am inclined to keep but I could support a move as proposed by Marieno. TMS63112 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)


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

The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on the subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kansas River/Biogeography

  • Talk:Kansas River/Biogeography
  • More random information from user:RJBurkhart who being told to stop filling talk pages with it is now creating subpages for it. Rmhermen 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting wikt:watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:31, 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; see other debates on the subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kansas River/Dam safety monitoring

  • More material on a subpage because the user was told not to add it to the talk page. Rmhermen 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting wikt:watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:30, 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; see also the discussion on other AfDs regarding similar subpages of Talk:Kansas River. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kansas River/Shawnee Crossings

  • More useless stuff. Rmhermen 18:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting wikt:watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot. No context. No explanation. What are watershed community stewardship issues - it's gobbledygook. -- RHaworth 19:01, 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; see other debates pertaining to subpages of Talk:Kansas River. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kansas River/Virtual Team Tactics

  • Same as above. Rmhermen 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:34, 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; see other debates on Talk:Kansas River subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Kansas River/Community toool box

  • Yet another one. Even less useful content. Rmhermen 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the Talk:Kansas River subpages per nom. --Malepheasant 22:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The creator of the subpages has been unsuccessfully trying to add reams and reams of this kind of data and irrelevant links to the Talk:Kansas River page and other talk pages for the last couple of weeks. Most of it would not be useful in the article itself. An admin kindly directed the user to the notion of user sandbox pages to no effect. --Malepheasant 22:19, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masha Bruskina

This woman was a Russian partisan who was executed by the Germans in WW 2. The German forces killed partisan fighters in droves, and there is nothing specifically notable about her. Pilatus 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Sad as it is that her fate is not so uncommon, she does have notability as an exemplary and well documented case. Google both for the Latin and for the Cyrillic (Маша Брускина) name. She had a paper in a scholarly journal, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, written specifically about her too. Lukas (T.|@) 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per above Jcuk 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lukas. --Rob 01:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Lukas. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart thompson

I was very tempted to speedy this, but I guess founding some hyponosis clinics is sort of a claim of notability. Pretty bad one though. -R. fiend 17:33, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergalv

  • Delete Non-notable game(?). 0 hits on google. Adverticement(?). ManiacK 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep

As the author of this entire article, I would like to understand why my article is considered unfit for Wikipedia. I have read the Deletion guide and found no fault my article may have to warrant deletion. I first wish to express my understanding that Wikipedia is a wide-ranging service meant to contain a wealth of information about the widest array of respectable topics possible. I have written this article bearing in mind the rules of Wikipedia. For several reasons, I believe my article has a place on Wikipedia.

Arguments

  1. I object to the claim of non-notable game(?). To this I answer: In the Related Links section I have supplied sufficient proof of the existance of the topic on which I chose to write an article. Furthermore, though Emergalv is not a commercial product, it has nonetheless been playtested using the Dungeons and Dragons system. As such, it can be first defined as a game, and secondly can be described as a valid campaign setting available for testing to whoever asks.
  2. I also object to the claim of advertisement. I have chosen to share my intellectual property on Wikipedia by presenting objective content and clear, intelligible definitions of the world I have written about. This is not a vanity article, though credit must be given to the people who have worked on Emergalv, including myself. Emergalv is not a product to be sold, just as Wikipedia is not to be used as a platform for advertisement.

Should it be found that I cannot provide satisfying answers to the claims leading to the deletion of this article, I will radpidly withdraw without complaint.

Now I ask this : Does deletion include the possibility of establishing a wiki site outside of Wikipedia? I cite in example the Homestar Runner Wiki and the UFOPaedia site. If my article is to be removed from Wikipedia, I would like to learn the procedure to creating an outside Wiki site.

AvianSavara 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, but there's always Wikicities. It's not directly connected with Wikipedia but I believe it uses the same software. That said, if they don't take you they have links to other Wiki providers. Haikupoet 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am going to see the the decision we take here before making a complete move (or not), but I have already set myself up a mirror of this article on RPG Wikicities. Thanks for the idea, however :D AvianSavara 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Good luck with that. The problem is that a lot of people come in here thinking Wikipedia is something it's WP:NOT and get into big arguments over it. A lot of misunderstandings happen over that issue that boil over into accusations of censorship and other assorted nastiness. Thank you for your understanding, and I hope you have much to contribute in other areas. Haikupoet 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You can count on my participation on other topics. Whatever the outcome of this debate, I will continue to read and edit Wikipedia. Amidst all the (let's face it)trash that can be found online, I believe Wikipedia is the best thing to ever happen on the internet. AvianSavara 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Pearce

This page is vanity and was marked as such the day it was created. It describes a non-notable person who "works in promoting valid W3C standards across the web" and owns a non-notable company that is "famous" for "the way they are pushing standards to the edge". The creator of the article has no other contributions on Wikipedia, other than to (presuambly - slightly different IP addresses) remove a previous VFD tag on the article. CrypticBacon 17:43, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Betty and Veronica syndrome

The article is unsourced, and since it sounded like a perfectly good syndrome to me I went looking for sources; when I was only able to find nine relevant google hits, however, I decided it might be a little early for this to be in the encyclopedia. - squibix(talk) 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been taking penicillin for this, but it hasn't helped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this supposed to be for real? Can someone cite a study in the relevant literature? I think not.  (aeropagitica)  21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.-Is very common in everyday life,not just superstars,please do not delete it.

Dandun 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with user:Dandun. It is a real life condition and part of everyday slang,used by teenagers mainly. I have heard it being used many times. Pojojo 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems entirely plausible to me, but there still needs to be some sort of external verification that the term actually has some currency. Everyking 08:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a credible reference can be found. Elonka 01:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep: withdrawn by nominator. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikola Šećeroski

Either nn bio or a hoax. 42 unique ghits, none of which are in English. Delete Makemi 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. He's for real, so much seems certain - I don't know any Serbocroatian, but this biography page [43] seems to confirm pretty much the same things as the article says. "rođen je 1934. u selu Radožda, na obali Ohridskog jezera." = 'Born in 1934, in the village of Radožda, near Lake Ohrid'; "za predsednika Srbije kandidovao se 1990." = 'In 1990 he ran for Serbian president', etc. And if he ran for president, and got 12.236 votes (if I guess correctly what the page is saying), then he is hardly non-notable. Lack of English-language info is no ground for deletion. We can always ask Serbian Wikipedians (Category:User sr) to verify these sources for us. Lukas (T.|@) 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment if this were true I would expect to find some mention in the AP archives, and I haven't. I wonder if this person has an anglicized name which is used in sources? As it is, references only in Serbocroation seem a lot like non-verifiable info to me. Makemi 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Why? Is there anything inherent in the language that makes it less reliable than English? :-) Seriously, that seems a rather dangerous statement to me, and not at all compatible with Wikipedia policies against Anglo-Saxon bias. This guy seems to be an - admittedly minor - figure on the national political stage, probably regarded more as a clown than as a serious player. Why would foreign media want to report on him? I don't remember the 1990 elections, but probably foreign attention was then focussed on other things, wouldn't it? Lukas (T.|@) 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Lukas Jcuk 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is mentioned in UNMIK media archives as Sheceroski. So, there is source even in english. SamuelBrooks 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I Rescind my nomination, per new sources (Sorry, some of the quotes made me think it was a hoax). Admins please note.Makemi 23:15, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Cronin

Unverifiable nn-bio. Delete Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete it is nn-bio.--Adam (talk) 18:35, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taramakin

Non-notable. 1 google hit. ComputerJoe 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax. Go to the one hit and you will see it has nothing to do with the "artist". Also look carefully at the birth and death of this person. He was born in 1982- very young...--Adam (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. This man has some popularity in the region. Our group still searches information about him. Some can be found in Russian internet. Kontrast


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Order of Druids

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • The New Order of Druids is a website with Alexa rank near 194000. No assertion is made, and no indication is given that the folks who run it command any respect or have otherwise been noted in the Neopagan community. Pilatus 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alexa rank, no evidence of media mentions, no books about them, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep This article is not in violation with Wikipedia policy. Notable organisation New Order of Druids. Is mentioned in "The Solitary Druid: Walking the Path of Wisdom and Spirit" by Rev. Robert Lee (Skip) Ellison (Archdruid-Ar nDraiocht Fein (ADF)) page 245. This was in the talk page, you could have read this yourself if you had done your homework. Vorak 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment One mention on a single page of one book? That seems awfully thin. If "The Solitary Druid" is considered to be a major defining work on Neopaganism, that might establish notability, but given that the book doesn't have a page of its own, that seems unlikely. Vanigo 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that that is very thin, but do not agree that a book used to establish notability should have a Wikipedia entry. It would help if we knew what the book actually says (for example, that information could be in the article). Kusma (討論) 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not exactly what I meant. If there was an entire chapter devoted to the organization in a not-particularly-notable book, that'd establish notability, or if there was even a single sentence in an extremely important book, that'd do it, but a single reference in a book of questionable importance? That's two strikes and you're out, IMHO. Vanigo 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I completely agree with that. I had justed wanted to point out that the absence of a Wikipedia article does not mean a book (or anything else) is not important / authoritative. Kusma (討論) 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alexa rank and nomination. --Andy Saunders 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This and other related articles (see David Dom, Karayana, etc.) have been led to a no consensus by what appear to be meatpuppets. --Bugturd Talk 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not surprised to see that the same thing happens here as has happened to almost every other article I ever contributed to Wikipedia... whatever valid proof or argument is given is waved away or minimized in order to get the article deleted at any cost. Well I can tell you already that it has been the very last time I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, and I won't be the only one leaving. By the time you people are done deleting everything, Wikipedia will only consist of your own User article pages, hope you'll have fun with them. I really can't waste my time and energy on this stuff any more, I have actual important things to do. Vorak 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I am sorry that you are having such a bad time with Wikipedia. It would probably help if you could write about something else than you and your friends, though. Starting things like this is also not helping. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn website/club. If the group is more significant than that, astound us with references -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable small organisation.Obina 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Start from scratch - talk page notes that it is licensed content from N.O.D., and it reads like Madison Avenue, Nebraska copy. How many members are there? One mention in Skip's book (I have it at home) does not make the group notable, as I recall there being a lot of smaller groups mentioned there. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you check what that book says about this group and post it here so we have more information? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ergh, turns out I have a different book by Skip. I'll check and see if any of my friends have it. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless importance in the neopaganism community can be shown (disregard my vote if I forget to change it in that case). As a website, it clearly fails to be notable enough. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not seeing anything indicating any actual impact -- however small -- on the world and plenty of puffery. And Gad, that "Overview" sounds like it was translated from the Japanese. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep References? That's a good one, as if any reference whatsoever would be taken serious. The reference of the book, for example, is waved off just because the book has no article on Wikipedia. Why do you think that is? Because either you already deleted it, or because you would end up deleting it anyway so people stop bothering to contribute. Aside from the book, The Druid Network (TDN), Eadhadh and ADF find NOD or its sub-organisations important enough to give it a webpage of its own. Or it could be mentioned that NOD was founded on the same day as TDN, already has set up one local grove and is in the process of setting up more local groves in Europe and North America, or that it currently has over 600 members, and offers a free online Druid college that currently contains over 250 students worldwide (NOD and its Grove of Dana college is one of the very few Druid organisations in the world that offer teaching online and believe it should not come at any monetary cost!). But of course, all this will be regarded as is predictable, and I could go and work on an actual list of references, but honestly, why would I? Just to see it being trashed? No, thanks. It's not taken serious anyway, whatever any contra-delete vote comes up with, and you will keep digging until you find another reason to get an article deleted. If Alexa ranking won't give you a reason, you'll keep looking until you find another reason. Oh and nice template on top of this page, you might as well just say that any "keep" votes whatsoever will be disregarded anyway and that the nomination for deletion is just a formality because it's already a decided cause from the start (as it always is). Of course, it's easy to gather some Wikipedia members and get them to vote delete as well, but when people do the same to obtain keep votes, it's suddenly a disgrace. Sorry, but I really won't play along those games any more, and I'm sure that others feel the same way. By the way for your information, we did contribute other articles too, such as Merlin's Oak and the English translation for Gwenc’hlan Le Scouëzec by Vorak, but of course it all doesn't matter. If you want to delete this article, so be it, I won't be around to put it back up anyway, but Wikipedia's loss is our gain. Wikipedia will only decrease in number of articles (and as a result, degrade in quality) and let other wiki sites grow larger instead. So, keep up the good work! Aneirin 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, knowing how many members you have (from the website it was difficult to tell if there were 60 or 600) is helpful. However how many of those 600 are defined from mailing lists? WP:WEB likes to have online organizations written about by others, and to have a large member base for forum-type sites. If it was 600 local/active folks, it'd be easier to verify your importance. Honestly, the fact that most of your copy comes straight from N.O.D.'s website or members makes people all the more suspect of the actual importance. As I said, I'm checking on the Solitary Druid reference; however I could find no mention on ADF's website of your organization, as you claimed: [44]. Am I missing something, or is it in the members-only section? I searched there as well but maybe you know the page where it's listed. We're trying to help you, but you do have to understand how things work here; it's not based around what we know, it's what we can prove. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What the hell is you're problem? All of you? Do you really think that the only good druidic website is one you should pay for? Then you people are nothing near druids you're just plain kapitalists. About this article itself. What is you're problem with it? Why don't you people want to connect yourself in anyway anymore with the NOD. Especially since you made the article larger not so long ago. I said this once before... You people are not worthy of being called encyclopedia you are something to laugh with. Ravenlady 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or prune to stub. I checked with Skip himself, and the original submission for the book, or close to it, can be found here (site is framed, main page is here). The material was sent in by David Dom and edited "all of them to drop down to just a paragraph or two". I get the impression therefore that this was part of the laundry list of groups at the end of the book, and as it was submitted by the founder, it suffers the same circular-verifiability problems as anything off of the N.O.D. website or The Druid Network. Until this group achieves success outside their own circles, I can't see us having a page on them, especially ad copy. I would be willing to help them prune out things that can't be verified from outside the group, but I fear they won't like the result. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nae'blis's evidence based reasoning. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nae'blis, who clearly knows the subject area much better than I do. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep The online college of the New Order of Druids, the Grove of Dana is accepted by the international Druid Network as a college that provides a good long-distance course on the different aspects and grades within Druidry: Grove of Dana on the Druid Network website

Torc 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete for nn-group. enochlau (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shankism

Delete under WP:NN and WP:NFT--M@rēino 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "not well known" according the the article. Edgar181 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense but absolutley non notable although that is not supposed to be a criteria to delete--212.138.113.13 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry

Non-notable amusement website. -- RHaworth 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB--Adam (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Latinus 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. It is fairly thorough and has potential but only if the site gets more traffic. Hdstubbs 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Norwegian Barry added at this point in the debate. -- RHaworth 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as non-notable. Deli nk 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • SAVE I like the website. This guy should get his own wiki.


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

The result of the debate was delete; put this on DRV if any proof of his existence can ever be found, or just recreate with some decent sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saurdacil

Character in the Lord of the Rings universe who is... never mentioned by Tolkien. Delete as Tolkienfancruft. bikeable (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Bugturd Talk 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia. Edgar181 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Optichan 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's real. Page numbers pending. Saurdacil 12:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with an appropriate LOTR page he turns out to be in there after all, otherwise Delete as per nom. Vanigo 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MiniBB

Delete as advertisement for website even though there is no link provided Bugturd Talk 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB--Adam (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kungfuadamn. NoIdeaNick 19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Edgar181 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:57, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GSPN

An email newsletter with 5 subscribers is not notable. NoIdeaNick 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

GSPN is a viable newsletter that is sent out to between 50 and 100 people each week, thus it is a notable newsletter.


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

The result of the debate was redirected already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War metal

Made up musical genre. Neoglism of certain bands from the Black Metal genre. Supposed themes of this 'genre' are key themes in the genre of Black Metal, and as such, this list draws no distinction from Black Metal nor does it have any source, or notablity. Deleted and redirect to Black Metal Leyasu 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Be bold and Redirect it yourself, don't waste our time with it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:03, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albany Academy and Albany Academy for Girls Wiki

Delete possibly speedy as copyvio. Looks like a course syllabus copied directly from a webpage for one of the courses there Bugturd Talk 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT and not being encyclopediac--Ac1983fan 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any chance of it being sqieezed into a CSD criterion? -R. fiend 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted - it is not a cut and paste - OK the URLs in it were. This is for our course Computer_Writing at Albany Academy for Girls in Albany NY

Comment:Then it does NOT belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a hosting site. If you would like to host up random stuff, try blu-wiki.org --Ac1983fan 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I really don't see how this fits into Wikipedia, it isn't encyclopediac, it just seems to be the syllabus for a course. Lammoth 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've moved it to the teacher's user space. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-2 19:35


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Schaller

Schaller was allegedly responsible for raising $8 million for the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle, but a cursory Google shows no notability, and I don't believe this in itself makes Schaller notable. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sure he warrants a mention on Thune's page, but everything else here is nn. -Jcbarr 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Andy Saunders' google search was inaccurate. If you google Schaller and Thune, the 2nd posting is from an article which references Schaller's involvement in Thunes historic victory. From the February 2005 edition of Campaigns and Elections Magazine, ""John Schaller has been promoted to vice president of political services at The Lukens Company after five years with the company. John has been a leader in the expansion we've had. This promotion is a testament to the significant contribution he's already made," LTC president Walter Lukens said. In his new position, Schaller manages the 13 people on the political staff, Lukens said. As political director in 2004, Schaller ran the direct mail fundraising for U.S. Sen. John Thune's campaign, which raised more than $8 million in less than eight months." I think this is evidence enough to KEEP Schaller on Wikipedia. -Seinfeld01
    • A search on Google for ' "John Schaller" Thune' reveals no hits whatsoever. --Andy Saunders 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I'm just doing the nominating because I personally do not feel he is notable enough for inclusion on his own. If the rest of the community agrees with me, they will suggest it be deleted. If they think I'm a crazy man for thinking so, they will suggest it be kept. Check out Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. --Andy Saunders 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Specifically Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_still_alive is the relevant policy. -Jcbarr 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You need to check your internet connection. If you google "Schaller Thune" articles from Campaigns & Elections will come up. Shame on you for trying to discredit a notable achievement with symantics. --Seinfeld01 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, it is unfair for "James Barrett" to have any form of nomination ability since his bio clearly states he worked for John Edwards and John Kerry. His bio is a who's who of left wing, liberal viewpoints and his opinion is merely a partisan smear tactic against someone who helped a Republican candidate for office. --Seinfeld01 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. Nice try, though. Also Seinfeld, you should not nominate other wikipedia authors pages for deletion. I have removed this page, where you nominated User:Jcbarr for deletion.--File Éireann 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, for a start, and not happy with bad faith actions by Seinfeld01 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • RFC). Stifle 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without any credible external sources or references, this article is unverifiable. — TheKMantalk 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Campaigns & Elections magazine is a verifiable source. Keep your partisan wrangling off Wikipedia please. talk 10:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. User's 3rd vote in this discussion. Andy Saunders 15:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Heavy metal music. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle metal

Made up musical genre. This supposed 'genre' is a neoglism of bands from both the Power Metal, Black Metal and Death Metal genre. It draws no distinction between the bands, except to state that several bands from the genres all use themes akin to war, which is already stated in all three articles Here, Here, and Here. A scene doesnt exist for this supposed genre either, and the term is not in wide spread use. The only band that refers to themselfs this way is Bal-Sagoth, and that is in open mockery of the term. Delete and redirect to the Metal Music page, as this genre is Neoglism, Unsourced, Non-Existant and Advertisment. Leyasu 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Be bold and Redirect it yourself - no need to waste our time with this -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why create a redirect for something non-existant? PJM 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The page has recently been deleted since the AFD. The page was in existance at the time of AFD. Apologies for problems this may have caused. Leyasu 22:20, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syntheway

Vanity/advertising, not notable, POV got much worse after page flagged with advertising template Craig Stuntz 19:29, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Cheng

Non-notable film producer. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Adam (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:57, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mighindoala

Seems farfetched. Delete Ac1983fan 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - 330 Google hits for it. If it's a real place and the facts are as presented, I think it should stay. However, the article needs to be cleaned up. EuroSong 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep, as long as it's a real place - we've got smaller ones here. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a real place (see here on the county council webpage), and it is one of the most tragic cases of depopulation in Transylvania due to the departure of the Transylvanian Saxons. Mihai -talk 12:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeybicycle

Non-notable literary website. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, although unlike most other random website articles, this doesn't have the ubiquitous external link. Stifle 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Cassels

Delete. Nice guy who's done some nice things, but completely unworthy of Wiki. Not notable, and arguably forgettable. One of 9 main editors for an out-of-print book? Owns a store? Is in a band? If everyone that fit such low criteria was in Wiki, Wiki would need millions of more articles. Airumel 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn.--Adam (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redriect to Mother Vinegar, with perhaps a pinch of smerging. -R. fiend 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking at Mother Vinegar, it may be AFD fodder too. If so, delete this article as well. -R. fiend 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, peripherally notable kinda sorta vaguely maybe. Even if all the wikilinks on his article do give me a headache ;x . Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is hard to pick the notable elements out of the subject's biography, being so appallingly written. Was he ever notable in the first place? That I have to ask the question prompts the answer 'no'.  (aeropagitica)  21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very weak, borderline keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Mother Vinegar. Stifle 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • M&R per Stifle. youngamerican (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thyella Aigeiras

They may be a sports team, but they seem non-notable. There are hundreds of thousands of local sports teams around the world. A Google search for them produces zero results EuroSong 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Andy Saunders 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Latinus 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There doesn't seem to be a fixed notability policy on sports clubs, and we do have a number of minor amateur club articles so far (look at VfB Eppingen on Category:German football clubs, for instance). As for the Google test, you of course have to do it in Greek in this case ("Θύελλα Αιγείρας", [46]) The article should of course be tidied up and categorized properly. Lukas (T.|@) 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I suspect that it is a worthy stub considering our other sports clubs but needing much more work. All three images are untagged and come straight off the source cited which as previously stated, is in greek. There is some English description here.[47].--Dakota ~ ε 03:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 10:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godol Hador (blog)

Correcting AfD listing no vote Obina 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB--Adam (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's a major force in the Jewish blogosphere. (I am only editing my comment from yesterday...) SerandEz --SerandEz 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep it. A.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.209.53 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep notable Derex 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability is not established or verifiable. Stifle 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the best jewish blogs out there.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shamayil family

This is basically just family history. So they owned land in northern Iraq; merely owning land isn't really encyclopedic, and I don't see any other real claims of notability. If there are any they should be stated. -R. fiend 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, there is nothing here that states the family's notability.--Adam (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as belonging on WikiTree, but we can't transwiki there. Stifle 17:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens From Hell

Tried to speedy this one but somebody kept deleting the tag. So I will try it this way. This is non-notable, and possibly a hoax. Delete Bombycil 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • keep. I think it's worth expanding- I am not sure if it is a hoax. Your speedy tag was removed because the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion.--Adam (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This may be true. But this article is original research. The collection of SciFi links may support this theory. WP:NORBut that is not for us to debate. What is needed is an source for this theory.Obina 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely original research, and despite that, the concept is far too vague. How was Voyager's Species 8742 "From Hell"? Seems more like a commentary term from television without pity or something. --DDG 20:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Worl, I can see the idea; aliens from some Hellish otherworld, even if it's not necessarily Hell itself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR, as noted above. PJM 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR, with a little bit of WP:SNOW with regards to the removal of the speedy tag -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research. Sounds like a topic for paper in an English class on contemporary literature. —ERcheck @ 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, unverifiable google. Derex 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is indeed original research. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedied BrokenSegue 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pratik Raj Pandey

not notable. probably created in error. text moved to his user page. Veej 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete db-test--Adam (talk) 20:52, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Agent Jared Smith

Bio with unverifiable assertions of notability. Almost certainly fictional copcruft. Delete Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as hoax, tagged it as such. RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't google Jared or the division that he ostensibly works for. If it's not a hoax, then it's probably vanity, given the creator's username Jsmith607 -- Aim Here 20:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per RasputinAXP. Blatant hoax. PJM 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an original work of fiction, surely, not an attempt to log a notable biography? WP is not a publisher of original thought.  (aeropagitica)  21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a publisher of dreams, either. -Jcbarr 22:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the Sandman 1999

Delete. Appears to be a fictional game and a joke article. rob 20:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The creator of the article asserted its non-notability here: It has never been sold. Or infact ever existed outside of one computer. It isn't really much of a game. More of a dream.--Adam (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable game.Obina 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, G3, silly vandalism. It's only purpose is to mock the Wiki. PJM 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, but not speedy. DES (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thunderbrand 00:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. That last paragraph really made the decision simple. --Optichan 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oambientone

Not notable, according to WP:WEB Adam (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your reply,what exatcily is the problem please. Your sincearly Shantis
  • Speedy Delete CSD A3: Short article with external link. Blergh. RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; A3 works for me. PJM 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as CSD A3. --Deathphoenix 21:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hearts in 5 years

Someone's opinions about a football club. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, it is POV.--Adam (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; non-encyclopedic babble. PJM 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original thought, be it incoherent babbling or not. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this, um, 'future history' of Hearts football club as breaching verifiability, among many other guidelines. Sliggy 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopædic article, violates WP:NPOV - babbling opinion from the author. They can start a blog for the same effect.  (aeropagitica)  21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crystalballism Flowerparty■ 21:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-per all of the above. Captain Jackson 22:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 8-Bit Memories

[edit] Reasons to Keep

  • Keep as is. Comment Podcast notability methods need discussion. Not knowing how to assert notability is not reason enough for deletion on any topic. There is a hostile attitude on wikipedia towards all things radio, internet radio, and podcasting mostly due to a lack of knowledge on the subjects. I would think in general, if external sources (other than the website for the podcast) can be cited, then the articles should stay until some other way to judge notability is determined for topics in these categories. Randomgenius 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral comment I think there is a bare consensus that licensed radio stations should be kept, though it isn't universally accepted. When you get into media like internet radio and podcasting, though, you have several problems. First off, they're DIY media, which inherently is going to generate a large quantity of garbage and a few gems (much like, say, garage bands, which are wikied and deleted by the legion every day). Second, there's no easy way to measure such things -- there are no sites that measure podcast or webcast popularity to any reasonable degree of certainty (though Yahoo Podcast is helpful in that regard). Likewise with Internet radio -- you could probably make a decent case for anything included in the iTunes radio tuner, but beyond that, how many stations are there on Shoutcast that have no listeners at all, ever? Ultimately I agree with you, and I'm sure others would as well -- there does need to be a discussion on the issue. But what you percieve as prejudice is AfD voters saying "Oh, no. Someone else's pet project. Make it stop..." Haikupoet 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to Delete

Yes, folks, another podcast wishing to be launched with a Wikipedia entry. Fails WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a podcast announcement service. --Perfecto 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. WP:WEB violation.  (aeropagitica)  21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I'm afraid Wiki will become a place for podcast announcements. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 22:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and start discussion on podcast notability. Using Yahoo Podcast (on which this comes up as completely unlistened to) as a reference for popularity is way too ad hoc for my taste. Haikupoet 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game News

The podcast with the lastest in, what else, video game news. -- Perfecto 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. OK, young men, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a podcast announcement service. --Perfecto 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See also the conversation between these boys on its Talk page.
  • Delete as per nom; WP:WEB violation. The 'talk' page for the article says it all, "grey area" of notability, indeed!  (aeropagitica)  21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way to assert notability for a podcast. Haikupoet 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Podcast notability methods need discussion. Not knowing how to assert notability is not reason enough for deletion on any topic. There is a hostile attitude on wikipedia towards all things radio, internet radio, and podcasting mostly due to a lack of knowledge on the subjects. I would think in general, if external sources (other than the website for the podcast) can be cited, then the articles should stay until some other way to judge notability is determined for topics in these categories. Randomgenius 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there is a bare consensus that licensed radio stations should be kept, though it isn't universally accepted. When you get into media like internet radio and podcasting, though, you have several problems. First off, they're DIY media, which inherently is going to generate a large quantity of garbage and a few gems (much like, say, garage bands, which are wikied and deleted by the legion every day). Second, there's no easy way to measure such things -- there are no sites that measure podcast or webcast popularity to any reasonable degree of certainty (though Yahoo Podcast is helpful in that regard). Likewise with Internet radio -- you could probably make a decent case for anything included in the iTunes radio tuner, but beyond that, how many stations are there on Shoutcast that have no listeners at all, ever? Ultimately I agree with you, and I'm sure others would as well -- there does need to be a discussion on the issue. But what you percieve as prejudice is AfD voters saying "Oh, no. Someone else's pet project. Make it stop..." Haikupoet 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Randomgenius, though we disagree at times here at AfD, I shall fully support the creation of Wikipedia:Notability (podcasts) (or maybe adding it to the neglected broadcasting guideline). This might even lead to a {{nn-podcast}} speedy tag. --Perfecto 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Perfecto. I did actually start working on an internet radio project under my user page for now. I don't know if it should be moved into a real wikipedia project yet tho. It could be modified slightly to include podcasting as well. Either way, the discussion needs to happen somewhere. Podcast and podcruft are obviously synonymous in the wikipedia community already and that's extremely unfortunate. Randomgenius 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh I say bring it in -- Feed it to the numerous wikicritters who "collaboratively" turn it to something else (for the good, if that's any consolation). Think of a good name, though. --Perfecto 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as podcruft. Support Perfecto's speedy idea. Stifle 17:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stickman arcade

Though I must say I'm pleased if your comic and forum has been running since 2 years ago. Unfortunately entries here must have been mentioned elsewhere before they can be included. I'm sorry, chap, those are the rules. -- Perfecto 21:40, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Mitev, Market protection of financial investments

Apparently fails WP:BLP since the sole claim to notability is a book which does not appear on Amazon even after I moved it from ALL CAPS. Both author and book are included in this nomination, please state if you think one should be kept and the other not. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I find no references to the book "Economic Alternatives" in google scholar, nor anything by Ivan Mitev. Nothing comes up about this book by ISBN in amazon, nor Bowker's Books in print. I can find no references in the EconLit (a database of economics articles, by subscription) about the "Mitev Method." The general lack of information about this person suggests original research, and most certainly is not readily verifiable. Delete per nom, WP:No original research, and WP:V. --Hansnesse 04:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Dennis de Wit

NN artist / vanity article. Editor has copied content to userspace. -- Longhair 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-noteworthy +/- vanity. Just shy of speedy delete criteria as notability is asserted, however poorly. Ifnord 04:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TWIN232

Wikipeda is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It reads like a how-to guide. Optichan 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It doesn't even read as an article. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 22:16, 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 boldly redirected. Ifnord 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folk and Popular Music of Italy

Redundancy with Folk music of Italy and Popular music of Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineviz (talk • contribs)

  • Am I violating an AfD policy because I simply boldly redirected now? Lukas (T.|@) 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all, you're doing what WP:BOLD suggests. This AfD can now be closed. Stifle 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pork Wrench

Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. There is no claim to notability in the article and my searches for reliable, verifiable sources for this article (on google, nexis, etc.) have turned up nothing. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schweigmait

nonsense about a place that probably does not even exist (see [48] or [49], for example) a.bit 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The real name of the place is Schweigmatt, not Schweigmait, and unlikely as it may seem, it apparently really is the birth place of actor Kilcher ('Pocahontas'). It's apparently tiny and hasn't even got a page of its own on the German Wikipedia, only a redirect de:Schweigmatt. Keep and move if anybody is willing to create a decent clean stub in place of this mess, otherwise delete. Lukas (T.|@) 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • ... a real stub like the one I've just added, perhaps? (keep) Grutness...wha?


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

The result of the debate was speedied. Babajobu 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Becque

Non-notable, vanity. WP:BIO requires that he be "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers", which the article shows he clearly isn't. Suggest he moves it to User:Paul Becque Oscarthecat 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Plus he's writing about himself... Malcolm Farmer 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per nom. This strictly doesn't need to be on AFD, just move the page to the right place and mark the resultant redirect for speedy deletion. Stifle 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy then delete. Will tag as speedy if not already done. Ifnord 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense, vandalism and attack on Austin Peay State University. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Poop State University

Delete a hoax Bill 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense (Doodiesburg?!) Avi 22:41, 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 Speedy delete as an attack page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farhad Zulfiqar

Possible attack page. Reads like an nn-bio up until the bit about him being wanted in three countries, which Google suggests is nonsense [50] [51]. Doesn't seem to be blatantly false enough for deletion as nn-bio or attack page, though. Delete nevertheless as hoax. --Malthusian (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment has since been edited by an anon to read even more like an attack page. Original is here: [52] --Malthusian (talk) 22:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrinopets

This is a substantial recreation of a previously deleted article, see the first nomination. I'm not speedying because it is not completely the same as the original article, it is nearly a year since the first deletion, and WP:WEB was passed in the meantime. My vote is delete, does not seem to meet WP:WEB. --bainer (talk) 22:59, 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 nomination moved to WP:MFD. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Last topic pool

  • Delete. I see no reason for a nonsensical pool like this. Wikipedia being finished after a while is not something to be excited about, unlike the exciting time when Wikipedia reaches a million articles, as indicated by Wikipedia:Million pool. What is this supposed to mean?? Georgia guy 23:09, 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 speedy userfy, user subpage mistakenly created in article space. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FutureNJGov:FUTURENJGOV/monobook.js

  • Speedy delete Nonsense. ManiacK 23:13, 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homestyle Center

This page didn't quite fit into any of the speedy categories, although it came close. It is about an unimplemented housing project that was to consist of 25 homes. There is no indication of notability, and it doesn't appear very interesting or encyclopedic. I favor delete. RJH 23:18, 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. Babajobu 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emack

Nominated for speedy deletion by Dunemaire with the reason: "It's an article in Portuguese about a non-notable website of a Presbyterian college in Brasil." CSD A7 does not cover websites, but I see no claim that this would meet WP:WEB. Thus delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It also happens to be a cut-and-paste job from the mentioned website. Kusma (討論) 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My bad, I should have put it for delete, not SD. Dunemaire 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to McJob. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flipping burgers

this nomination for deletion was not completed so I am giving a reason.Delete unencyclopedic Bill 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect to McJob. Gazpacho 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to McJob. Police officer 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • as above, speedily. Derex 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

feh, i just boldly redirected it as above. nothing to see here. Derex 23:45, 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 redirect. Babajobu 10:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic Colonization

Delete as OR, unverifiable speculation, crystal ball. Doctor Whom 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - crystal ball and original "research"/speculation. —ERcheck @ 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is actual research out there into predicting patterns of interstellar and galactic growth, given various technologies. This article shows no sign of that serious research. In infinite time, someone else can recreate it with appropriate serious content. Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is unsourced and original research. However the topic is covered in better articles here. Redirect to Space colonization. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merging with Space Colonization seems a good option. The important thing is that the topic not be avoided. Just as those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it, those who are ignorant of the future are condemned to be run over and trampled by it. - Das Baz, Groundhog Day 2006, 10:15 AM.
  • Redirect. Nothing valuable to be merged. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as link spamming/nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crackahs

Delete as non-notable website. The gaming clan has only 4 members, so it doesn't seem important. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak! Hey, we gotta start somewhere! Adinsx88 | (talk)

"doesn't seem important"? Get a life. Obviously you didn't read the Wiki definition of a gaming clan. Right on the page it clearly states "These range from groups of a few friends to 1000-person organizations"

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-scarcity economics

now redirected

This is a neologism. Google shows only 60 distinct hits. Apparently it is a phrase uttered by Cory Doctorow. From an economic perspective, this phrase is sheer nonsense (I'm an econ prof), and it is certainly not used in the profession. The article lists a few examples of near-zero marginal cost of production, an important and well-studied economic phenomenon. However, a techno-hipster neologism of no widespread use is not the place for a discussion of those issues. Also, this content is not a useful basis for such an article, it's just a couple of examples. Should this be deleted, I would be willing to write a proper economic article on this issue. (I usually avoid writing economics articles, because that's what I call work.) I have contacted the original author asking for some evidence that this term is notable, but received no reply. Derex 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am reasonably certain the phrase predates his usage. Post scarcity is used in my 1995 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Although as I see post-scarcity comes out blue this can be deleted after all or possibly merged.--T. Anthony 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, a redirect to that works for me, as it is quite clear about the sci-fi context. What worried me was seeing wikipedia used as a platform to spread this nonsense as a term about our actual economy (as it was written). I'll just redirect then, as the objection was mine, and that's a perfectly reasonable resolution. Derex 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not a neologism; I heard the term as far back as 1971. It apparently fell out of fashion after the mid-70s oil shocks demonstrated that we weren't headed for a post-scarcity economy anytime soon. But it certainly was influential in some circles; one guy who believed in, talked about, and apparently acted on the concept was Mitch Kapor. Monicasdude 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, Kapor got mighty rich off something that wasn't scarce; wish I could figure out how to do that (economist joke about defn of scarcity). He wasn't the first either, guys like Ernest Hemingway and William Shakespeare did the same thing a long time before. Anyway, I didn't say the term "post scarcity" was a neologism, because I didn't look it up. "Post-scarcity economics" is, or at least it's a oldogism that hasn't been used in a long time per google. My point is that this is certainly not a branch, school, or tradition of economics as a science. It's fine as a sci-fi term. It may even be a notable "popular economics" term, though google thinks otherwise. If someone can properly source this article as being of some notability, I'll concede. I don't want to sound high-handed or snotty here, but frankly this is the sort of junk article that makes experts doubt the credibility of wikipedia; it made me cringe anyway. Derex 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd say it's purely "sci-fi", but it is by definition highly speculative. There's no solid reason to think we'll reach a point where scarcity of all kinds will vanish.--T. Anthony 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kyle Paradox


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non exsistant popular rating system 2006 (sic)

Self-admitted original research; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Makemi 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research and poorly worded. Last Avenue 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. —ERcheck @ 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research and made up in school. - squibix(talk) 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What makes you think this was made up in school? Are you just trying to be condescending? ×Meegs 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't tell if it's OR or if it's a description of something that Canada's really considering. The examples make me think it's the former, but even as the latter it's not useful. ×Meegs 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: no reference is made to anything actually being considered, so its either WP:NOR or WP:NFT -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dora the Explorer contains some very slight inapropriate material? Oh, and it's clearly original research. --Optichan 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:56 2006-02-05


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Cohan

  • This is a vanity page. Person is not someone of note, inappropriate for Wikipedia. As evidence, Technorati lists only 2 blogs as linking to author's blog. Babson 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: User:Babson's three edits are all related to this AfD. Unusually zippy discovery of AfD for a new user.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears that the page was created, essentialy whole, by an IP address that's never edited any other entries. That IP resolves to a cable modem in Mass., consistent with the subject's location. Looks to be a vanity page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.7.202 (talk • contribs) .
  • Who is this guy? Appearing in a few magazines and on TV once or twice doesn't make you all that noteworthy. I'd say delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.219.46 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy keep, author of 7 books, amazon.com gives 23 results for Peter S. Cohan, first page of google results for the name gives an article in Washington Times written about him, 5 hits on google news. Also, nominator's first edit and seemingly a bad-faith nomination, since the whole article doesn't even mention the person having a blog. - Bobet 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that vast majority of 23 Amazon results are not actually related to Peter S. Cohan. This guy has writen a few books, but this is clearly a vanity page.--24.34.78.114 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no other votes to delete and (the nominator withdraws or the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive, or the nomination was in violation of WP:POINT). Please choose another vote. Stifle 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please re-read my comment, I said I believe the nomination to be in bad faith, since the only evidence given to support deletion by the original nominator is the ranking of a blog, that the article doesn't even mention. - Bobet 16:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm aware of that, and I suspect the nomination was in bad faith myself. However, the policy also requires that there have been no votes to delete other than the nominator. Stifle 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Anons can't vote, therefore there are no votes to delete. - Bobet 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is a vanity page, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.118.63 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy keep and expand per Bobet. Fetofs 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no other votes to delete and (the nominator withdraws or the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive, or the nomination was in violation of WP:POINT). Please choose another vote. Stifle 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Get rid of this article please, clearly a vanity page.
  • Keep, suspicious nom, given my note above and the multiple IP users encouraging deletion. Would be speedy keep, but this might, somehow, be a good-faith nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, original AfD tag was placed[53] from an IP address[54] at the college listed as Cohan's place of employment. Almost certainly pov nom. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vga transfer of data color over the cable

Untranslated for two weeks on WP:PNT. Discussion from there below. Kusma (討論) 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Contains scanned pictures with foreign text, possibly Croatian/Serbian (or Slovenian?). Na sliki je napisan RGB zapis slike in je prikazan za eno samo linijo ... Austrian 14:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
That's Slovene. That is all the help I can provide I'm afraid. KolyaFrankovich 14:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My philosophy is that if it's not translated for two weeks, it's not important. Delete. Stifle 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep -- article has been translated. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Đặng Hữu Phúc

Untranslated for two weeks on WP:PNT. Entry from there below. Kusma (討論) 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese. — TheKMantalk 06:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is English Wikipedia, not Vietnamnese Wikipedia. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If nobody translated it in that time, it's probably not worth our time. Transwiki if you like. Stifle 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Raggaga 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I shoulda paid more attention earlier when it was still at WP:PNT. He's a Vietnamese composer. I'll put up a short article for him at Dang Huu Phuc and setup a redirect. --Diderot 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's done now, at Đặng Hữu Phúc, although Wikipedia has no clear policy with respect to Vietnamese. --Diderot 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Diderot's article of course (or speedy keep since the circumstances have changed so much) and thanks a lot to Diderot! Kusma (討論) 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Kusma. Lukas (T.|@) 12:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep now, delist from here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Moore (bluegrass musician)

Three external links are crammed into this one sentence article. Created by a user whose primary edits are inserting external links. Besides all that, Google search turns up 718 hits. Mrtea (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. A Google search on "John Moore mandolin bluegrass" indicates that Moore has established notability as a bluegrass musician. Article needs expanding. (I tagged it as stub and moved the external links to own section per MOS.) —ERcheck @ 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Obvious keep. If working with Byron Berline and Earl Scruggs isn't enough to demonstrate notability, his allmusic page ought to. Or the multiple IBMA awards won by a band he belonged to. Monicasdude 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Monicasdude. --Craig Stuntz 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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