Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 3 January 5 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 4

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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True v. USAA

Argument for Delete: An article about a legal case which has barely begun, and about which there is no evidence any newspaper or journal has written, concerning a matter which itself does not appear to be notable or significant. Ordinarilly I'd be reluctant to nominate an article only a day old for AfD, but the submitter's other contributions (particularly those on Unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange) strongly suggest he intends to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicise his ongoing lawsuit. That's not a fit purpose to which Wikipedia should be put. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Argument to Keep: True v USAA was commenced (filed) 10 Feb 2004 (Docket # 04 L 79, St. Clare County, IL). Thus, this is hardly a new case: in fact it is almost two years old. True is singularly the most challenging law suit and easily the most significant event presently bearing on USAA's finances. It demands the immediate return of all unallocated surplus surplus. If Col True is granted class action status, and if Col True prevails, USAA will tautologically become insolvent and will then be disolved by the Texas Department of Insurance.

USAA's April 6, 2005 24-page response to interrogatories, in which USAA's lawyers essentially argue that the "members" own nothing, is one of the most revealing documents in USAA's history. This document will soon be available on a server located in Ulan Bator, with simultaneous mirror-service out of Vilnius and Yekatarinburg, and Irkutsk.

True v. USAA focuses on the fundamental issue that USAA lacks any capital structure. USAA exists off of money "borrowed" and then perhaps not faithfully returned to the subscribers. This law suit demands that USAA repatriate money questionably deposited in the Arran Master Trust - and that this money be returned to the subscribers who own it.

If there is some argument which dignifies the improper retention of these funds

(Author note as to argument to keep: I have absolutely no financial interest in how True v. USAA turns out. Will every signatory below please declare his/her "independence" in this matter.)

Critics: listen to this and listen carefully. " . . . and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne 1623. St. Paul's Cathedral, London. USAA's days are numbered. Look at all of you laid out below, as if you were tree huggers lying in front of a bull-dozer. You'all make a sad sight.

  • Delete as non-notable and advertising. I'm not opposed to significant legal cases being listed but this vulture should take ads out not use Wikipedia. Ifnord 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.--ViolinGirl♪ 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alr 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Could get wikipedia in some legal hotwate imagine the headlines: Wikipedia used to promote lawsuit-Deathawk 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. IANAL, but wouldn't this fall foul of Sub judice laws? Grutness...wha? 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 01:43Z
  • Deleteper nom. Evil Eye 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 02:22, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Carnildo 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since WP:ISNOT a newspaper. Wait until the case is settled and see if it establishes any important legal precedent. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as said earlier in nomination. Kaushik twin 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not asserted. -- MisterHand 15:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Incognito 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rescendent 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuidditchBall (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 05:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - created purely to attack federal institutions (as opposed to merely reporting about the criticism). Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daimnation!

Non-notable blog. No claims to notability. Ifnord 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knurek

Non-notable vanity. Kevin 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as A7. Alr 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am new to articles but I disagree with assessment of "non-notable" as well as that of "vanity." As a resident of CT, I feel I am in a position to assess notability of people from the state. If you feel the article is too much in the direction of "vanity," then please edit and/or suggest how to remove vanity from the article (which I assert is not "vanity" in itself).--RexRex84 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Feel free to disagree, but our policy (WP:VAIN) is quite clear on this. Alr 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link to vanity pages. I still fail to see how the article is in itself "vanity." Is it an issue of verifiable information? I can tell you that the subject is well-known and people in the region would be interested in the information. Published facts attesting to the "notable" status of the subject is well-founded. If there are parts of the article that are deemed "vanity" then they can be deleted, but I think the article as a whole is not. Information about the subject is of value, but perhaps not all of it. Moreover, it seems as if the policy is a little vague (as it concedes) and I think this issues can be remedied without deletion of the article. Also, per A7, the article's subject does not lack importance, and is in fact fairly important in its respective region.--68.9.241.103 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 01:51Z
    • Thanks for suggestion. Can someone advise on how author can remove page?
      • The creator of the article can request it be Speedy Deleted by adding {{db|Article author requesting deletion}} to the top of the original article (this is G7 under WP:CSD) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:13Z
  • Delete. wikipedia is not a family history site. The suggestions of alternative wikis given by Quarl seem more appropriate for this if it must be kept at all. Evil Eye 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I was asking about a biography site, I misplaced the article I guess (according to policy guidelines). I am asking how to remove an article (how an author can). "The suggestions of alternative wikis given by Quarl seem more appropriate for this if it must be kept at all"...No need to be confrontational, please advise on how to remove.
      • Comment: The AfD process is that which removes pages - an admin will come around in a few days and likely delete the page. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the members of the family even have their own article. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as what is now an empty article. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ISNOT (a genealogy) and generally unencyclopaedic in tone per WP:VAIN, or userfy if RexRex wants it. We were all newbies once :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete reads like a Christmas card letter -- MisterHand 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is so totally a realtor ad, once you get to the bottom and see what it's really about. -- Tenebrae 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteAs author of article, I support deletion. end of discussion. --RexRex84 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, per nominator and article creator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Terence Ong Talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, self advertisement. Blnguyen 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blumpster

Self-admitted neologism that is only used on one forum message board. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set descriptions in colloquial English

im at a bit of a loss here. its unencyclopedic, but what it is is wierd. BL kiss the lizard 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Looks like nonsense to me. Alr 00:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a valid language problem. When the symbolic math characters for "less than" and "less than and equal to" and others are translated into conversational English, the meaning is often ambiguous. The confusing senses of "to" or "through" or "between" are a topic of legitimate discussion.Anthony717 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • transwiki or maybe delete. I agree with Anthony that this is a valid topic of discussion, but one best saved for a dictionary. set (disambiguation) links to wiktionary, so anyone who wants to know what it means will get there. If it turns out that there are interesting things to say about the interaction between the colloquial usage and the mathematical usage, I might change my vote. -lethe talk 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be a pet English-usage peeve of the author. --Trovatore 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into an article on sets, but I'm not sure where it should go. This is useful information, but doesn't stand as an article on its own. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I feel this would make a worthy investigation or report by someone, but is not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Evil Eye 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 03:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into an article with a need for this information. I can't find one, though. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just kind of a rant, with discoverability problems. How would anyone find it? Some article might include a section on "colloquial English terms for X", but it doesn't deserve an article. rodii 04:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • From article writer: I admit the idea for the article was a little undeveloped. But I was hoping that other editors would help make something of the idea. In math and science and law, humans are very specific about time and quantity. But in everyday language, we are vague. As to the difference between "to" and "to and including", we are very vague. I can accept the article being deleted. I cannot, however, accept that the Wikipedia model does not provide a way for putting a fine point on vague injustices. Anthony717 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but find some article where this discussion may belong.--ThreeAnswers 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per rodii's comments. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as a minor aside/footnote in some appropriate topic. I'm hoping someone less lazy finds a suitable place for it ;) Zunaid 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. Changing vote per the WP:NOR arguments presented below. Zunaid 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think set or naive set theory would be the best place to merge this article, maybe under a 'Terms' heading, or something like that. --Sam Pointon 13:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (as very unlikely search term) after merging verifiable content to set (mathematics) or somewhere. Tone of the article suggests original research, so the verifiable content may be limited. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This topic might be appropriate in an EFL primer, but not in an encyclopedia. Unencyclopedic. Delete -- Karada 13:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopaedic, belongs more to a style guide on mathematical writing. Do not merge with set. If it does need to be merged somewhere, interval (mathematics) or mathematical notation would be better targets. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes do not merge with set (mathematics). Paul August ☎ 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not merge anywhere. This appears to be a (trivial) piece of original research. - Liberatore(T) 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically just a rant. Do not merge with any article on any mathematical topic. ManoaChild 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This could have been so much more. Denni ☯ 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not merge into any mathematical topic. May possibly be merged into an English style guide, in another Wiki. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see where this could fit, but mathematical logic or predicate logic, using symbols, will give you a different answer in certain cases to simply using them as word logic. So there is something to say about this. Blnguyen 07:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete do not merge into anything set related. While the topic of ambiguities in colloquial English may be a valid topic, the existence and title of this article is quite misleading. Many mathematicians communicate with each other in colloquial English. Thus, there are many ambiguities that arise. In many areas of mathematics. To highlight this particular one as particularly noteworthy as an issue is misleading. --C S (Talk) 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Chan-Ho's remarks above. ←Hob 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Uncle! Uncle! howcheng {chat} 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snuggle bear

Article about an advertising icon. Well-known in the US, but I don't really think it's particularly encyclopedic. (Kool-Aid Man is a different story, though.) howcheng {chat} 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Snuggle bear creeps me out. Not a vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nowhere to merge this, so get rid of it (and the picture, too). Alr 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite the name, the article is and stands to continue being largely about the brand, not the bear. For better or worse we seem to have quite a lot of individual articles for individual Unilever brands (such as Persil, Dove (brand), and Surf (detergent)). Personally I'd have a unified Unilever brands article, but in its absence rename this article to Snuggle (brand), link from Unilever, and place a dab at Snuggle. Like Zoe I'm creeped-out by Snuggles, but I can't vote delete in case he comes to my house and gives me a super special hug. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup: We have articles about the Energizer Bunny so why can't we have one about this advertising icon?- Deathawk 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Both the brand and the advertising icon are notable.--Samuel J. Howard 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added more info to the article.--Samuel J. Howard 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. That's ridiculous to say it's not notable. Poppin Fresh, Mr. Peanut, all of those including snuggle bear are very much worth having here.--TaeKwonTimmy 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that I never said this was not notable, just not encyclopedic. Does the Snuggle bear have any real cultural significance? Has it influenced other brand mascots? The Energizer Bunny caused Duracell to make parody commercials, the Kool-Aid Man has a star on the Walk of Fame (OK, I can't verify this but I totally remember seeing it in the news), and the Pillsbury Doughboy inspired the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. The Snuggle bear has done nothing but hawk fabric softener and thus, to me, is unencyclopedic. howcheng {chat} 07:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this mascot is noteworthy. Smerdis of Tlön 06:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Creepy but notable. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's still no guidlines that say it has to have had some sort of major, groundbreaking impact and cure world hunger. It's a well known mascot. I'm gonna have to call foul on this one and say afd was a bad call. Sorry. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- 1)cute; 2)named mascot which others may wish to look up. --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but please expand, if possible. Someone might want the information. Logophile 09:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Unilever. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, mascots from international commercials. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but edit to be more about the brand, and then move to Snuggle (brand) or Snuggle (fabric softener). -- Karada 13:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep precident is set by Pillsbury Doughboy and others. Was parodied on Futurama, if that's required for notability. -- MisterHand 15:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precident. Besides, back in the 80's, when I was 4, I had a Snuggle Bear. And a Snuggle Bear backpack. What? I was a fan! --Thephotoman 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enumerative organization

Neologism, original research. As far as I can see, this term is only seen in Wikipedia and its mirrors. See also retiary organization. Delete -- Karada 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete

[edit] Retiary organization

Neologism, original research. As far as I can see, this term is only seen in Wikipedia and its mirrors. See also enumerative organization. Delete -- Karada 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Those keeps that rest on the fact of marriage don't appear to have any basis for that claim, and the reference to wikitabloid very appropriate. An encyclopeda is not a gossip magazine. -Splashtalk 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus Short

nn dancer, article fails to allege notability. I was tempted to speedy it as nn-bio, but decided to bring it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Tabloidcruft. Delete or Smerge to Britney Spears —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 01:57Z
  • Keep and expand. Besides the massive media frenzy surrounding the Britney romance, Mr. Short is also an up-an-coming film and TV actor. [1].—Preceding unsigned comment added by JJay (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unfortunately, being married to Britney Spears counts as notable. --Thephotoman 15:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Where does it say they were married? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Short spent way more quality time with Britney than her first husband, who btw has an article here. -- JJay 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep At least as long as he is married to her ;) Cyberevil 05:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Does this actually mean delete, then? ^_^ - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as married to Britney. --Terence Ong Talk 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Now changed to delete, since he is not Britney's husband, it is non notable. --Terence Ong Talk 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I confused or are you guys? Nowhere does it say that he is married to Britney Spears! User:Zoe|(talk) 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If he is not married to her, then get rid of the article. Maybe -he- doesn't even know if he is married to her. Cyberevil 17:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Short is an essential part of the saga, both for the interracial aspects and as validation of the homewrecker accusations surrounding the Federline marriage. In fact, the parrallels between Short and Federline are fairly eerie. -- JJay 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
All this in my opinion belongs more in a tabloid than in Wikipedia. And an interracial relationship? Calling that noteworty is a little stretching. Even if he was/is/had been married to Spears only got me to a rather weak keep. Cyberevil 22:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not me calling it noteworthy. It was the world at large given Spear's image at the time. -- JJay 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Exactly how much of this is WP:V? Send to wikinews, or wikitabloid if such a thing exists. If you must, create a redirect to britney spears and protect it following the deletion. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable except as gossip about Spears, thus can be mentioned in her article if at all. ←Hob 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West coast phreakers

Nominator votes delete, because this group is too non-notable (only 293 Googles). King of Hearts | (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree, this is a well known group. Just because you have not heard of it doesn't mean its "non notable" -- —the preceding unsigned comment is by Smes (talk • contribs)
    • Above by User:Smes, the creator of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 46 unique Google hits. It's hard to make hacker groups notable, and this one doesn't meet the bar. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: therefore the bar needs to be lowered for underground groups related to art/hacking/phreaking/etc because they generally don't get (or want) public attention. Just because they are quiet/underground doesn't mean articles such as West coast phreakers aren't important examples to other topics at wikipedia such as Phreaking. If you look at West coast phreakers from a phreakers perspective, it appears to be highly notable. (see below, rewritten) --Phanton 07:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definately non-notable. Alr 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So what if its non-notable? Is wikipedia pressed for space or something? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Smes (talk • contribs)
  • Thats crap. Talk to any Canadian Phreak or Hacker and they will know what West Coast Phreakers is.smes
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscrimiate depository of information. Please read WP:CIVIL as well. Alr 01:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. If this group achieves verifiable notability (such as an article in a major newspaper) then the article can be recreated. Durova 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, when you've got some accomplishments to include, then it belongs in an encyclopedia. Future potential isn't grounds for an article now. Night Gyr 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity ("The co-founder of the group, smes, is quite illusive of where exactly he is from usually only making vague statements to his location such as “Vancouver Island”, or south of Drunken Duncan.") —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:01Z
  • Comment: This has now been cleaned up and resolved. --Phanton 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Evil Eye 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 02:26, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have updated the article and added some more content which can be verified. Given the nature of phreaking groups generally being 'underground' and quiet to the outside world, 293 google hits is not actually that bad. I think this article on West coast phreakers is quite important to the topic of Phreaking, and it is an article that can be updated constantly, as the group is still alive and making publications. There aren't too many examples of modern phreaking groups on wikipedia, and this one would serve as a great example in the Phreaking article. (see below where I have rewritten this) --Phanton 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with groups such as this are as much about WP:V as anything. To much verification and they end up at her majesties' pleasure. And while I agree that these guys appear somewhat notable in their zone, unfortunately that's not the criterion. Delete without prejudice or malice. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Concerning WP:V, The publications they produce are collected from a variety of independent sources not affiliated with West coast phreakers. But these are not the focus of the article. The article itself is more a summary of the group including what it does, its history, etc. There is hardly a better source for this sort of information than their official website and their magazine issues which have been copied around the internet and archived in their original form. --Phanton 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, I'm not sure vanity is a concern here, but from WP:VAIN: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. - see Phone losers of america for a similar phreaking group article, although that article is more indepth at the moment. (see below) --Phanton 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also a little note regarding other phreaking group articles at wikipedia. The only other phreaking group which has an article listed in Category:Phreaking is Phone losers of america. Given the underground nature of the phreaking topic, its importance to 1980-1990 telecommunications history and the lack of examples on wikipedia (important!), it would probably help people researching phreaking by keeping West coast phreakers. --Phanton 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I googled this, and it came up with 752 results - almost none related to the group itself, except for postings to boards and such like by the group themselves. A high number of google hits in itself is not indicative of notability. Entering my name (my real name I mean) brings up over 1,000 results, but I'm still not notable (with the exception of a shitstorm I accidentally caused on NewsForge once :-) ) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - 1) Not yet particularly notable. I checked around and only one of my friends had even heard of this group. 2) Terrible 'zine. We were producing far better material than WCP's back in the 1980s, when BBSes reigned and the Internet was a wet dream. You need better content, smes. 3) If they manage to accomplish anything in the next few months and word gets out, I would be more inclined to vote 'keep', and even help edit the article- it would be a pleasure, but only if they do work on their end as well, like learning something besides cell freqs, which any n00b can snag from bottom-feeders in the scene. And red boxes? Come on.... Put some better instructions and designs on your site, smes. Tone generators are old hat. We have far better rigs we can make these days, even with the usual crap parts from the jerks at Radio Smack. Good start, and points for reviving the scene in your end of n-space... but you gots no cred yet. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V. Also, Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. Zunaid 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. I love the comment that the mag has been compared with 2600 - "Compared with 2600, this is crap" would count :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Who's the asshat that directly compared WCP to 2600? Originially I only compared them as both print mags, nothing else! User: smes>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - brenneman(t)(c) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco Art Institute

Vanity page about achievements of alumni, mostly NOT about the Institute itself. Looking back through the history, it is apparent that someone at the Institute repeatedly changes article to biased information about the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.75.197 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and majorly cleanup. Google records over 240,000 hists for "San Francisco Art Institute" [2]. The place is clearly notable, but the article in it's current form is in dire need of attention by someone who knows what the art school is all about. Evil Eye 02:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - In the current state, the article is pretty much just a timeline similar to "IMPACT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE" in regards to awards/achievements. I agree that it should be kept and rewritten, with a better layout for the timeline (which should probably be trimmed down to JUST the most important events). --Phanton 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup then Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:11Z
  • Cleanup then Keep -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep per above. Rogue 9 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep as above. Definitely notable enough for an article. 23skidoo 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup The Institute is a valid subject for an article, but the contents do not attest to this as they stand. -- (aeropagitica) UK 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep as consensus. --Whouk (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup with vigour. Institution is clearly notable, buit this article as written sucks big time. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup; very notable institution. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've performed some major surgery on this article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 10:29Z
  • Keep and total cleanup, notable. --Terence Ong Talk 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Vegaswikian 06:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rightway Online

Local business in Corpus Christi, Texas. Does not meet WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 91X Top 91 of 2004

This is certainly verifiable, but it's just listcruft. Do we care what the top N songs of YYYY were as declared by some radio station? Not I, said the fly. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone apparently went around cut and pasting a lot of these, starting from 91X Top 91 of 1983 up until 91X Top 91 of 2005. At least some of them are recreations of deleted content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/91X Top 91 of 1983) and at least one is currently listed on afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/91X Top 91 of 1995). I say delete them all. - Bobet 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The creator of the lists said to delete them all in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/91X Top 91 of 1995 (comment by Tom on 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)). Shouldn't that qualify them for speedy deletion? - Bobet 01:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure if that qualifies them for speedy deletion, but I think they should all be deleted anyway. Evil Eye 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Pepsidrinka 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot of them. Scoo 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Obina 11:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Unecyclopedic and nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Zunaid 11:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft, plain and simple. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AfD on '95 article. XETRA-FM is probably a notable enough station, just by virtue of being a Mexican-licensed station with a primarily US audience, but I don't think they're that influential that their listcruft belongs on WP. Haikupoet 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not some place to list the hits of the year. --Terence Ong Talk 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 taur. enochlau (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foxtaur, Felitaur, Wolftaur

Non-notable: an apparent internet neologism with only 854 google hits, referenced only by other "taur" articles. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Are these terms even notable enough for a redirect? - Rudykog 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if taur is notable, its non-notable variants should redirect to it. - Ekevu (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe better would be to redirect them to their WikiFur entries, where they'd be more notable and someone can add example pictures. Gentaur 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect or merge. Get rid of this fluff one way or another. Hu 05:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the other two pages have been added to the list, get rid of all three bits of cruft. Hu 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect all three to Taur; readers can figure out how many legs each one has. ←Hob 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Register. Note that addition to the register is entirely original writing and does not demand a redirect, however, a mention of it in that article does make a good case for the redirect. -Splashtalk 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Z Stern

Page contains nothing but non-encyclopedic and/or false information. Otto Z Stern is a columnist for The Register and is borderline notable, if that Aim Here 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: This is not a real biography. "Otto Z Stern is just a great example of British sense of humour. It always surprises me when people respond angrily as though he's real and to be taken seriously." from reader feedback at Nick Lewis: The Blog. The Register has a tradition of satirical articles, which many people take seriously. Otto is nothing but a fake satirical character, and of course, there is no mention of this on the wikipedia article *yet* which makes it factually lacking. --Phanton 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: added a disputed tag to the article. --Phanton 09:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defragme.dat

Article is about a single file created by a program. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of cruft. - Bobet 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 spam. - Lucky 6.9 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COLE TALENT AGENCY

Delete Corporate spammityspamspan from spamland about a company founded a few weeks ago, with a website on geocities. -Splashtalk 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deepening Days

The supposed artist got his page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig. If the artist's not notable, how can an album due to be released in 6 months be either? - Bobet 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:18Z
  • Delete, per nomination. Evil Eye 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A future album by a non-notable artist is not material for research. -- (aeropagitica) UK 06:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete future release by unknown artist = vanispamcruftisement. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Also agree to deletion of article page Debut Days same creator.
Article was created for personal advertising. 86.2.136.146 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debut Days

Album from a musical group with no article (Evince actually leads to a document viewer). Producer got his article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig. 0 google hits beyond wikipedia for "Debut Days"+Evince. - Bobet 02:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:19Z
  • Delete. Non-notable. Evil Eye 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as with Deepening Days. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Also agree to deltion of article page Deepening Days.
Article was created for personal advertising. 86.2.136.146 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closo

Nn website. No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. Nn alexa rank. Vanity article made last August by Closo who never returned. So unpopular that it was blank for a month and no one fixed it. -- Perfecto 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starcast

WP is not a crystal ball, article proposes that the game will be a game, but not yet  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staten Island (disambiguation)

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Same can be accomplished with link and text I have placed at the top of Staten Island. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Disambig pages that disambiguate only two pages are OK. And I don't want to vote on every one of them, so let's just keep them all :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:53Z
  • Keep. I generally agree with the above comment, and this is a potentially useful disambiguation. 23skidoo 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that there are alot of useful disambigs for 2 articles, but this is not something that really calls for such a page. There are very few links to this page, and a vast majority of those are from non-article pages. I think that the italicized link on top of the Staten Island, New York page seems to be enough. Youngamerican 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. --Daveb 07:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent. I wanted to say keep, because I wanted to be noble and say we were fighting Systemic Bias, however the Isla de los Estados article translates Estados to States (as I would have—not that I'm any great translator). But it also mentions Isla de los Estados was named after the Netherlands Staten Generaal. So basically, I'm confused, and I don't know what to do. Now wasn't that helpful? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have no idea if this is relevent to this discusion, but some German words pluralise to end "-en", and Dutch is similar to German in many respects, so this might be what has happened to make the word translate as "Staten" and not "state". But don't quote me on this :). Evil Eye 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Staten Island is unambiguous :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with allowing this disambig page to continue existing. Evil Eye 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a chance this dab may be expanded? = Mgm|(talk) 13:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I doubt it. I cannot find any other use of Staten Island as a toponym. the only other possibility would be the Staten Island Ferry, but I suspect people searching for that particular ferry service would include the term ferry in any search. Youngamerican 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect to Staten Island. That way, if a dab is actually needed here in the future, we have it. There's just no reason to delete it (no harm in keeping it as a redirect that no one will ever visit). Tedernst | talk 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just as a note, the only article that currently links to this dab page (other than Staten Island, which is removed for the moment) is Generality Lands (last sentence), which refers to why these two are named the same. However, we could also just add the two separate links to that page for the two islands. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • disambiguation pages should never have links to them - there's a whole wikipedia project to fix those that do WP:DPL - so let's not use that criteria as a reason to keep or delete Tedernst | talk 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep now has three things on it. BL kiss the lizard 06:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Staten Island" is unambiguous, and padding the list doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this now disambiguates three seperate articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Two entries – No. Three entries – Yes. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 07:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. the disamb makes sense. Kingturtle 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The second entry is a stretch, and the third seems to misunderstand the point of a disambiguation. Do we believe that someone is going to type in "staten island" when looking for the historical reference rather typing "New Zealand"? Noting that Staten Landt is already a redirect to NZ, there is really no reason for this to exist. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as nonsense. r3m0t talk 04:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reid Answer

Article makes no verifiable statements and externally links to blog  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EncycloZine

Nn encyclopedia site. No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. No media coverage. Long edit history, though, but fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I'm unsure over this one. Can anyone find anything verifiable about this site, like has it been mentioned in many magazine etc? I don't think the site visually looks that good and it seems like i could be just another web encyclopedia that doesn't do much. But there are over 100,000 Google hits, which appears way too many for something which appears as non-notable as this does. Is there something else with a similar name? Evil Eye 02:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. Alexa rank of 310,798. "Amazon affiliate" means nothing; anybody can create an Amazon affiliate account for free. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:59Z
  • Keep. See no reason to delete this even if the website is defunct. -- JJay 06:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and as vanity/advertising. The original author is user:Alan Richmond who is mentioned in the article as the zine's co-producer. Zunaid 11:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Domain looks to have been taken over by one of those search sites that buys up expired domains with any Google hits, contents of the article is substantially unverifiable, site appears not to meet [{WP:WEB]] (a guideline, not a policy, but a good indicator of whether a site is prominent enough to be verifiable from reliable sources). I suspect the Google hits are the result of search engine optimisation. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astor Place Cosmonauts

The Astor Place Cosmonauts are admitted by the article to be fictional. That's not the problem. The problem is that nowhere is it indicated what fiction it is from, and if that fiction is notable. The fact that APC's four Google hits are all from Wikipedia or mirrors suggests no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It's hard to work out what to make of Aeropagitca's comment, since it demands a judgement from me, the closer, on whether it can be cleaned up or not. Seeing as it hasn't been edited at all since the AfD tag, I suppose it's more of a deletey comment than a keepy one. -Splashtalk 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Cayford

  • delete non-notable Wanda5088 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable biography. 2 google hits for unrelated person. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 03:04Z
  • Weak Keep If the article can be cleaned up and the author can mention some of Cayford's notable works and/or contribution to 20th Century art then the article is justified. If not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) UK 06:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, not every artist is notable enough for inclusion. Evil Eye 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's see if it gets expanded. Cyberevil 05:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nn. *\o/* Dustin McQuary *\o/* 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AllChurches.com, Inc.

Basically an add for a non-notable webiste. None of the info is independently verifiable, it all comes from their website. This was a lot worse. I had to delete a lot of second person (""They have six unique ways to search their database for a church near you." But, I decided that it still deserves deletion because the info can't be verified (except for the lead) which is non-notable without the non-verifiable data Savidan 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. It really pains me to make that vote, but it seems to be a known point of reference for finding a church. I may reconsider later. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Ah, sod it. Go for a delete as per consensus. It's got the potential to be huge (although I'm not a church person) but let's wait until as and when it does actually achieve wider fame. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not notable enough for an article (per WP:WEB), but could it be used as an external link somewhere? -- Saberwyn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oger Fashion

Not a notable company by the guidelines at WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep until someone can verify that it truly isn't notable in Amsterdam. Pepsidrinka 05:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete unless verified as stated by Pepsidrinka. - Rudykog 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gets 45K Google hits, so seems notable enough. I've removed the sickening marketing droid POV from the article, so it's reasonably NPOV now. Keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Evil Eye 12:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had to delete this article. It was one of a large set of copyright violations persistently submitted and resubmitted by User:EuroJohn. However, please continue to discuss whether the subject satisfies WP:CORP. Uncle G 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Cowie

Delete non-notable political candidate written in POV style Drdisque 04:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Cookiecaper 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 09:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. Article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:16Z
  • Delete per nom, user's sole contribution to WP, probably vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, CBC can't be bothered with a profile on this candidate, shows what little chance he has of getting elected [4]. Average Earthman 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Independent candidates, Canadian federal election, 2006, Ontario or somewhere similar. -- Mwalcoff 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. *\o/* Dustin McQuary *\o/* 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pissboy World Cup

Delete non-notable, possible hoax "contest" Drdisque 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --DCrazy talk/contrib 05:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Three hits on Google and hosted on Bravenet. Cookiecaper 05:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can assure you that this is not a "hoax contest". It is most certainly for real, and will continue to be whether you delete it or not. Why go to the bother of setting up a website and a forum for something that doesn't exist? --Radioshed 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hoax or not, it isn't notable. Cookiecaper 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You'll probably find that this article doesn't actually come under any of the things listed in "Why this is wrong" on that particular page, Thesquire. It is not a made-up word, nor is it seeking hosting, nor is it the first instance on the net of its existence. The Pissboy World Cup is a competition with a growing fanbase in central Scotland, and its cult popularity is spreading due to advertising campaigns in the form of posters and flyers. Also, referring to what cookiecaper said, why does a website that is hosted by Bravenet automatically get a bad mark against it? Does the Pissboy World Cup have to pay for hosting before it can be accepted as part of Wikipedia? I don't think that's outlined in any Wikipedia rules anywhere. Radioshed
  • Comment: Radioshed is the author of the article. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't dispute that. However, that doesn't give you an easy excuse to simply pass off my arguments just because I'm the author of the article, which is what I think you're implying with that last comment. If you really need it, I'll bring in other people who'll happily argue this case for me.--Radioshed 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I mentioned that you were the author to inform others who may or may not consider your comment on the situation. If you can bring in others who can vouch for this sport's "popularity", fair enough, but I doubt it would swing many of us. I don't doubt you have a few friends that invented the sport with you. If the sport was really gaining popularity, it would have more than the three results displayed here. You're right, a Bravenet site doesn't deserve to be automatically shrugged off, but the event itself is inherently non-notable. Prove its notability (other than saying that it is growing) and I'll change my vote. Until that time, it remains delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I actually take offense at this. For a start, there is nowhere that claims that the Pissboy World Cup is a "sport", as you have accused. The Pissboy World Cup is nothing more than a game, and doesn't claim to be anything more. Also, the Pissboy World Cup was invented by one person and one person alone - me. The fact that you're already making assumptions as to how this competition came into being shows how arrogant you are, and that you've most likely already made up your mind before anyone can say anything against you. The fact is, none of the creator's "friends" had anything to do with this. On top of this, the fact that you base your confirmation of something's existance on google search results just shows that you are also narrow-minded. There's more to something than just what a typical search engine claims. Did the Olympics exist before Google came into being? If we were to go by your train of thought, then no, the Olympics must not have existed until 1996, when Google was created. What do you need before you confirm something's existance? And even after you confirm this, that something is "notable"? Do you want me to give you a free trip to Scotland so you can gather information on the popularity of the Pissboy World Cup? Unfortunately I don't think that will be happening. Radioshed
Comment As Radiohead is the creator of the article and the admitted creator of the subject matter itself, this now also falls under WP:VAIN -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also unverifiable. Melchoir 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Melchoir. Radioshed, please read WP:V to see why. Zunaid 11:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Like the man said, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delee as above. Evil Eye 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This helpful reference definately must be kept for posterity. In years to come your children will be saying "Daddy, what were you doing during the pissboy world cup" and you're reply will be that you were trying to cover up it's existence for no other reason than to gain status in your ridiculous web community. Look this nonsense, it's all is written in HTML. You are worthless people, keep your grubby paws off our competition and your opinions to yourselves. I assure you the pissboy world cup is not a 'hoax competition' it is a highly organized event which provides much employment in the East Lothian area. People have worked very hard to make something of this and if you want to destroy all that then you will have to deal with them. Personally. Yours, Euan Glasgow, Gosford Manor, Longniddry. (Comment by |Junglist euan).
  • Comment: I'm getting seriously sick of this. I've moved your little essay to the end here. You have provided no evidence whatsoever of this event's notability. You cannot provide a single verifiable source of information to back your claims up. Like any other, this "ridiculous web community" has rules, and you will abide by them. This is a forum of discussion and as such there is no need to "keep our opinions to ourselves". I find it very unlikely that this competition is known to anyone beyond the select group of individuals mentioned on the website. Also, if this event is so important, I fail to see why it is so critical that this article stays. How exactly are we "destroying the hard work" of these people? Is Wikipedia the only basis for this "competition"? That alone would be criteria for deletion. Another thing: don't try play on people's consciences, and certainly don't go threatening members on here. It will bring you nothing, trust me. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I make no idle threats sir. But perhaps I did go a little too far. I merely mean to demonstrate that we take this competition very seriously and any publicity to the wider world is a tremendous boon for us. The suggestions made on this discussion board that the competition is a hoax deeply anger myself and my associates.
I myself work for a group of 'notables' in the East Lothian county who are very much concerned with the history of the area as well as the ongoing cultural contributions of the younger generation. Such things have far reaching effects, that could even be of benefit to the wider scottish community. Having looked at the wikipedia regulations that have been highlited with regard to this entry, and after much discussion with my employers, the creator of the site and pissboy world cup officials, It has been decided that we may have to make some concessions.
Beginning from today I shall be preparing resources with which to begin the writing of an academic paper which will detail the strong links between the cultural phenomenon of the pissboy world cup and rich and vibrant history of Scotland. I will be in discussions over the next week with the foremost representitives of East Lothians cultural elite who have in their extensive studies compiled an unrivalled knowledge of the land and it's people, covering topics such as the battle of prestonpans, the popular music of the Proclaimers, the strange circumstances behind the Tennent's brewery fire in 1979, and of course the Sammy Burns mythos.
I ask only for your continued patience in this matter, I hope that this will go some way to satisfying your demands. I see it as my priviledge to be working on this project and will certainly be happy to provide some provenance of the pissboy world cup and it's distinguished roots.
Yours, Euan Glasgow, Gosford Manor, Longniddry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglist euan (talk • contribs)
Mr. Glasgow, I have reformatted (wikified) your edit so that it is easier to read. Your content remains intact. In the future, please sign your additions to talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
That said, I still think that this is non-notable, and unfortunately does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. I am pretty sure that no comments on this page are meant to be insulting or inflammatory; they do not read that way to me. The fact remains that there are no outside sources to back up this claim, and therefore this article should be deleted as non-verifiable. --DCrazy talk/contrib 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - how many DELETES do we need until we get rid of this nonsense? --'Oscarthecat 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — This should've been speedied, it's obvious it's a non-notable personal essay --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete no claim to notability in the article--Bill 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Yes, delete it. Go on. If none of the Wikipedia people have heard of it, then it obviously doesn't exist, and it wouldn't even be worth taking notice of if it did. I feel sorry for those people who think that this competition actually exists because of blatant propaganda which has been posted around the capital city of Scotland. Pity those lesser humans, they should quake with fear before the power of Wikipedia.--Radioshed 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You still don't seem to get it Radioshed. The minimum requirement of any article is that its content be relevant beyond a small group of people. People on here have invited you time and time again to present proof or sources related to this. Your answer has been to verbally insult anyone who challenges the legitimacy or notability of it. You have turned up nothing, except a Bravenet website and three Google links, two to your own site and one to a forum you posted to. If this was such an important event, it would have garnered at least a mention in a regarded weblog, a newspaper, or at least a number of fan sites. But there is nothing. In fact Google has been quite generous with the results. Yahoo throws up absolutely nothing. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and yes: Radioshed has asked that the article be speedy deleted. You can plainly see that. Right there. In the AFD discussion. Above. It's there. Kill the article. And yes. They should ALL quake with fear before the mighty power of the Wiki. ^_^ Cernen 10:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

...so why is it still here? Ah screw you all, I'll do it myself.--Radioshed 10:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Wulf Syndicate

Seems to be incoherent nonsense. Delete Unless author can be more specific and explain the article.TaeKwonTimmy 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Non-notable, delete. Garners sixty-four hits on Google and these appear to make it be a World of Warcraft guild with few members. Cookiecaper 05:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 09:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Whouk (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable online gaming group. I wish for expansion of WP:CSD so that this kind of article could be speedy-deleted when no notability is asserted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:15Z
  • Delete. Can't it be speedied for being nonsense? Evil Eye 12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would speedy this under A7 as a group of people with no asserted notability. - Mgm|(talk) 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. *\o/* Dustin McQuary *\o/* 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, since the final comment reveals it has already been 'transwikied'. -Splashtalk 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Che Guevara's Farewell Letter

This belongs at Wikisource if it isn't a copyvio, which it probably is. Cookiecaper 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki, then link at Che Guevara. Primary historical source material, it should be kept somewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 06:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and link per Ihcoyc. It was written on April 1, 1965, according to a bit of research (other sites confirm, that was just a high Google hit), but I'm unsure how that applies to copyvio status. I'm a little shaky on copyright law! Snurks T C 06:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, according to his article, he was most likely in Congo on April 1, 1965, so the copyright status would have more to do with the copyright law in Congo and/or Cuba in 1965. Cookiecaper 06:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not even sure that matters in the first place; the editor claims he translated it from Spanish and released it to the public domain, which would seem to nullify where or when the original was written. Snurks TC 06:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • A translation is a derivative work, so you can't just translate someone else's words and release them. And if it isn't copyvio, the original Spanish should be at Wikisource, as well as this translation. Cookiecaper 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • This is an official statement from some sort of government figure or would-be government figure, or officer or agent of the Cuban government. As such, it is very likely uncopyrightable source material in the original Spanish. Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Not all governments release their work into the public domain as the United States does. e.g. Crown copyright. Cookiecaper 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. I put that on the page. Daniel Case 06:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as above. No copyvio as this is an historical document. 23skidoo 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything's a historical document, that doesn't invalidate something's copyright. There is a legitimate claim upon fair use for at least some portions of this document, but it has not been shown as free. Maybe we should just let the people at Wikisource deal with this, as fair use appears to be a valid inclusion criterion if you can make the right argument. Cookiecaper 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. --Terence Ong Talk 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Polaris999 (talk · contribs) has begun Che Guevara's Farewell Letter at Wikisource. Transwikification is now no longer a valid choice. Uncle G 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At 00:02 GMT on January 4, Polaris999 added this to the article's talk page: "I accidentally created this page here, I was really intending to place it in Wikisource. I have now created it there, so this page should be deleted ASAP. Sorry for the inconvenience. Polaris999 06:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)" Cookiecaper 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete DS 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digison

Commercial/Vanity Crid 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pappu Ali

Was marked for speedy deletion (A7), and while it does not assert significance, it is also not about a real person, so this tag didn't apply. Article is bio of nn "infamous Gamefaqs joke account". Does not deserve BJAODN. jnothman talk 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The keepers execute a reasonable justification of the article. -Splashtalk 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critiques Of Libertarianism

Alexa rank is 959,041. I don't see how this site is notable by WP:WEB; text of article sounds primarily promotional. Daniel Case 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It is notable, as one of the only, well-organized, websites dedicated to critcizing libertarianism. It is the number one site on google for critiques [1] and third for libertarianism [2]. Canadianism 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for above reasons.Canadianism

(above vote by article creator)

None of those establish notability. The whole site belongs in the external links, and/or references section of, Criticisms of Libertarianism. Daniel Case 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, simply a link to somebody's FAQ site and a weak justification of its existence on wikipedia. -Drdisque 06:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Noted by college course links.Canadianism 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic comeback. So? Daniel Case 06:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thanks to the wonderful practice of Googlebombing, rank placing is not a reliable indicator of notability. The fact that a single, non-notable site links to you is not an indication of notability. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a link from libertarianism should do. --Pfafrich 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Pfafrich (I already voted Delete). None of the Keep arguments so far have convinced me of notability as a website. The article doesn't contain much relevant non-obvious information -- the only minorly useful information I see is that the site contains a FAQ and is run by Mike Huben, and that could be in the External link line. Link from Criticism of libertarianism might be even more appropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-08 10:30Z
  • Comment: maybe this website should simply be an external link under the Libertarian article. Kingturtle 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maison de Bonneterie

Not a notable company, based on WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Daniel Case 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Seems to be a major fashion store in Amsterdam, and as it has been around since 1889 in what appears from images on the web to be a fine example of luxurious late 19th century commercial architecture, I like to give it the benefit of the doubt. u p p l a n d 06:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & expand per Uppland. Scoo 09:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Leading and historic department store in an important city. There quite a few articles about similar individual stores. See category:Department stores. Calsicol 11:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'd like to say as unencyclopedic/non-notable (individual stores IMHO are non-notable) but how about as unverifiable unless a news/magazine article can be quoted about the store itself? Zunaid 11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Does that include Harrods? You are confusing unverifiable with unverified. Articles aren't deleted for lacking references. Honbicot 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Dammit! I KNEW someone was going to come up with a good counterexample. What I should have added in the first place is the caveat "except in exceptional circumstances". Harrods is an exceptional circumstance. Zunaid 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not a counterexample, though. There are plenty of third-party published works about Harrods, demonstrating that it satisfies the primary WP:CORP criterion. Take ISBN 0233996176 and ISBN 0330298003, for examples. Uncle G 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, for the histroicness of the shop. Evil Eye 12:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've heard of it and I've only been to Amsterdam once. Honbicot 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had to delete this article. It was one of a large set of copyright violations persistently submitted and resubmitted by User:EuroJohn. However, please continue to discuss whether the subject satisfies WP:CORP. Uncle G 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gothcore (second nom)

Fixing corrupted nomination (attempt at second nom at the first nom's page). Below is the nominator's provided reasons for deletion, (cut from the previous debate before I restored it.)...

I've revived the deletion request for the following reasons:

1.) The article is largely POV that violates not only the NPOV policy but also the no original research policy and, to top it off, the talk page makes it clear that it is a vanity page for the original author. Essentially, the author is attempting to create a genre to promote his band.

2.) Subsequently, it has since become nothing but a magnet for vandalism. The valadity of the article is clearly disputed all over the relevant talk page. This seems to be pretty clear to most people who approach the subject who are familiar with the genres that are cited here as reference material. :bloodofox: 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The previous debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothcore), was declared a keep on 8 April 2005. Fixing corrupted nomination/no vote. -- Saberwyn - 07:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: "Gothcore is an imaginary genre," 'nuff said. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 8K Google hits makes it notable enough for me. Keep. We remove POV and vandalism, but we don't remove articles because of them. (Otherwise George W Bush would be long gone!) Cut it back to a stub if that helps. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • George Bush (for good or bad) is an encyclopedic topic. A musical genre (and all this is according to the Wikipedia article and the inbound wikilinks) that is unsure of what it's origins are, claims minimal mainstream popularity, thinks it might just be a Metalcore with a different name, and appears to have no "WP:MUSIC-notable" bands as a part of the genre, combined with the "We're Goths / No you're not, you're poser-Goths" debate being held on the article page itself, does not inspire me with much hope for this topic in regards to encyclopedic-ness. Saberwyn - 10:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The word 'gothcore' exists on the internet 8000 times perhaps. This article though, is a made up term, created as vanity and/or advertising for a Non notable small business web site. Obina 10:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Many of the 8000 refer to a now vanished and unrelated Netherlands website.Obina 10:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons, particularly per Obina. Zunaid 11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another neologistic coining of foocore. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons above. Evil Eye 12:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was considering nominating it myself. No real documented usage outside of the article (or if there is no contributor has been able to list it), trust me I've looked and asked (see the article's Talk page). Other issues that effect it (but shouldn't be considered reasons for deletion on their own) are the unabashadly POV reverts from both sides and the inconsistency of its definition. If anyone could find references to gothcore being an actual genre of music with a recognized fan base I'd be inclined to vote "keep" but as it stands now I'm forced to vote for its deletion. - DNewhall
  • Keep. Term exists and needs explanation. -- JJay 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiability is demonstrated. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stop making up genres for the sake of it. Incognito 06:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If this AfD results in a delete based on lack of verification for the genre, would it be an idea to remove Gothcore from the "Hardcore Punk" template? -- Saberwyn
      • Sounds right to me. :bloodofox: 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because AFI wants to create a new genre for themselves (which seems to be the only reason why the topic/term exists in the first place) doesn't mean that the genre exists, should be created, or has any sort of following outside of some fans of AFI. While one could argue that Goth music genre should have more distinctions, Wikipedia cannot and should not be used as a vehicle for the creation, designation, or promotion of this term (or any others, for that matter.) --mwazzap 07:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, AFI has repeatedly said that they are not Goth related and have apparently denied being called "goth punk" so obviously your reasoning for deletion is untrue since AFI has no part in this (also see Saberwynd's google search for gothcore and AFI together returning nothing). - DNewhall

GeorgeStepanek,

The identification of 'A Fire Inside' as gothcore that you indicated occurs on what looks to me like a blog. According to A Fire Inside's wikiarticle, they are hardcore punk, an editor consensus established sometime around July-August 2005, after a series of edit wars (based on a comment on the talk page and a very brief browse of the edits in that timeframe.

A Google for "A Fire Inside" gothcore comes up with 29 unique out of 54 hits. Of these, we have two hots for the 'blog entry', a large series of Wiki-mirrors and Wiki-copyers, a scattering of other blogs, and a couple of forum postings where the poster appears to be unsure of the validity of the term gothcore. Googlesearching the http://www.afireinside.net/ domain for use of the word 'gothcore' came up nada for me.

Based on this, I believe that AFI, while notable, is not gothcore, and my previous comments still stand. Saberwyn -13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair call. I still believe that "gothcore" isn't just a term invented by the authors of this article, but you're right in that it does not appear to be widely used. I'm changing my vote to delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

discussion resumes

  • Delete 100%. It is just one guy describing a fantasy genre that doesn't exist. - Deathrocker 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism, obviously with no printed references whatsoever. -- Parasti 18:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Cipriano

  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}}

Originally I had some cleanup tags on it, but the more I think about it the more an article written like this about a guy who's put three albums out on his own label doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 06:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't appear to have a made a notable contribution to his chosen musical genres as yet. -- (aeropagitica) UK 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Three albums but I can't seem to verify anything.Links or verifcation of some kind and I will reverse my vote. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, non-verifiable, non-notable. Evil Eye 12:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find anything either.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete,,this man has worked and supported himself as a multimedia artist since 1992,,that is a lifetime, valid contribution to the arts,,he is not only a musician he is an accomplished glassblower as well,,if any one wants to see tangible copies of his work they can e-mail him, dyman69@hotmail.com, and they will get them,,he has distributed mostly and many gratis copies of his music until now but has perform many venues from San Fran to Victoria for years, He is getting ready to release "MotherLoad", which will be his first full scale commercial release,,,,..unsigned vote by 140.160.11.162 (talk · contribs)
  • Do not deleteThey thought Van Gogh was unnotable in his lifetime too,,,
  • Do not deleteNo where is there a standard listed for any proper dissemination of information of outstanding personalities on Wikipedia that I have seen,,,Having a website or presence or enormous financial success are not the only criteria for notability,,Joseph has tirelessy for many years made many thousands of people all over US and Canada made people feel good with his music,,from the homeless and most needy of our society to the most wealthy,,,He masters whatever genre of art he puts his mind too and he deserves his place in wikipedia,,from what I understand this is supposed to be a free storehouse of information about things and people that have made a difference in the world,,
  • Do Not Delete "Not notable" sound like a slick way to say discrimination!
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of passing the criteria set out at WP:MUSIC is presented. JeremyA 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not DeleteThe following criteria is met by this artist,,,"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."

I am Joseph's publicist and at this point spokesperson in constant contact with his attorney,,Joseph has written many songs that have been performed by many non-mainstream artists,,also he has performed on radio stations and has been mentioned on television and in sub-culture publications,,,,He has been writing lyrics and arranged melody and compositions as long as some as his mathematician detractors or self proclaimed editors of the arts,,,He is also on the path to graduate with a juris doctor,,specializing in tech and entertainment law,,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.92.205 (talk • contribs)

  • UPDATE: User:67.150.209.94, who had not posted before this afternoon, went and vandalized my user page, TaekwonTimmy's and EvilEye's right after posting the above "Do not deletes" . He has been blocked, for how long I don't know. And I don't care. This sort of behavior does not dispose me to be any more charitable ... in fact, now I change my vote to Speedy delete as a result of this misconduct. Daniel Case 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whenever a large number of votes say "Do Not Delete" rather than "Keep", it is generally an indication that the voters are new, and/or unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and because WP is not a crystal ball (see end of article's sole paragraph). If the artist ever gets the fame and/or sales they "deserve", they can start a new article then. Turnstep 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Turnstep. Influenced by the large number of unsigned votes and sock/meatpuppets. Stifle 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequentialism

Google turns up nothing on this Lindström chap. Therefore, no historical interest and non-notable. Daniel Case 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]]

  • delete rediscovered and reinvented by Lucian Einhorn (aka Lucian Winston) in late December of 2005 is a bit of a giveaway. MNewnham 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messengers.Ru

Alexa ranks this one a whopping 2,176,739th out of all the world's websites. Surely a reason it deserves its own highly promotional Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WrestlingFigs

Well, in addition to the totally unacceptable way it's written, we have the fact that its Alexa rank is 765,572. Put this one out of its misery. Daniel Case 06:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable article; author makes sarcastic comments about others on the web page, definitely not NPOV. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy as patent nonsense. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website, attack page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:02Z
  • Delete. Non-notable. Why can't people who make these articles even take the time to make them look like proper wikipedia articles? Evil Eye 12:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Essexmutant 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneered

Figuring out what mistake got this published here might be worthy of a genuinely notable article. Daniel Case 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article does not appear to have a subject; a list of awards - awarded to whom by whom and for what, exactly? If these questions are answered, there may be a case for notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A messy link from Larsen & Toubro. All of this stuff is also on that page, so delete with no merge.. It probably needs to be removed from that page too, as flagged.Obina 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Obina. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:00Z
  • Redirect to Pioneering per naming conventions? - Mgm|(talk) 13:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Obina --Andymaher 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pwnedproductions

Very few Google hits; text sounds promotional. Daniel Case 07:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Boy X

An obvious hoax that has been sitting in the back of wikipedia for a few months. If it had the slightest chance of being true then it would have been front page news on every gaming website. I can't even find a good rumor site to back it up (full disclosure: I only briefly scanned the google search I did.) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a cheap rip of the Nintendo DS. Delete per above as unverifiable crystal balling. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Crystal balling? Outright dreaming I would say. Completely unverifiable. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sceptre (Talk) 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax - unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:56Z
  • Delete as unverified and a possible hoax. Movementarian 12:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Evil Eye 12:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable hoax. I'm a Nintendo fanboy and have never heard of this. -- MisterHand 15:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:V. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable hoax. Incognito 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, completly unsourced! Empty2005 13:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Seems like a load of crap but

http://www.engadget.com/2004/05/20/details-on-the-game-boy-evolution-and-gamecube-next/

That may be of any use?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allen mcdonaldson

AfD : speculation article; potentially libellous if about a real person. The subject does not hit in google with Microsoft -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decibel Devils

non-notable band. No hits on www.allmusic.com -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the members is in a multi platnium band (the deftones) this is a side proiject that may intrest fans of his original band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (aeropagitica) (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2006

  • Comment The above comment about the Deftones wasn't made by me - I wasn't aware of this fact at all! As pfctdayelise says below, the information is better off being Merged in to the Frank Delgado page as a notable side project. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. They have released an album; normally that is enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. But on closer inspection, it's more like a compilation album, and it was only a limited release. And a DJ crew is not exactly the same as a band. If it is to be kept, the article needs a decent cleanup, as it stands at the moment. If the reason this is interesting is because Frank Delgado is in it, then the lead section should make that prominent. If voting delete, consider merging to Frank Delgado instead. pfctdayelise 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is clear that they meet WP:MUSIC. Right now it does not appear that they do. Vegaswikian 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salford Jets

Was tagged for speedy for being a nn-band, but claims that one member Mike Sweeney is a broadcaster on Piccadilly Magic 1152 radio and they had a hit song in 1980. Perhaps some of our Brits can weigh in on whether this meets WP:MUSIC or not. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The name rings a very vague bell, although I'm a child of the 90s. They do have an Allmusic.com entry. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • very weak keep - Heres an opinion from someone of that era( not that I've ever heard of them):
    • Had a major label recording contract for a short period.
    • 'Hit single' reached 72 on charts - Now worth nearly $10 on 7" vinyl
    • Recorded 2 sessions for Radio 1 - no info that they were ever broadcast
    • Appeared at the Marquee Club, but then so did a lot of NN bands
    • Never had an LP issued
    • Keep on the basis of historical interest MNewnham 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Although I originally flagged the article, it looks like there may be just enough justification to warrant an entry. Based on what I originally saw regarding the article, I'm glad at least there was a discussion regarding it. Jfiling 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Well known band at the time. -- JJay 03:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. a legit hit. a notable member. Kingturtle 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hart Hancock

The page is about an artist in a California underground prog rock band. A refined Google search yields 113 hits, which are either about California underground band information or are unrelated to the subject of the article. The article also appears to have been created by the person himself (see article history) and seems to be a vanity biography. Bumm13 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Ichiro 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damian Penny

Vanity page, together with Daimnation! (already nominated for deletion) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amphoteric (band)

Vanity band article; only links via Google are information on underground California rock bands; article was started by a member of the band (who also started Hart Hancock. None of their albums/songs appear to have charted on any major chart. Bumm13 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete no hits on allmusic.com. Article is more vanity than about a notable band. -- (aeropagitica) UK 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per aeropagitica. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

keep. You can't go around deleting every indy artist your itchy fingers find. If they're non-verifiable and/or are some local band, fine. These guys appear to be semi-professional, have been around awhile and have released several albums. While the article may be written by a band member, I'm sure we can rectify the neutrality issue by cleaning it up. Not being signed to columbia or atlantic is not criteria for exclusion. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

comment Also, they're on clearchannel and appear to tour worldwide. floater (band) is a wikipedia staple and they're just as notable. --TaeKwonTimmy 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Definitely notable, and their music is excellent as well. They have been popular since at least 2002. To aeropagitica: Allmusic.com has more errors than accuracy in their content, and too many holes where good (and notable) bands should have far more information available than is usually found. Allmusic.com is about as useful as religioustolerance.org in terms of comprehensive coverage of content. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup to remove NPOV issues. Stifle 02:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulla Olsson

Appears to be about a local politician (conservative opposition leader) in a council for a municipality of 40 000 people. I am OK with having articles about mayors in municipalities of that size, but there are an awful lot of local council members in the world, and the vast majority of them are unlikely to pass WP:BIO. Article is also a substub, almost devoid of any real content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Scoo 09:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Obina 10:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Borlänge isn't even one of the big cites in Sweden... Obli (Talk) 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark C. Farmer

non-notable — J3ff 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. notability not asserted. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:40Z
  • Move to user page - not notable enough for a WP article. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-bio. Essexmutant 11:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is verified. The information there *might* make them notable, but only if some of the claims (TV interviews on famous shows) are verified. Turnstep 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meiobit

non-notable — J3ff 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Ricarte

not appropriate for Wikipedia — J3ff 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Ricarte - The communications array

not appropriate for Wikipedia. — J3ff 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonestown

non-notable — J3ff 08:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, the discussion page was incorrectly deleted by user:DragonflySixtyseven. This action was not in compliance with the Deletion process. The deletion discussion should have been simply closed and allowed to archive. The old discussion is now restored. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

fixing incomplete afd nomination, page seems to be already deleted, no vote. -- MisterHand 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I voted on this earlier because it's on my watchlist. 2006-01-04 05:39:09 DragonflySixtyseven deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonestown" (unnecessary) (just before deleting Bonestown for "vanity"). Why? As far as I know AFD pages are never deleted, even when the article itself is speedy-deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 20:19Z


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep --Ichiro 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Right Stuf International

non-notable — J3ff 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete -- Longhair 10:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete doubly quick? (No vote from me) pfctdayelise 15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep TRSI is one of the few major players in the online anime/manga retail market. This itself may not be notable, but the fact that the company also licenses anime series from Japan and produces well-received domestic versions is. Though they release very few titles per year, they give them high-quality treatments. The series listed in this article are major anime titles that have won acclaim within the industry. See for example this review on animeondvd.com pfahlstrom 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, unless the nom cares enough to make a case for deletion. -- JJay 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. They're essentially distributors -- middlemen -- of niche creative products, products actually created by someone else. And if they're an "online anime/manga retail market", the low Alexa rank doesn't bode well for notability. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment They produce their own professional English-language dubs and subtitles (and the translations for them, of course), which is not simple repackaging. (Though I believe they're using the classic dubs for Kimba and Astro Boy.) There is an article for Rhino Entertainment, which does mostly do simple repackaging. pfahlstrom 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable within its circle. Kingturtle 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for Wikipedia. Up for collaboration. Quaque (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They have a notable role in that industry. - Bevo 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was gone. DS 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Barclay

Delete. No assertion of notability; I'd have speedied this article if it were new. Melchoir 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Kong Racing

Not notable: article for a video game that never existed. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. Obina 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as verifiable (Gamespot). This game appears to be a real cancelled game, as opposed to the "cancelled game" hoaxes earlier today. There are 45 articles and 1 subcategory in Category:Cancelled computer and video games. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:21Z
  • Comment - are cancelled game articles allowed, or is this something more appropriate to be listed under vaporware? 23skidoo 15:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this was a real game in development, and was very much anticipated in the early days of the Gamecube (before Rare jumped ship). IIRC, a screenshot from it even appeared on the Gamecube box. -- MisterHand 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as it meets WP:V. We do have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, after all. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Pac-Man. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inky, Blinky, Pinky, and Clyde

non-notable — J3ff 09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, but not for the reason it was flagged. They ARE notable, but they're already in the article on pacman--TaeKwonTimmy 09:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already covered on Pac man page. I wouldn't even redirect since the chance of looking for this exact title is negligible.Obina 10:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TaeKwonTimmy and Obina. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:18Z
  • Delete. content already covered in more detail in the Pac-Man article. Evil Eye 12:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superfluous; the main article does just fine. PJM 13:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would a redirect be useful here? - Mgm|(talk) 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Already in the Pac-Man article, and the characters have had no life or influence otherwise. Also, the writing in the entry is rather, well, childlike. -- Tenebrae 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pac-Man. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pac-Man -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. They are certainly notable, but belong in the main article. Going with (weak) redirect not delete as there is a finite chance someone could be searching for "Blinky Pinky", for example. Turnstep 22:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just re-edited the page to something more useful (and accurate - the original version had the personalities and colors of the monsters all wrong), but it still duplicates the information found on the main Pac-Man article. Delete if you like.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell

Non-notable one-off TV show. Robin Johnson 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - There may be a case for a single article covering this whole series/genre of programming, but the results would be better linked to externally. --Whouk (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Untidy, unencyclopedic and looks like a copyvio (though I can't find the source). The program was good though, I remember it. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
When it the article was first created it was a copyvio (I found the source); I put a speedy tag on it, but the creator removed the tag and, it seems, edited out the offending material, so I don't think it is a copyvio. I agree with Whouk that this series or genre - clips shows, or nostalgia TV, or whatever it's called - is worthy of an article, but this isn't it. Robin Johnson 12:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Whouk in that the whole series of programmes C4 has made over the past few years would be worthy of a combined article. But the results shouldn't be included unless a particular entry is notable to stand out from individual shows as the are essentially POV research carried out by C4. Evil Eye 12:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Horrible form. PJM 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, the "TV moments from hell" phenomenon is something international and is deserving of its own article (I might have a crack tonight but I'll ask a few opinions on how to approach it), but this isn't it. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 13:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, watched the program fogot all about it the next day. Agree with Whouk unless Jamyskis get something together. --Pfafrich 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 MacGyverMagic as repost (CSD G4). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:13Z

[edit] Hexus

This article was deleted a month ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HEXUS, it's back with a new name variation HackJandy 09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, I tagged it as such. Scoo 09:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 13:24Z

[edit] Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff

non-notable — J3ff 09:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination for deletion — J3ff 12:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She is in the House of Lords. National Government is defined as Notable.Obina 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep You have got to be kidding me. 1) Llandaff is an important diocese in Wales. 2) Baroness McFarlane has made her voice heard in the House of Lords more than a few times. She has made notable contributions to discussions in that ancient house far more often than other more crusty peers. 3) Her work outside of her political position is in itself strong enough to warrant having a bio article here.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as she is a member of a national legislature. --Whouk (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Calsicol 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per P.MacUIdhir. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:19Z
  • Keep, member of the HofL. Evil Eye 12:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Longhair as nn bio. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:10Z

[edit] Maurice Butchey

non-notable — J3ff 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - looks like it's been speedied. --Whouk (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm not persuaded to declare this a 'redirect' outcome since it would be on the knuckle only if I treat Bearcat as a redirect. -Splashtalk 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Grogs

non-notable — J3ff 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, almost no information. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 11:09Z
  • Redirect to Nanalan'. The Grogs are the puupet troupe responsible for the CBC children's television show, Nanalan'. I have added this to the article and provided weblinks confirming the claim. As the info covered in the article (the single sentence) is already covered in Nanalan', I suggest a redirect. Movementarian 12:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, only 650 google hits for "the grogs" and not all thos esem to be about this puppet group. [5] Evil Eye 12:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have provided reputable references that prove thier involvement with the CBC children's television show, Nanalan'. I don't understand your reasons for wanting to delete it. There are not many google hits, but why does that make them non-notable? They are verifiable and are involved in a "notable" television series on a reputable network. Movementarian 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Movementarian seems fair. PJM 13:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs major expansion, but seems notable enough to me. 23skidoo 15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Either expand and keep or redirect per Movementarian. I think they've done more than just Nanalan'. Bearcat 17:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since they are featured on the show, unless the nom wants to attempt to give a reason for deletion. -- JJay 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Movementarian -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Kingturtle 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodcast

Bodcast, porncast, podnography... is there no limit to the number of neologisms used to describe the inherently obvious extension of podcasting to pornmongery? For consistency with the others, which seem to achieve consensus delete pretty fast, I nominate this. Perhaps it would be best to describe all the newly-coined terms in Podcast, redirect and have done with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Podnography AFD has 5 "me too" delete votes followed by 2 keep/merge from non-anons, and since I was one of the keep voters, I wouldn't call it "achieved consensus to delete pretty fast". Also Porncasting has never been AFDed; I don't think anybody knew about it before - I tagged it for merging just now. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 10:55Z
Here's the AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porncasting. I think you might need ot be a bit more careful in flinging around accusations of bad faith as well. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see, sorry for that allegation. I checked history and talk... didn't realize it was a deleted-then-recreated article that nobody renominated (or nominated for speedy as repost). What I meant by "nobody knew about it" was that the other two articles didn't link to it (nor have merge notices), and nobody on the other AFD mentioned it. Obviously you have more experience than me in these matters since you participated in the AFD for porncasting. :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:59Z
  • OK, I agree in principle with the merger of all foocasting articles into a single place, since there is anever-ending stream of neologisms generated (as expected) by this expanding technology. The question is, what do we call it? My favourite would be "List of podcruft" but I sense that might be controversial :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree to making a List of neolojizzums and moving all *blog* *pod* shit in there. --Timecop 05:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merge as above -- Marvin147 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Seriously not noteworthy. Incognito 04:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - rubbish - Femmina 05:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this rubbish for now --Timecop 05:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now? More like forever. --Hosterweis 06:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Not worthy of more than one article. A.J.A. 07:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even close to Wikipedia standards. Cptchipjew 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. I would not delete the term just yet. This is an early term, yes, but a very potent one that could and by the looks of how the media has picked up on it, will be very popular. Also, it definitely has meaning. I have heard the term tossed around in daily speech between several different people.

  • Delete Not noteworthy. --Depakote 11:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete castcruft. Proto t c 13:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge with Bodnography as I suggested on the page when I first came across the article. Daniel Case 16:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How about DELETEing them all? Tapir
  • Delete utterly useless. Jmax- 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - useless pod-related shite. Eusebeus
  • Delete neoligism... WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional left-handed characters

List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-04. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (1).
List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion again on 2007-01-23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (second nomination).
List of fictional left-handed characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Simply put, this is trivia, failing WP:IINFO. It also lacks sources and verification, potentially failing WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very trivial list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as Radiant! points out above. PTO 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial list of trivial "facts", completely unsourced and no reason is given as to why we should care, thus failing WP:FICT. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly indiscriminate, OR and largely inaccurate. Includes many examples where the actor playing the character happens to be left-handed, or where an animated character happens to sometimes use their left hand inconsistently (like the so-called "ambidextrous" characters on South Park). Krimpet 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the reasons given above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete Utterly trivial, unencyclopedic list. I don't know why anyone should care. I can't imagine why anyone should care. Noroton 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete every 2D character sprite is left-handed facing a certain direction :/ JuJube 08:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Croxley 21:07, 19 March 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 KEEP, with a subst: into the article. -Splashtalk 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: this had in fact already been 'subst:'ed, so I've just redirected it. -Splashtalk 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Empires III/Civilizations Chart

Game guide - fancruft. Orphaned page, not really used. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom.Obina 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nome Zunaid 11:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC) see below
  • Keep. "Orphaned page, not really used" is not true: article is transcluded into main Age of Empires III article. It fits well in the main article. It's formatted well and looks complete. Also I'm not sure if it needs to be discussed here since it is only part of an article which was factored for editability of the main article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:43Z
  • Merge and redirect to retain attribution per GFDL requirements, why the heck is it transcluded in the first place? Transclusion is discouraged in the article space. - Mgm|(talk) 13:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Quarl. A large number of computer game articles follow this format. --Mareino 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment page has already been merged (back?) into the main Age of Empires III article, where it looks quite okay. On that basis I'm changing my vote to redirect per GFDL requirements. Zunaid 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It has not been merged back. It's transcluded there. Merge and redirect; we don't split articles for editing convenience. —Cryptic (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as already merged in the main article. --Neigel von Teighen 15:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If material is merged it either needs to be redirected or undergo a history merge to retain attribution per GFDL. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — Items not merged, was fixed by somebody. Civilizations list can be placed in Age of Empires III article, as it is not too big. Kareeser|Talk! 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above: transclusions are not ideal. Turnstep 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Also, is this just a direct copy of something that comes with the game? --Ajdz 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The information should not be removed, though it doesn't need its own article. - MB (Talk) 11:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not interested in comments like Marcin147's. -Splashtalk 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analyzing Case Studies

WP:NOR. Appears to be a personal essay about how case studies are used in Universities. Delete, or Merge into Case study Werdna648T/C\@ 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete An original essay.Obina 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any info that isn't WP:NOR into Case study. --Whouk (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to redirect if you merge anything. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:40Z
  • Delete, original work. Evil Eye 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • cleanup/merge. one day a horde of trigger happy deletionists decided it was easier to vote for delete than to copyedit-- Marvin147 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a couple of lines might be worth including in Case study. --Pfafrich 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington heights teen center

Delete or rewrite. Corporate Vanity - reads like an ad brochure. No claim to notability Werdna648T/C\@ 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks a nice place but non notable. Obina 11:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 12:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- four pictures of Jerry Orbach but no identification of where "Arlington Heights" is? (There is one in Massachusetts, but I don't know that there aren't others.) Haikupoet 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - There's an Arlington Heights in Chicagoland, but that may not be this one. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love Cursed

Cannot find evidence that it meets WP:MUSIC. --Whouk (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 12:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn-band. Stifle 02:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the article says they have a "strong fanbase...", A7 does not apply. PJM 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:19, Jan. 4, 2006

[edit] Destructive revolution

An unsigned band, with no mention of albums released. Fails Geogre's law. Could probably technically be speedy deleted on a good day, but it's more than one paragraph and has an infobox, so I'll let others decide. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:21, Jan. 4, 2006abst

  • Delete - does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC --Whouk (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. The closest thing to a claim of notability I see in there is the bit about taking 89th place in a radio station contest. Doesn't quite cut it, in my view. Tagged. PJM 12:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. No allmusic entry. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:39Z
  • Delete Yet another unsigned band. Falls in to WP:MUSIC category. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Although the creator cannot (and does not) demand deletion, he can participate like anyone else can, in the same way as for a more usual 'keep'. Stifle's observation seems quite well rebutted by PJM, and although not policy, WP:MUSIC does ask for two albums, so those who cite it do have grounds. We touch two-thirds here, and that's enough in this case (especially noting the "if" in Kappa's comment). -Splashtalk 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Begodden Mists

Fails notability test in WP:MUSIC. --Whouk (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleteper A7. Delete. Expanded away from speedy status, but they still don't meet WP:NMG. PJM 12:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable musical group. No allmusic entry. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:38Z
  • Keep if verifiable evidence of coverage in the British media can be added. Kappa 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They have four albums out. Stifle 02:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It appears that these albums are self-made; I believe they're unsigned. [7]. PJM 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I created the page and having read the notability guidelines i agree the page should be deleted. My apologies. (As far as i'm aware at least one of their releases was on Black Custard Records, but they're now defunct, the others were self-released.) WP:NMG. Erstwerst 16:59, 7 January 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment The above message was posted by 85.210.160.130. While it may have been Erstwerst, the user was not logged in. --Whouk (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Apologies not quite sure how that happened, i thought i was logged in! --Erstwerst 13:24 9 January 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over 30 Club

another non notable online gaming club. Note: Over30Club, Over30club, OverThirtyClub and Over Thirty Club all redirect to Over 30 Club. User:Jsmp01 created all of them as the same article. I made them redirects. If the vote is for delete, ALL will be deleted. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Aplogies for not having the time to learn another programming code and learning how to redirect. If it really is that big an issue take the page down, I did however think that this was the encyclopedia to encompass everything and there is quite a large number of players who play regularly on our servers who would be interested in looking up the page. If another over 30 club does come along who has a larger amount of memebers then they are more than welcome to have the page. Who votes on whether there is a deletion or not and when does it take place? user:jsmp01 12:00, 4 January 2006 (GMT)


Comment. Hi user:jsmp01. Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not and "encyclopedia to encompass everything". You might like to check out Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Hope this helps. Cnwb 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment All registered editors can express a view (although it's not as simple as a majority vote). See WP:AfD for more information.



  • Delete. Candidate for speedy and marked as such. - Randwicked Alex B 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As for original research I'm not making any claims based on any research, unless you would like to redefine what the word research means, so thats hardly a reason for delete. Again we come back to the vanity but it states (as quoted above) not writing about yourself, well I'm not. --Jsmp01 12:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Original research has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, please read about it in the linked article. I am not redefining "research", but Wikipedia is clear that it is not a publisher of original thought.
  • Vanity has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, please read about it in the linked article. It is not "writing about yourself" -- that is just one example, and your claim that you are not part of the community you are writing about is also disputable. Here is a better definition quoted:
Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.
By the way, this is pretty boring as far as AFDs go. We delete online gaming clubs every day. Cheers, —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:53Z
  • Have you considered putting that in the What Wikipedia is not next to the bit about minor bands? Would save you a lot of trouble, if its against the rules then delete it, there is also an edit on the otc page that is related. I apologise for causing so much trouble --Jsmp01 13:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:BAI states it's a bad idea to write about yourself or a club/organization you're part of. - Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This would be a lovely thesis except for the fact that since Wiki seeks verifiability and sources, the best verified source is the person who belongs to the organisation, not its worst enemy, seeking to impose an adverse POV -- SockpuppetSamuelson 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable group, NPOV issues. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable gaming club. (Although I am an over-30 gamer, so I'll be checking them out.) You can call me Al 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per aeropagitica. --kingboyk 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Mobbs

Only 950 Google Results. NN? ComputerJoe 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as notable. Was captain of Northampton Saints. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 12:31Z
  • Keep. Minor compared to today's players of rugby, but for his day appears very notable. Evil Eye 12:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. PJM 12:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep 950 google hits is quite alot. --TaeKwonTimmy 03:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above : notable. Turnstep 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Evil Eye. Conscious 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Halderson

As with Bishop Althon (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Althon) this is tough to verify if at all possible. The article does have one reference, "Copenhagen Cathedral Guidebook, 2003" but I cannot verify the existence of such a guidebook either. Unless someone can convince me that Halderson existed, delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as it has at least so far shown itself unverifiable, as the previous dicussion made clear. u p p l a n d 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified Dlyons493 Talk 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 02:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Flynt

Non notable, does not appear in All Music Guide, all references in other Wiki articles created by article's primary author, only Google hit is article. Cigarette 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment does appear in IMDB (under birth name) all small time parts probably a nn actor. --Pboyd04 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - He does appear in the IMDB under "Jamie Mahoney", but may not fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines. — TheKMantalk 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to get more consensus New votes below this line, please--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NMG or WP:BIO. PJM 14:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete doesn't appear to be that notable a rapper. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Pwnage

KEEP ITprevious AfD
Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:WEB, 200K google but nothing substantial (and drops to 600 when we include the main character's name to eliminate some false positives.) One unrelated news hit, Alexa just shy of 40,000. Delete unless evedence of notabilty produced.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete apparent vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, how exactly does it fail WP:WEB??? It does have a forum with over 10000 registered members, and adding the main character's name does not necessary eliminate false positives in the most efficient way. - secfan 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community" (emphasis mine). And provide some meaningful links for us to examine, I did preface this with "unless evedence of notabilty produced". - brenneman(t)(c) 15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep WP:WEB is for websites, not for video shows. There are far more people that watched the episodes than those that visited the site. Just the fact that there are many people editing this article, and it gets vandalised 5 times a day demonstrated notability.  Grue  16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please WP:CITE for "far more". I'm not drooling over deleting this, I'd just like to see something WP:V to show it's notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is somewhat of a big hit amongst gamers and I know many non-gamers who are aware of it too. Considering the video is known here in the UK, I'd say that was a big enough impact. Therefore, keep. Kel-nage 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, See above Zerak-Tul 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to sound like a broken record, but testimony of wikipedia editors is not a source. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion where we attempt to determine both community consensus and appropriateness according to encyclopedic standards. Many closing admins will disregard recomendations that aren't supported by verifiable statements. Please you guys, just give me something I can work with. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Require cleanup, but article itself should be kept. Infinity0 talk 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
Technology company works with Pure Pwnage team
AusGamers host file, so quite possible it is liked on the other side of the world from where it is filmed
UK interest in Pure Pwnage
Discuss TV have posts on it...
That's from the first 20 pages of Google hits. I believe that would show it had had some effect outside it's community. Oh, and most of them don't name the lead characters, so your "elimination of false positives" was more like elimination of anything that didn't give the full storyline. In fact, a Google search with FPS Doug included gets 10,200 results. Kel-nage 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per excellent comments above. -- JJay 03:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Site's forum shows 11672 registerers. Within minutes of the last episodes release, hundreds of people already started downloading via bittorrent (500 or so, I recall). It barely fails the google test, and by its pattern, within the next episode's release it'll pass all tests. This article already voted keep last time. Unsigned comment left by user:Ncannino.
  • Change Subject The title sounds like the gaming concept of "Pure Pwnage," which should be an article. The article's picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nonoobs.jpg is good and demonstrates the concept. Yet, the article is about some website and pretty boring. "...is a webisode series by ROFLMAO Productions featuring a Canadian professional video game player named Jeremy. The show portrays the making of one "gamer's life". Settings for the show include Toronto and occasion..."  ::ho hum:: It's all this person's life and that. Power Gaming is an article. God-moding, too. So "Pure Pwnage" should be, but not about some cheezy website. DyslexicEditor 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? There is no gaming concept of "Pure Pwnage".  Grue  12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What competitive online gaming have you done? Ownage, Pwnage, Owned, Pwned, Pure Ownage, Pure Pwnage. It's an expression that means to beat someone easily. In military for instance, the 2-week (or so) destruction of Iraq's former government (the aftereffects were bad, but the initial victory was easy), The Vogons destruction of earth, Darth Vadar or The Lexx blowing up a planet. Or you play a board game with someone and have such an easy victory you win in 2 moves. DyslexicEditor 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is already an article on pwn. Also, articles are there not to amuse yourself, so "the article is pretty boring" is a quite dumb thing to say.  Grue  13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of articles are fascinating, including science and math ones. Those aren't boring to me. Thanks for the link to the article name. Odd in pwn 5 "citation needed" tags. I've often seen editors remove the information if it's unproven, as well as remove citation tags claiming it is unnecessary, as well as articles filled with information lacking citations that can be proven wrong (and editors revert any citations that prove otherwise), etc. DyslexicEditor 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there is already an article on this subject, I'm not sure how to vote. Basically I think the article needs a lot of revising. DyslexicEditor 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you may've missed what the article concerns. The article does not discuss the concept of "pure pwnage" (i.e. those frags looked like pure pwnage). The article concerns the popular web based show about a gamer's life. It has little to do with the "pwn" article. Ncannino 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree it is vanity. --Zachary Murray 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems like it may be somewhat vain now, but I don't think one should go as far as to delete the entire article. It definitely requires cleanup, and then perhaps some information on its impact on society. At the moment, I can't find any more good evidence of notability to add to the ones above. The best thing I can say (empirically) is that I've played in lots of CS:S servers with a large amount of players, and in many of them, there are people who seem to recognize the "BOOM HEADSHOT!" and FPS Doug when I acted like an FPS Doug fanatic (for jokes, of course). Hope that can help, somehow. --HeteroZellous 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and culturally significant. Plus, it survived a previous AfD, which to me indicates that a renomination needs to have a very strong and compelling reason. Turnstep 19:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be non-notable and vanity. Stifle 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very obvious keep Not to be too vulgaric here, but all I can say is FUCK YOU. 11 000 registered forum members, and let's say, that about 4/5 of every viewer does not register, yet regularly follows the show? Dig your fucking head off your ass, if you want to go CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia, (which you obviously can't, but you should give it a try) then go CREATE and ADD, don't fucking start PROPOSING DELETION OF A REMARKABLE THING such as Pure Pwnage. Now may I ask you, have you ever fucking even visited the website, seen any episode, or otherwise fucking seen that Pure Pwnage is a serious project and has at least 40 000 viewers and 1,5 million web page hits?
    • Free advice: the only thing your rant above did was made me itch to change my vote from Keep to Delete. I didn't (nor would I in principle) but please observe WP:CIVIL. Turnstep 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think better said than the above rant: it looks obvious to me that someone took a glance at the article and thought "a videogame show? words like noob? this must've come from some teenagers and can't possibly entertain an intellectual like myself." Then that person decided his lack of interest qualifies as vanity and should merit deleting something that many people, in fact, have interest. 65.6.109.43 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If popularity may be a factor for some...
•The Pure Pwnage forums constantly have dozens of users online – typically 100+ during the eastern North American evenings.
•Judging by many of the member profiles, the forums seem quite international.
•As well, shortly after the release of Episode 9, one can see from the statistics at the bottom that the number of simultaneous forum users reached 915!
•A Live TeamSpeak chat at the Episode 7 release (when the PP community was smaller than it is now) contains a bunch of info about Pure Pwnage by the way. 62:00 explains the fanbase of an estimated 300K. Some other parts (for which I don't have the timecode, unfortunately,) tell that Jeremy's starting to get recognized pretty often on the streets, that there were hundreds of users tooned into the TeamSpeak channel at the same time, and more possible evidence of popularity. --HeteroZellous 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The videos has culture impact. SYSS Mouse 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Kingturtle 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Definately Keep. DeathStarr 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- but needs some work
•For anyone who is in doubt of the popularity of the show, please keep an eye on Jeremy's Myspace Page. The myspace account was created on December 16th, 2005. In less than a month the account has 3285 friends in Myspace.
•I believe that the descriptions of the individual episode plots should be deleted because they have nothing to do with the show's importance, and that they detract from the humour of the show. Facts such as the release date, the running time, and memorable moments (songs, quotes, shots, etc) should be the only items included in the episode descriptions.
•The entry should be kept, as the top search results on both google and teoma for the term "Pure Pwnage" is Pure Pwnage
•I beleive that just like Homestar Runner and Red vs. Blue, this webisode does not only entertain people, but also inspires people of the internet generation to put not only their humor, but their art, out there in html, and let the surfers, not the critics, decide what is valuable. -- Deagrathen 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depreciação

Looks like it's machine translated. There's nothing here that's worth merging with depreciation. Rhobite 14:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, if there's nothing worth merging, the article on itself serves no purpose, even as a redirect. - Bobet 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the word for "depreciation" in Portugese. en.wikipedia.org's depreciation page already has a Portugese link on it. --Mareino 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as A2, foreign article, or just a plain old delete if that doesn't work. Stifle 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Speedy if possible. Turnstep 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep --Ichiro 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Grip

advertising a mod for Half Life 2; non-notable and possibly a copyvio (ESkog)(Talk) 10:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete since I don't think any individual mods are encyclopaedic in themselves. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT Obina 15:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete When this becomes the next counter-strike we'll add it back. --Pboyd04 15:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why don't any of you at least try to fix the article before deleting it? I have. It's no longer an advert and if you do see anything that does not conform with a Wikipedia rule of any sort, then you can edit it. If not, you can consider this article cleaned up and fit for keeping. You can also consider most of your own comments to be obsolete considering I completely rebuilt the article. -Kizza 203.164.138.130 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus after a rewrite. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
  • Still delete for preference, but possible merge all notable mods to a common article for notable Half-Life mods. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, after all, not the Online Compendium of Game Fandom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Half Life 2 until someone creates a Half Life 2 Mods page, as per Just zis Guy. --Mareino 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • After rewrite I still prefer a delete per Just zis Guy. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very nice rewrite, covers the subject well. -- JJay 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
           * Thanks, JJay. - Kizza
  • Keep pending merger with Half Life 2 Mods as per Just zis Guy & Mareino. Scoo 10:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until merged into a compilation of all less known Half-Life 2 Mods. Some very popular, or large, modifications may require a seperate article to prevent clutter, and a very large article. Then redirect article to there. - Kizza
  • Delete agree with JzG; I would accept a merge. Eusebeus 18:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. If I lump merge/deletes with deletes, I suppose there's numerical consensus to merge+redirect, but I'm not happy doing so under such circumstances in a well-populated debate. If there were a rough consensus, it should be fairly easy to spot with this much participation. Alternatively, I could lump the merges with keeps and look at it that way; then it becomes an editorial decision not a deletion one. -Splashtalk 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 1:5

Biblecruft. There is nothing specifically notable about this verse. It comes part of the way through a large genealogy, which is notable as a whole but not in fractions. The division of the bible into chapters and verses is a somewhat mediaeval invention and so there is nothing significant, religiously, about this verse in particular.

The only content of the article is two translations of the verse, a few sentences repeating who is listed in it (as if you couldn't tell from either of the preceeding two translations), and a brief comment that Rahab is spelt as Rachab, and is in an odd position - a comment that would much better fit in an article on the genealogy as a whole.

This is all it is ever likely to contain. --User talk:FDuffy 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

P.s. This article was apparantly put up for AFD before. The result was 18 Merge, 12 Keep, 7 Delete, 2 Keep or Merge, 1 Transwiki, 2 votes by new users, and 1 anonymous vote. This was declared to be without consensus.

  • Delete (as above) --User talk:FDuffy 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As interesting as it may be, it does not merit its own article. If there's any better place to merge this to, I may change my vote. - Kuzaar 14:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. This appears to be a commentary or concordance. Is the creator proposing to create a similar article for every passage in the Bible? It's a large project, and very vulnerable to both POV and OR. And it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia as such, either. Is there another Wiki which is right for this? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Did anyone notice that several consecutive verses of Matthew have been covered in articles? I recommend that all of the articles from this section of Matthew 1 be merged into an article called Genealogy of Jesus. Logophile 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I just noticed that in the Genealogy of Jesus article, there is a list of links to each verse. My recommendation stands. Logophile 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this is part of a large ongoing project, there have so far been seven separate VfDs on this issue, six ended as keep and one that ended with no consensus:
There have also been two lengthy centralized discussions, one at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses and one at Wikipedia:Bible verses. Rather than VfDing individual verses in isolation, any discussion should be brought to those pages. - SimonP 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? This verse is clearly not notable. And if they didn't end in consensus it appears the reason was because too many were discussed at once.
And notability is not a reason to delete articles, see Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia also does not delete stus, which seems to be the reason you are nominating these. - SimonP 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just a red herring. Those votes ended without consensus. They discussed too many articles at once. You appear to be the creator of those articles, so I can see why you think they should stay. Can you justify why this particular article constitutes a noteworthy encyclopedic entry? --User talk:FDuffy 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This may be a stub, but there is still considerable room for expansion. The article contains no discussion on the various translations of this verse, and the arguments between translators. The Rachab issue is only given brief mention, while volumes have been written on the subject. There is also no discussion of the apocryphal traditions that have developed around the figures known only from their place in the genealogy. It is also useful since we have every other of the first 200 verses in the Gospel of Matthew, and it would be confusing and off-putting to readers if we only had the first 190 articles, and had unexplained gaps every once and a while in the middle. - SimonP 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that we should have the article just because it is part of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew? That is NOT a reason for an article to be encyclopedic. --User talk:FDuffy 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. As seven previous AfDs have shown Bible verses are permissible topics for encyclopedia articles. - SimonP 15:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a policy-level decisoion is made to remove all articles which relate to a single verse or paragraph of any religious text. Equalhandedness.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This "some cruft exists, therefore no cruft may be deleted" argument has never seemed particularly persuasive to me. Please explain what it is that makes the verse Salmon became the father of Boaz by Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed by Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse. anything other than trivia? For example, it almost certainly does not appear in the list of set Gospel readings under Anglican Church, since I have never heard it read out. Are any hymns based on this, as is the case with Ps.23? Is it well known to a lay audience, like John 8:1-11? Is it liturgically important like 1 Corinthians 11:23-26? This is a single verse in what appears to be one of the least important sections of Matthew's gospel, and it seems to me there really is nothing encyclopaedic to say about it! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think we need an article for each individual bible verse. -- MisterHand 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Previous AfDs have indeed resulted in either keep or no consensus votes for those verses. Moreso, the discussion on bible verses as a whole achieved a consensus of keep only because, as I read it, it was decided that the nomination was inappropriate for AfD and instead needed to be discussed as a merge at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible_verses. Where there was no clear consensus, but there does seem to be a general idea that while some Bible verses are notable enough to have their own articles, each case needs to be judged separately. In other words, the previous votes say that there is a precedent for keeping Bible verses if they're notable. A list of begats is not notable, not encyclopedic (although valid as part of a more general Biblical genealogical article) and not capable of generating more information than this tiny stub. Confusing Manifestation 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Bible is available on wikisource [8] (among other places). Discussions of the characters and genealogy should be under articles for those characters, if they are noteworthy. This particular verse isn't worthy of a specific article, as Psalm 23 is. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete for this and all the other enteries that have been created so far. There are some very sensible points made here by FDuffy and 'Confusing Manifestation'. The points made by SimonP are indeed red herrings. JGF Wilks 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge anything worthwhile into an encyclopedaic article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I work with the New Testament for a (meager) living. As an encyclopedia article, this entry really doesn't belong. However, it looks like this is an ongoing project to create a wiki-commentary on Matthew (and other books?). If so, then that is where this entry would belong. --KJPurscell 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per KJPurscell and  Guy - if SimonP's eventual/overall intention is to create a Bible commentary hosted by Wikipedia, then I suggest that the project isn't really encyclopaedic, and belongs elsewhere. Humansdorpie 20:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have had this debate already-Doc ask? 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Bible verses--Doc ask? 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:bible verses it says that no policy decision was made. The votes were generally in favor of not keeping an article on every verse of the Bible but only the notable ones, of which the votes were leaning toward only considering relatively few verses notable. There was a pretty even split on creating a wiki-Bible. Therefore, it seems to me that these questions are still open, that nominating a Bible-verse article for deletion is appropriate, and discussion about trans-wiki-ing it is valid. Logophile 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is simply not the way to treat books of the bible. Talk about subjects like the Genealogy of Jesus, not the verses one by one. The verse structure is a mediaeval construct. Often the books were divided into verses and chapters simply in such a way as to get a nice or significant number of them, like 50 (n.b. one of the gospels, I believe it is Mark, has 666 verses in total), rather than trying to respect the original sentence divisions. The only reason they weren't deleted/merged half a year ago is because the closing admin was biased and chose to count the vote as a keep despite the fact that twice as many people voted to delete and/or merge the articles than did to keep them. --Victim of signature fascism 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent references. We need more like this. -- JJay 03:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Matthew, or a similar article, or Delete. Ril has a very good point; discuss the genealogy of Jesus, with proper links to Wikisource. --Golbez 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factually accurate and verifiable. There has already been precedent to keep articles on bible verses. Oldak Quill 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – albeit reluctantly. I don't think there's much getting around the fact that we will eventually have all 31,000 odd bible verses placed here. In a way I can understand the idea. I'm not a fan of it, but I'd pick this over pokemon. Hmm, maybe I'll start adding all Nietzsche's aphorisms... :) --Bookandcoffee 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all of the genealogy in the Book of Matthew into one article, leaving the individual verses as redirects. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, if not then Transwiki to Wikisource, and create a Centralised Discussion so that the issue can be settled. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, great article, no convincing basis presented for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Think really hard. Do the "keepers" really want Wikipedia to eventually contain the entire text of the Bible in many translations and versions with an article-worthy analysis of each and every one. And then what? As Bookandcoffee pointed out, will we end up with every saying of every religious teacher and philosopher in separate articles? How about every line of every Shakespeare play? Is that really what Wikipedia is for? Logophile 06:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good article on a verse from a major book. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge. It is good to have articles on this topic, but the division of the Bible into verses is mostly arbitrary and the most encyclopedic way of treating its content is by articles on passages or chapters. — mark ✎ 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete biblecruft. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all of the genealogy in the Book of Matthew into one article, leaving the individual verses as redirects. This is per discussion at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses and Wikipedia:Bible verses, to the effect that only a minority of verses deserve their own entry (to be decided case by case), and others to be merged into helpful articles as appropriate. Rd232 talk 10:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete: Merge per rd232 or delete as a non-notable verse. -- jaredwf 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per above. Unless a bible verse is extremely notable then it shouldn't get its own article. Wikipedia is not a seminary. Blackcats 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge some selected passages are significant enough for their own article, this isn't one of them. CarbonCopy (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, whoa whoa whoa, guys, I'm not religious at all, but the Bible (and the New Testament as part of the Bible) is the most obsessively studied and interpreted and commented upon book in human history. Every single verse has been subjected to endless hair-splitting and analysis by theologians. There is more than enough material out there for a lengthy, informative article on any bible verse. Are Bible verses less notable than individual characters from video games? I think not. Babajobu 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Two wrongs do not make a right. Wikipedia is by nature inconsistent; we're here debating Matthew 1:5 and nothing else. Moreover, it's not just a question of whether the verse "deserves" an entry, it's what is genuinely useful. Merging verses that aren't particularly notable in themselves into topics creates articles that are more useful to the reader. (Moreover, nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone. If in a few months' time a merged article covering various verses is bulging at the seams, we can consider splitting it then. For now, merging is clearly the most useful step.) Rd232 talk 10:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per nom and per Rd232 two posts above. Wikipedia is easily changed if this article ever provokes any discussion, but we don't need millions of articles on bible verses when there's not much more than the verse itself there. The only bible verse article I would support is John 3:16; no other verse is a widely known. - Pureblade | Θ 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Every verse in the Bible doesn't need a whole article on it. Reasoning per Rd232. If in the future the article need a separate verse due to some strange historical discovery, then we can just create/split it off again. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We appear to have articles on every verse between Matthew 1-6 and John 20. I don't know if it's too much work to delete them all; deleting some of them piecemeal will leave us with a random collection of red wikilinks in the "next verse" segment of the page. It's too late for me to unravel this. No vote. Stifle 02:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsmdgold 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual Bible verses are as a default nn. Unless proven otherwise, delete. Batmanand 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There has probably been enough commentary on every single verse of the Bible to fill a very long article. Even if merged version are also useful, some people will find these single-verse entries valuable, especially as they are fleshed out further. Can't articles on longer merged sections co-exist with single-verse articles? And if there are people willing to create them all, having an article for every verse has an aesthetic appeal that piecemeal single and merged articles would lack.--ragesoss 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. very educational article!! Kingturtle 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is very disruptive to have an article for matthew 1:4 and not 1:5--God of War 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP is an encyclopedia. --Angr (tɔk) 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with no prejudice against recreating once there is more content. I don't have a problem with keeping articles on minor individual bible verses once they have been written but while the content is so meager it is best kept in a larger article with a redirect from here. Once the content of the larger article has grown enough to warrant a separate article then it can certainly be created. That seems to me the most useful way of arranging the information we have. I find this problem interesting because I'm often wondering about the best way to split the content of the Eddas and such into Wikipedia articles. We basically already have an article for every verse of the Ynglingatal and we'll eventually probably have an article for every verse of the Völuspá. Maintainability is a worrying problem, though, and maybe deletionism really is the way to Nirvana. There are tough calls to make. - Haukur 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, actually, it is arguably large enough already. I would be willing to vote "keep" if some edition of the Greek text was added. - Haukur 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Darn it - keep. Browsing some more I have to admit that this is a lovely series of articles, what with Michelangelo's art and all. But I would really like to see the original Greek there. - Haukur 19:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments stated, passim, above. Eusebeus 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, merging any new information into Book of Matthew. SimonP's arguments are not persuasive. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxalding

I tagged this for cleanup ages ago, but the anon author removed the tag (and I diodn't notice). The systems appears to exist, but with <600 Google hits, mostly appearing to be from sites pushing the barrow rather than reliable sources. The creators are redlinked and the external links are to something "still in its infancy" - this looks like an attempt at promotion rather than documnetation of a genuine and encyclopaedic topic. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • weak keep - seems to be recognized in the body-building community, and some google hits dont seem connected to the main site, plus the technique has been around for a long time. If thats not enough, I'd happily change my vote. MNewnham 17:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Term exists since the 1920s. -- JJay 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IDelete advert, POV-pushing. Stifle 02:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Monson

Non-notable Prashanthns 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - Not encyclopediac Prashanthns 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You correctly removed the nonsense tag, but as it is an {{nn-bio}} I've tagged it as such. Punkmorten 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Horton

I am sorry to hear of this young lady's death. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives". There is no wider or profound significance to this apparent murder. Therefore, delete. Sliggy 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I know that her murder was tragic and recent but there are better places for an online memorial than a reference site. -- (aeropagitica)  15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: is there a specific rule on when crime victims are "notable" and when they're not? I could see articles like this becoming a problem. --Mareino 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some people who met violent deaths are notable for other reasons, eg Jean-Paul Marat and Jesus. There's no hard and fast rule (AFAIK), but simply being the victim of a murder isn't notable in itself. So Delete. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: If "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives", why do we have (for example) an article on Elizabeth Stride, who was an unknown prostitute at the time of her death? (Question posed by Jcuk) Sliggy 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Elizabeth Stride would be a candidate for merging into the Jack the Ripper article, IMHO, but Jack attracts obsessives and that page would grow huge unless his victims were split out. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Elizabeth Stride's significance (or "claim to fame" to quote the policy) resides in her being a victim of Jack the Ripper, in my opinion. Sliggy 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow up question are victims of serial killers more notable? is there actually a criteria that says this murder victim is more notable than that one? Jcuk 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I have both quoted, and referred to, agreed policy. If you want to bring Elizabeth Stride to AfD then please do - I might agree that deletion is the best course of action. I'd be interested in your argument: I try to assess the merits of each case from a neutral perspective.
Please state any wider or profound significance of this apparent murder, or in other words her "claim to fame". Thanks. Sliggy 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Developing story. -- JJay 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - just cos it's developing doesn't make her death notable. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic, but being a murder victims does not make a person an encyclopedic subject for an article unfortunately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Of course tragic, but in the wider scheme of things (sorry to say) non notable. --kingboyk 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article can return if the murder becomes notable. --Ajdz 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial and licence incompatibility means we cannot transwiki to Wikinews. Stifle 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments. Eusebeus 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NESkimos

I originally speedied this a week ago as a NN Band, then withdrew it when the page author claimed notability in the 'outside the mass media' category of music. Since then, the page author has failed to provide any verification for notability in this category and so I'm moving it over here to get it off my watchlist MNewnham 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Reluctant delete. It doesn't seem to meet any of the guidelines at WP:NMG. Without any proof of some sort of notability outside the mass media, it should not be kept. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shreshth91
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle, Eusebeus 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is blank.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ham Ham Rivals

Ham Ham Rivals appears to be a Hamtaro forum, fan-created video game, and possible fan created anime. Google returns 78 hits on "Ham Ham Rivals". The article itself is turning into a bit of a discussion forum. Was speedily deleted by the wub yesterday, but I think it may have progressed enough to warrant an AfD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As per my nomination. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and as chatcruft/nn. Scoo 10:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bakke Mountain

POV advertisement for Hoosac Wind, largely copied from http://www.hoosacwind.com/views_bakke.html Econrad 15:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and revise. The Hoosac Wind section appears to be only part of the article. Can that part be rewritten/deleted? Lbbzman 02:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and revise. Agreed with above, there IS a place for info on this topic, but NOT in its current form. Phantasmo 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. educational. Kingturtle 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visual literacy

From the article's talk page, this would seem to be some kind of school project, and a lot of work would appear to have gone into it. Unfortunately, however, this probably makes the article original research. Delete CLW 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • keep but tag for cleanup. It does, as stated, read as OR, but the subject appears to be valid, and the editors are nothing if not prolific, so can probably be trained to cite and format properly. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs some cleanup but otherwise a solid article. Denni ☯ 03:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research --Jahsonic 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
  • Keep. College courses are taught about this [9] so why shouldn't we have an article? Calling something probably OR without any proof or basic checks is wrong. [10]-- JJay 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is valid, but tghe current article read as a technical writing assignment, not as an encyclopedic article. Also several of the images are wrongly tagged. —Ruud 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. Much of the current content is unacceptable because it's original research, but the topic is encyclopedic. There used to be a reasonable stub article on the topic (full disclosure, I wrote the original stub). I agree, the more recent editors need to be pointed to WP:NOR. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Another one where it's far from clear from the debate whether it should stand alone, be merged or hacked about a bit. Certainly no consensus to delete, and I'm not happy declaring an 'editorial' outcome in the face of so much disagreement. -Splashtalk 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 4:14

Biblecruft. Content is

  • Two translations of the verse
  • 1 sentence stating what was in the previous verse
  • 1 sentence stating that Matthew 4:14 is the 14th verse of the 4th chapter of Matthew
  • Statement that the verse introduces an Old Testament prophecy (because obviously the big clue in the translations - "spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying" - isn't enough to tell you that)

This is all it is ever going to say. --User talk:FDuffy 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --User talk:FDuffy 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this is part of a large ongoing project, there have so far been seven separate VfDs on this issue, six ended as keep and one that ended with no consensus:
There have also been two lengthy centralized discussions, one at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses and one at Wikipedia:Bible verses. Rather than VfDing individual verses in isolation, any discussion should be brought to those pages. - SimonP 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? This verse is clearly not notable. And if they didn't end in consensus it appears the reason was because too many were discussed at once.
And notability is not a reason to delete articles, see Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia also does not delete stubs, which seems to be the reason you are nominating these. - SimonP 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the list you give. Matthew 4:14 is not John 20:16, it isn't amongst John 20, it isn't Matthew 2:1-16, it isn't Genesis 1:1, it isn't amongst Matthew 1, so really much of that is a red herring. --User talk:FDuffy 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone could argue that articles on the Gospel of John should be kept does no also mean that articles in the Gospel of Matthew should also be retained. The worthiness for encyclopedia articles is identical. - SimonP 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just a red herring. Those votes ended without consensus. They discussed too many articles at once. You appear to be the creator of those articles, so I can see why you think they should stay. Can you justify why this particular article constitutes a noteworthy encyclopedic entry? --User talk:FDuffy 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As with the others this may be a stub, but there is still considerable room for expansion. It is also useful to have this article for ease of readability, as some readers will want to read several verses in order. While this verse might be short, those around it are quite substantial. Deleting the stubs breaks the navigation bar at the bottom of the article, and prevents readers from moving from Matthew 4:13 to Matthew 4:15 and beyond. Having the ability to read verses in order is an important compromise for those who feel these subjects need more context than a single verse offers. - SimonP 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The navigation bar at the bottom of the article is POV. It seems to suggest that there is something automatically noteworthy about all verses in the bible. Verses were created in the mediaeval era. The division is entirely artificial, as acknowledged by many modern bibles which re-arrange verses into paragraphs and quotes, reading verses in order is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia. --User talk:FDuffy 15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Organization by verses is still the universal scholarly standard. It is far better to go with this than try to develop our own divisions, which would infinitely more POV. All verses may not be noteworthy, but there is no notability requirement. Verifiability is a requirement, but with the vast literature on Biblical criticism, writing a verifiable non-original research article on each verse is quite straightforward. - SimonP 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a policy-level decision is made to remove all articles which relate to a single verse or paragraph of any religious text. Equalhandedness.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This vote is just about this particular verse-article, not those of any religious text, and not about deleting all verses. --User talk:FDuffy 15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think we need an article for each individual bible verse. -- MisterHand 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per SimonP. There is no reason to delete this. If it can not be expanded, it can be merged later. u p p l a n d 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whole bible in wikisource, this verse is just another verse. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contra Uppland, I cannot see that this merits merging with the rest. The project is miguided. JGF Wilks 17:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's important is the meaning of the whole work, not one particular verse analyzed in isolation. (corollary: Prooftexting is a logical fallacy.) Haikupoet 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge anything worthwhile Dlyons493 Talk 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have had this debate already -Doc ask? 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Bible verses
Maybe you should tell the truth. The consensus at that vote concluded that notable Bible verses meant only a small minority OR LESS, in the order of 1-3 hundred. 200 verses from Matthew is clearly way too many in accordance with this. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 04:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of lying. I provided the link - people can read it for themsleves. Depite the fact that you engineered the poll to support your deletion nominations, there was a consensus than 'notable Bible verses should be included' and no consensus as to the number that were notable. --Doc ask? 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is simply not the way to treat books of the bible. Talk about subjects like the Genealogy of Jesus, not the verses one by one. The verse structure is a mediaeval construct. Often the books were divided into verses and chapters simply in such a way as to get a nice or significant number of them, like 50 (n.b. one of the gospels, I believe it is Mark, has 666 verses in total), rather than trying to respect the original sentence divisions. The only reason they weren't deleted/merged half a year ago is because the closing admin was biased and chose to count the vote as a keep despite the fact that twice as many people voted to delete and/or merge the articles than did to keep them. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 01:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We need more like this. -- JJay 02:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete - A list of old testament references in the new testament, or a short description of Matthew, but the verse itself seems unworthy of an article. --Golbez 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This verse has already been a topic of an AfD - with decision to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Individual_Bible_verses. Article part of Project akin to Wikipedia missing encyclopedia project/Easton's. —ERcheck @ 03:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to check the actual count of the votes at the bottom of that VfD, and Sjakkelle's comment below, you will realise that the closing admin was really quite biased, and the true outcome of the VfD was quite the opposite. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factually accurate and verifiable. There has already been precedent to keep articles on bible verses. Oldak Quill 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, if not then Transwiki to Wikisource, and create a Centralised Discussion so that the issue can be settled. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no convincing basis presented for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Bible is a major book and people might look up the verses in the encyclopedia for information on them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That isn't an argument for the verses existing as seperate articles, just one suggesting that we should have redirects to suitable articles covering at least that verse but also covering other additional verses. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Yes, the Bible is a major book, but the division of the Bible into verses is mostly arbitrary. The most encyclopedic way of treating its content is by articles on passages or chapters. — mark ✎ 08:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete biblecruft. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete Merge into an appropriate article or delete as non-notable verse. -- jaredwf 11:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete...is it that notable of a verse? KHM03 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge not significant enough for a standalone article. CarbonCopy (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, whoa whoa whoa, guys, I'm not religious at all, but the Bible (and the New Testament as part of the Bible) is the most obsessively studied and interpreted and commented upon book in human history. Every single verse has been subjected to endless hair-splitting and analysis by theologians. There is more than enough material out there for a lengthy, informative article on any bible verse. Are Bible verses less notable than individual characters from video games? I think not. Babajobu 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete we don't need an article for each sentence of Harry Potter book. Let's not go down the slippery slope.  Grue  09:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete verses of the bible are an artificial construct. Passages from the bible, yes, whole psalms, yes, but individual verses on their own are trivia. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per nom. Wikipedia is easily changed if this article ever provokes any discussion, but we don't need hundreds of articles on bible verses when there's not much more than the verse itself there. The only bible verse article I would support is John 3:16, no other verse is a widely known. - Pureblade | Θ 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We appear to have articles on every verse between Matthew 1-6 and John 20. I don't know if it's too much work to delete them all; deleting some of them piecemeal will leave us with a random collection of red wikilinks in the "next verse" segment of the page. It's too late for me to unravel this. No vote. Stifle 03:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsmdgold 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.--ragesoss 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. this is a very interesting project. Kingturtle 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree that individual verses are rarely notable, and this one is certainly not. We going to have every hadith next? Eusebeus 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, merging any new information into Book of Matthew. SimonP's arguments are not persuasive. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I was slightly surprised by this on reading the article (although certainly much of it is of tangential relevance at best), but it is essentially unchanged from its state prior to the AfD nomination, and so it seems very clear that people are not persuaded by the material that is included. -Splashtalk 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay popes

This article itself states that it's only a collection of unproven rumors. In fact, these rumors are not only unproven, but unprovable. Is there any point to having article in an encyclopedia that consists of such content as "I think such and such is gay, but I have no proof?". -- Jbamb 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Logophile 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unless reliable sources are included. - Longhair 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. James084 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have a serious problem with the name of the article, as well as "gay bishops". Why not "Homosexuality in the priesthood"? But at least gay bishops has some semblance of an editing team and sources. If any "gay pope" information is verifiable and well-sourced, it will reappear on gay bishops, since all popes are bishops. As it stands, the whole article looks more rumor than history. --Mareino 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP not a place for rumour and libel, it is an online encyclopædia. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, speculation. -- MisterHand 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, et al. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if there are verifiable ones then you can merge them into the main pope article. --Snakes 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into something like Homosexuality in the priesthood per Mareino. This "article" seems to be an agenda in search of an audience. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speculative. Honbicot 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable speculation. -- Vary | Talk 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Good subject with plenty of valid sources to draw on. -- JJay 02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article can be fortified to meet WP:V. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if sourced by closing, delete if not (apologies to closing admin for conditional vote). Youngamerican 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, speculation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 05:05Z
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. but a great name for a band! BL kiss the lizard 06:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — the issue here is not whether the rumours can be proven, but whether they are notable and well-documented. Skimming through the article, it seems a number of contemporaneous historical sources refer to popes as sodomites. Surely these accusations deserve a cataloguing and discussion, if only to debunk them. —Psychonaut 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Psychonaut. -- jaredwf 11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Keep (2nd choice). While doubtless interesting, and in the case of Julius and a few others certainly discussed amongst professional historians, it would be better to place the discussion in the articles about each pope themselves, with maybe a category Category:Popes suspected to be gay or something. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge as per user Mareino. --kingboyk 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and article's own opening sentence --Ajdz 22:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and -Ril-. — mark ✎ 11:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously. Eusebeus 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While the subject matter may be based mostly on rumors, how could such subject matter not be based on rumors? If so-stated (meaning "rumors have circulated that ..."), then why should such an article be deleted? Certainly there have been efforts throughout church history to repress such rumors, but that in itself doesn't indicate that the rumors were false. I think the article should be kept, but that it should be made clear that such information is (probably by its very nature) not always verifiable. I also believe that the title should be changed to something like "Popes Suspected of Homosexual Activity". 21:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unless reliable sources are included. --Untruth 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 2:21

n.n. Bible cruft. Content is

  • 1 sentence overview of previous chapters
  • a pretty picture that isn't specifically tied to this verse
  • 2 translations of the verse,
  • A statement that the verse is almost an exact copy of the previous one - Matthew 2:20, which, b.t.w. also has an article (Matthew 2:20), though if they are so similar I really don't see why they deserve an article each

The verse is "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel". I really don't see how this constitutes notability.

  • Delete --User talk:FDuffy 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I just discovered that articles have been created of many individual verses from Matthew (and perhaps other books of the Bible?) I think that only whole books and significant Bible topics should be treated in separate articles. For example, this article could be merged into Birth and Childhood of Jesus or something like that. Logophile 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this is part of a large ongoing project, there have so far been seven separate VfDs on this issue, six ended as keep and one that ended with no consensus:
Any such "project" would seem to be moribund. This particular article hasn't been edited in five months. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There have also been two lengthy centralized discussions, one at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses and one at Wikipedia:Bible verses. Rather than VfDing individual verses in isolation, any discussion should be brought to those pages. - SimonP 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just a red herring. Those votes ended without consensus. They discussed too many articles at once. You appear to be the creator of those articles, so I can see why you think they should stay. Can you justify why this particular article constitutes a noteworthy encyclopedic entry? --User talk:FDuffy 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
We don't delete stubs, especially when they can be expanded. A vast, and almost incomprehensible, amount of scholarly material has been written on the Bible. For the 7,957 verses of the New Testament alone there are some 1500 journal articles and 700 books of Biblical criticism written each year. In various forms Biblical criticism has been going on for almost 2000 years. I only used about a dozen sources in my work, as other readers consult other works much more will be added to each article. - SimonP 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain how, if, as the article states, Matthew 2:21 is almost identical to Matthew 2:20, they deserve seperate articles, when they are clearly connected and say almost the same thing? --User talk:FDuffy 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That sounds more like an argument for merging than deletin. I do now merge some pairs that are very closely linked, such as Matthew 5:23-4, and perhaps this one would be better with that format. - SimonP 16:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a policy-level decisoion is made to remove all articles which relate to a single verse or paragraph of any religious text. Equalhandedness.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think we need an article for each individual bible verse. --MisterHand 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now, but consider a merge later. u p p l a n d 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this one, based on the fact that it has some (little) content, beside the text, and even two references that could be used for expansion. - Liberatore(T) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bible available on wikisource. I disagree w SockpuppetSamuelson, each verse should be considered on its merits. If it is the subject of controversy, or has been used to support some political position, or if there's much to say about it's impact on culture, then an article is worthwhile. eg see Psalm_23. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contra Liberatore's comment, the problem with this scheme from SimonP is that it is not focused onto the important biblical verses at all. There is insufficient notabliity about this material to merit any sort of merging. JGF Wilks 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- focusing on verses in isolation is meaningless and fallacious. Haikupoet 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Squiddy. Humansdorpie 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This verse is an almost exact copy of the last one, expect it is in the past tense. so maybe they could be merged into a single article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Part of a valid project. Honbicot 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have had this debate already -Doc ask? 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And we'll keep having it again, I suspect, until ultimately Wikipedia's Bible articles are focused on meaningful units, like books of the Bible, rather than arbitrary subdivisions ("verses") created centuries after the books were written. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Part of a valid project from Honbicot and we have had this debate already Doc could you expand and give links please? If this is an already-agreed policy decision then we should just live with it, whatever our individual views are - that wasn't my understanding though, so I'd appreciate being brought up to speed on this. Dlyons493 Talk 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, should have elabourated. User:-Ril- crusaded against Bible verses for months - all were kept, finally, he launched a poll see Wikipedia:Bible verses, which colcluded with a consenus that 'notable Bible verses' deserve articles. So unless someone want to argue that this one is 'not notable' - and I'd be willing to have that debate. --Doc ask? 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should tell the truth. The consensus at that vote also concluded that notable Bible verses meant only a small minority OR LESS, in the order of 1-3 hundred. 200 verses from Matthew is clearly way too many in accordance with this. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for exactly the reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5 Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or weak merge to Matthew 2:20, concentrate in important religious verses? feydey 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Just zis Guy, you know? - No Guru 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Doc. This is similar to WikiProject/missing encyclopedic articles/eastons, which is including all topics from Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897), while the text of EBD is being included in Wikisource (project not completed). As to verse 20 vs verse 21, the last paragraph of the article provides the distinction between the previous verse and 2:21 and its significance. —ERcheck @ 01:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is simply not the way to treat books of the bible. Talk about subjects like the Genealogy of Jesus, not the verses one by one. The verse structure is a mediaeval construct. Often the books were divided into verses and chapters simply in such a way as to get a nice or significant number of them, like 50 (n.b. one of the gospels, I believe it is Mark, has 666 verses in total), rather than trying to respect the original sentence divisions. The only reason they weren't deleted/merged half a year ago is because the closing admin was biased and chose to count the vote as a keep despite the fact that twice as many people voted to delete and/or merge the articles than did to keep them. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 01:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per above. Use of derogatory slang is not necessary. -- JJay 02:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, weak merge, or just merge into an article on Matthew. --Golbez 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factually accurate and verifiable. There has already been precedent to keep articles on bible verses. Oldak Quill 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think we should merge all articles on individual Bible verses into their respective chapters (except those that are especially notable in their own right, such as John 3:16), but the consensus seems to be in favor of separate articles. Note that this also sets a precedent: What will our response be when individual Qur'an verses start appearing? Indidividual verses of Atlas Shrugged? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- At the end of the day there is very little value to individual articles on most Bible verses; there are of course exceptions, but for the most part it's logically fallacious to draw any conclusions from a verse in isolation. In addition, if an effort was made to put said verse in context (both Biblical and cultural), the resulting article would be ungainly and suffer from redundancy issues with nearby verses. If there is a precedent set for indiscriminately keeping articles on arbitrary Bible verses, then it's a bad one. If there's an acceptable level of granularity for such writing, it isn't this (except, possibly, in the case of Proverbs). (In the case of the Quran, it's likely to be by sura, though even then there's individual verses that stand out. I make no such definitive claims for the Bible, as even chapters are later emendations.) Haikupoet 04:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haikupoet's comment, and create a Centralised Discussion to settle the matter. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A previous such discussion failed to settle the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: But, it did at least establish that only some verses were notable, and that those likely merit articles: see Wikipedia:Bible verses. I've seen no indication that this verse is notable, so my vote stands. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no convincing basis presented for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Bible is a major book, and the verses in them are things people may want to look up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If they do, they should look in the Bible, then. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The Bible is a major book, and it is good to have articles on this topic, but the division of the Bible into verses is mostly arbitrary. The most encyclopedic way of treating its content is by articles on passages or chapters. — mark ✎ 08:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete biblecruft. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Articles on verses make no sense, and this one is no different. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete: Merge with an appropriate article or delete as non-notable verse. -- jaredwf 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete...is it that notable of a verse? KHM03 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge another article that really doesn't stand alone. CarbonCopy (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, whoa whoa whoa, guys, I'm not religious at all, but the Bible (and the New Testament as part of the Bible) is the most obsessively studied and interpreted and commented upon book in human history. Every single verse has been subjected to endless hair-splitting and analysis by theologians. There is more than enough material out there for a lengthy, informative article on any bible verse. Are Bible verses less notable than individual characters from video games? I think not. Babajobu 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You presume that I think characters from video games should have articles. This is a single, unimportant verse from the Bible. You might find, in a very large concordance, an analysis of every single verse in this way, but it's far more likely that you would discuss a passage rather than a verse. I can't think of very many verses which are in and of themselves notable, one being John 11:35 ("Jesus wept") which is famous mainly for being the shortest verse in the Bible. What people remember is passages, like Ps.23 or Is 9:1-6 (The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, etc. - an aria from Handel's Messiah). Individual verses are almost without exception ridiculously trivial. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete biblecruft.  Grue  09:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per nom. Wikipedia is easily changed if this article ever provokes any discussion, but we don't need hundreds of articles on bible verses when there's not much more than the verse itself there. The only bible verse article I would support is John 3:16, no other verse is a widely known. - Pureblade | Θ 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We appear to have articles on every verse between Matthew 1-6 and John 20. I don't know if it's too much work to delete them all; deleting some of them piecemeal will leave us with a random collection of red wikilinks in the "next verse" segment of the page. It's too late for me to unravel this. No vote. Stifle 03:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsmdgold 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom
  • Keep. Could become more substantial later, and will be useful to some people.--ragesoss 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. this is a very interesting project. Kingturtle 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 18:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, merging any new information into Book of Matthew. SimonP's arguments are not persuasive. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No scope

Esoteric slang for video gamers doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe it goes to Wictionary, but it seems doubtful for that project, too. Mikeblas 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn FPScruft. --Pboyd04 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MAYBE Wictionary, certainly not Wikipedia --Andymaher 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Has already been pre-trans-userfied. -Splashtalk 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ioannina_prefecture

This article is not an encyclopaedia entry and the contents should be moved to the creator's talk page before deletion of the article. (aeropagitica) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfy then delete --Pboyd04 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
  • It already exists on the Wiktionary user page. Since it is for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia, delete. Userfy if you want to. Punkmorten 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. - Liberatore(T) 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to users' own page. -- (aeropagitica)  17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy then delete. GRuban 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Learoyd

fiction, unverifiable Prashanthns 14:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. From the discussion, this sounds like something that needs working out on talk pages. -Splashtalk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implications of peak oil

This article discusses solely the implications of a theory presented in another article peak oil or Hubbert peak. The implications of the theory should be discussed in the article itself. -- Jbamb 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep purely because the Hubbert peak theory article (Jmabel's peak oil and Hubbert peak are redirects to it) is already too large (34Kb) and there is thus no room to merge this article into that one without losing a significant amount of valuable content. So while in principle it would be a good thing in the practicality it is impossible to merge these 2 articles. Normally a subject is covered in 2 articles when there is not enough space in the original (there are 1000's of examples of this), and that is the case here, SqueakBox 15:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So long as we do not have a Peak oil theory page, but rather a Hubberts peak theory page, I feel it is sloppy to attribute to one Hubbert, any more than what in fact Hubbert has said. This Implications section is horrid, and everything that Wikipedia is not, however, we need a place for the puss to drain, and if we remove this article, all this lucy-goosey, the sky is falling pseudo-scientific cultish nonsense will be attributed to Hubbert personally - and I see no evidence that he deserves that end. I would suggest a better solution: Create a Peak oil cult page on which to place all the true believers, followers, doomsayers, and fear mongers, under the category of religion which in my opinion is where any conjectures of the end of the world as we know it belong - then do a nice article about Hubbert personally, his one nearly successful prediction, and his other far less successful corollaries and move on. (any takers)? Benjamin Gatti 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rework the whole article so that its no longer propaganda --Bill 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Comment I agree with Mr Gatti - a Hubbert article, then a seperate peak oil cult page (although possibly Peak oil cult would not be my choice of title). Am happy to work on this with others. Kcordina 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment some kind of reworking is clearly necessary, I agree that a peak oil theory article separate from or created instead of Hubbert sounds promising, SqueakBox 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and NPOVify, per Squeakbox. POV is not a reason for deletion. 'Peak Oil cult' is an obviously POV title, why not work on the current article? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the Hubbert article already has a section on this, and if it's too big that can be fixed by using categories to replace the long, long lists of people in that article - about half of it seems to be lists of one sort and another (including refs, of course). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Agreeing with JzG above. This belongs in the main article space, sinc eit is a natural offshoot of the phenomenon. If that article is long, that is a copy-edit issue. This is an important issue and the closing admin might consider relisting this to canvass more opinions since consensus is largely lacking so far. Eusebeus 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
May I ask then where Mt. Hubbert suggested the that very bad things would happen if/when cheap oil ended? And May I suggest that if he did not say it - then it doesn't belong and that we should tag the true authors of such tripe with their predictions of gloom. You call it a natural outgrowth - but there are many such natural outgrowths, some of with include windmills, solar panels, nuclear plants, bio-diesel, population reduction, urban planning for energy efficiency, and in short where would it end? I respectfully suggest that Hubbert's article should begin and end with Hubbert. Benjamin Gatti 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You have strangely conflated the man with the theory. Implications of a development (good or bad or indifferent - it is a neutral term) are not beyond the scope of an encyclopedic discussion of that topic and that is where they should remain (and presumably be better discussed). I believe you correctly identify the problem with uncoupling this from the main discussion in that it could lead to wide range of essentially peripheral topics. Eusebeus 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the title has conflated the two. Allow me to propose an unconflated title under which every proponant of such ideas could be mention without necessarily painting one of them with too broad a brush. Benjamin Gatti 14:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This point and your comment above are both valid. The problem is with Hubbert peak theory; it seems to me that peak oil theory is sufficiently well-advanced that it is no longer rightly characterised as Hubbert's peak theory even if that is how it originated. We can fix that by renaming the article and refactoring slightly to refer to Hubbert's role. Implications should still be wound in, as the separate article implies in its premises for existence acceptance of the theory, which is begging the question. Whether or not one accepts the theory. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 15:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of already famous people who have survived a deadly event

List which can never realistically be complete, POV on famous, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Way too vague. 23skidoo 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can only ever be an arbitrary list of people with strong POV bias. If the person's famous enough, include the information on their wikipedia page. Kcordina 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Anyone notable enough to be mentioned on WP in the first place would probably have a close call with death mentioned in their biographical details in the first place. -- (aeropagitica)  17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too vague, not possible to make comprehensive list, POV magnet. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV on "deadly event" also. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:12, Jan. 4, 2006
  • Delete listcruft. For what values of "famous", "deadly" and "event"? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Clearly for any value of deadly = not deadly - isn't that obvious :-) Dlyons493 Talk 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and this is why categories are for ... not. feydey 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Good informative list. -- JJay 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say the encyclopaedic content of this article as written fits here just nicely without the problems of title and arbitrary classification raised above. No information need be lost. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. you mean like - everyone famous who survived WWII? BL kiss the lizard 06:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. How would you define 'famous' and 'deadly'? As above, the list could immediately be filled with 'famous' people who were around during various wars, or at least were involved in the war in some way (ignoring the chance that Hitler could have taken over the world, meaning all 'famous' Jewish people older than 50 or so survived the threat of mass genocide), SARS could lead to the inclusion of all 'famous' Chinese people, also someone may view escaping a car crash with nothing more than airbag bruises as surviving a deadly event etc etc! Would be very POV on famous and on deadly Sadisticality 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As Dlyons493 points out, how is it possible to survive a deadly event? This article is actually a list of people who have been struck by lightning. See also List of people who became famous for surviving a deadly event (AfD discussion). Uncle G 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What everyone else has said. Plus if one goes deep enough, it is possible to find such events in the lives of almost everyone, making this a potentially infinite list. JoaoRicardotalk 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that it is an interesting topic and I feel strongly that meta-list articles in the Wikipedia cause no harm. I like this one. --AStanhope 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft & silly. Eusebeus 18:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Being relisted once is enough, having been on AfD for nearly 2 weeks without any trace of support for the article. -Splashtalk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmo Connor

This article was nominated for AfD, but the nominator failed to carry out the second step of the process. No reason is given in the edit summary. My personal assumption for deletion is that the subject, a German 'warez reporter' is not an encyclopedic subject and fails the qualifiers at WP:BIO. But as I said, I'm just cleaning up the nomination. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Phi Lambda

Non-notable fraternity. Article self-nominates, in part, by the line "Famous Alumnae: None". Stifle 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable Prashanthns 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep it's a national sorority with 17 chapters. That seems notable enough. (Also note that I did some cleanup work on the page since it was nominated - it's more leible now). -- Bachrach44 15:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 128.227.8.179 removed the AFD notice in this edit. Stifle 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Bachrach44 Jcuk 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not that familiar with these sorts of organisations, but surely just because they have no famous alumnae doesn't make it non-notable. The rest of the article seems OK to keep now.Evil Eye 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as with the others before. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above + no valid reason given for deletion. Picture has to go obviously. -- JJay 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep per Bachrach44, Delete the picture. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:BAI lists this as a bad article to create. Stifle 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This one stands apart from the other biblical nominations (there must be a pun in there). SimonP's defense is absent; he recommends outright deletion instead. The numbers opting to delete this are substantially higher than those opting to keep, and the gap between them is much wider than in the other nominations, so clearly there is a desire for an otherwise-inconsistent result in this case. Clearly, the concern is the extreme paucity of actual non-source content; the semi-sentence that there is is subtrivial and a repetition of the title in words. Babajobu, do note that this article does not even come close to beginning to consider doing any of the things you mention, unlike some of the other bible entries. I'm not going to orphan this article as is often done at the end of an AfD, however, since there remains the possibility of a non-'cruft' version emerging into the light. -Splashtalk 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John 20:19

n.n. Biblecruft. Content is

  • John 20:19 is the nineteenth verse of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John in the Bible.
  • followed by 2 translations of the verse

That's all that's in it.

  • Delete with prejudice. There should be no article under this title in wikipedia. It is never likely to contain anything encyclopedic. --User talk:FDuffy 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this verse and all other Bible verses into broader articles. Logophile 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • With no content other than two translations of the verse this is quite useless, and certainly isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete this, but with no prejudice against an actual article on this verse being written. - SimonP 15:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think we need an article for each individual bible verse. -- MisterHand 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; as it currently stands, it is not an encyclopedia article. A number of other articles on single versed were deleted some months ago. We still have John 3:16, but this is a real article, not just the text. - Liberatore(T) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Will all of these invidivual Bible verse articles be used to analyse their meanings, interpretations, differences between translations, etc in a meaningful way? If all they are doing is reproducing translated Bible verses, scholars have different editions of online Bibles to refer to already. Could the author of these articles please demonstrate why these verses have been lifted above other, arbitrary verses and what their intentions are for improving scholastic research in to the Bible using WP as a resource? -- (aeropagitica)  17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This verse isn't worth an article on its own. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into a single encyclopedaic article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - indeed speedy verse article with no commentary as empty. Whether any given Bible verse can merit an article can only be decided when someone writes that article - and shows the importance of the verse (we've had this debate already). --Doc ask? 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, permanently, without this article being re-created in any form. This is simply not the way to treat books of the bible. Talk about subjects like the Genealogy of Jesus, not the verses one by one. The verse structure is a mediaeval construct. Often the books were divided into verses and chapters simply in such a way as to get a nice or significant number of them, like 50 (n.b. one of the gospels, I believe it is Mark, has 666 verses in total), rather than trying to respect the original sentence divisions. The only reason they weren't deleted/merged half a year ago is because the closing admin was biased and chose to count the vote as a keep despite the fact that twice as many people voted to delete and/or merge the articles than did to keep them. --Victim of signature fascism 01:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Wikisource material. --Golbez 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factually accurate and verifiable. There has already been precedent to keep articles on bible verses. Oldak Quill 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Transwiki per Golbez -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject is a fair topic, but the article has no commentary on the verse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge. (There might not be anything to merge.) The Bible is a major book, but the division of the Bible into verses is mostly arbitrary. The most encyclopedic way of treating its content is by articles on passages or chapters. — mark ✎ 08:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete biblecruft. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No valid reason given to delete. -- JJay 09:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable verse or Merge into an appropriate article. -- jaredwf 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Easter or Resurrection of Jesus. KHM03 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, whoa whoa whoa, guys, I'm not religious at all, but the Bible (and the New Testament as part of the Bible) is the most obsessively studied and interpreted and commented upon book in human history. Every single verse has been subjected to endless hair-splitting and analysis by theologians. There is more than enough material out there for a lengthy, informative article on any bible verse. Are Bible verses less notable than individual characters from video games? I think not. Babajobu 01:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  09:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per nom. Wikipedia is easily changed if this article ever provokes any discussion, but we don't need hundreds of articles on bible verses when there's not much more than the verse itself there. The only bible verse article I would support is John 3:16, no other verse is a widely known. - Pureblade | Θ 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We appear to have articles on every verse between Matthew 1-6 and John 20. I don't know if it's too much work to delete them all; deleting some of them piecemeal will leave us with a random collection of red wikilinks in the "next verse" segment of the page. It's too late for me to unravel this. No vote. Stifle 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dsmdgold 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notice that somebody has begun a similar project with the Rig Veda (see Hymn of creation. Where will it stop? Logophile 13:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.--ragesoss 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. this is a very interesting project. Kingturtle 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Angr (tɔk) 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments. Eusebeus 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, merging any new information into Gospel of John. SimonP's arguments are not persuasive in this case. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep --Ichiro 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harq Obispal and Stalinvast

This is a combined nomination for Harq Obispal and Stalinvast. Both these articles are non-canonical in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, and appear to be the subject of a role-playing character and setting, respectively. "Harq Obispal" attracts nine unique Google hits, the majority of the non-Wikipedia ones are for role-playing forums. -- 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project

  • I strike my previous charge, but still believe this is a candidate for deletion. See below the relisting notice.

Both Stalinvast and Harq Obispal are sourced in the Black Library Publication of "Inquisitor" by Ian Watson and as such exist properly inside the Warhammer 40K Universe at large and not any specific gamers campaign.

  • Well, please rewrite the articles to show this information. I can only work off what I find in the article, and what I find in Google, which did not say anything about the Ian Watson novel. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Stalinvast is key to the story in question while Obispal is an essential but relatively minor character-still working on template for Draco and the other main figures-though more worthy of a seperate entry than say planetary governor Lord Voronov-Vaux. The book I have is entitled Inquisitor and is the first of the Inquisition War Trilogy. it was reissued by the Black Library as Draco in 2002. Found it easily on a google search.


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91

I admit that my first claim of non-canonocity is false, in light of the evidence. I admit I was wrong. However, I still find myself questioning this article's 'place' in the grand scheme of Warhammer 40,000-related articles on Wikipedia.

Many of the characters in the fictional universe do not have their own articles. The Emperor Himself, arguably the single most important character/'historical figure' in the game and fiction, is a section in another article (although I do concede that there are plans to move him back out, and support this move). The majority of the Primarchs are included in the article on their Legion (with one exception, who is arguably the second most important character/'historical figure' in the fictional universe.

I have never read the Inquisition War (and knowing my luck, will probably never get the chance to), and don't know how important the character of Harq Obispal, or the world of Stalinvast) is to the plot. I think the best place for this information would be either in an article on the Inquisition War trilogy, or in an article on "Jac Draco", who appears to be the primary character of the trilogy. Failing that, my call for deletion still stands. No offense to the article author or the subject material, but to me, this is at the moment little more than Warhammer40K-cruft. -- Saberwyn

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (but very weak). Ideally, produce a high-quality article on the book and merge these articles into that, but if that doesn't happen I'd rather keep the information available rather than delete it. Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coriolanus effect

Incorrect spelling, page exists at Coriolis effect. Jomtois 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, do not redirect since Coriolanus effect seems to be something else, named after the play Coriolanus. Punkmorten 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Punkmorten may well be correct in his/her assertion, but the definition as given on the page is of the Coriolis effect. The author is incorrect and this page is not good research material. -- (aeropagitica)  17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as any fule kno, the coriolanus effect is the effect you get as the vortex of self-absorption causes you to disappear up your own arse. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per aeropagitica. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:57Z
  • Delete, is someone studying Shakespeare at the same time as navigation at sea? Dan 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zubrowska

Vanity Prashanthns 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JonoGame 2d

WP is not a crystal ball, game is not released and google test provides no relevant links  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Early Aviators

Non-notable. Student film perhaps? Nothing on IMDB and nothing that I saw when I googled the name (and variations) — Bellhalla 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funderpants

Suspected, er, original research, followed by a crib of the underwear article. Robin Johnson 15:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Intelligent, but lazy"

Dicdef - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete and do not move to Wiktionary. This article uses a circular definition.--Mareino 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the argument for circularity. This could possibly survive on something akin to urbandictionary.com but the definition would have to be rewritten to remove the circular thought. -- (aeropagitica)  17:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It isn't suitable for Wiktionary, not only because of the circularity but also because it isn't a single word or a common phrase. It's pretty self-explanatory as well. Dan 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef and in any case so effing obvious that nobody could conceivably need to look it up. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as crap -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:53Z
  • Delete. Incognito 06:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a slang guide--Bill 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary according to official policy. - MB (Talk) 11:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phrase is self explanitory. (Boorishbehaviour 16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthas Arena 2

Delete - Ad for a Warcraft III map. No claim to notability Werdna648T/C\@ 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, we do not have articles for insignificant maps. Punkmorten 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangla band

Delete or Expand & explain notability. Seems to be a NN neologism. Badly written, and practically empty. I cleaned up the images because I could not stand the previous version. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is empty. The definition could go in to Wiktionary but there is no research value to the page as it stands. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep and fix Just like Bhangra, this is a crossover music style that need documenting. One of the bands noted here, Krosswindz, has a major label contract [12]. MNewnham 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Might suggest adding disambig page for 'Bangla' as well MNewnham
  • Delete. per nomination.
  • Delete. Bangla is another word Bengali language. We're not going to have articles on English band, Hindi band and so on. utcursch | talk 11:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fayetteville Area System Transit

Wikipedia is not a bus schedule plus the POV Jcbarr 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge the rewrite to Fayetteville, North Carolina with great thanks to SPUI -Jcbarr 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (login isn't working at the moment, but this is me)
  • Delete Currently a wish-list of the bus routes the author wants. Could be an article with lots of work (fix POV, add lots of detail), but at the moment, delete. Keep Following rework by SPUI. Well done!Kcordina 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm of the opinion that that would never make an article. Dan 18:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete remove the speculation and all you have is a list of bus routes, which is a WP:ISNOT (a directory).
Interesting. Couldn't what you wrote be merged into the Fayetteville page? It looks to me like this FAST page is an orphan. -Jcbarr 04:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. As notable as a random high school, at least. Youngamerican 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand the new stub - I've seen other well-done transit authority articles, this one has potential if done right. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and thank SPUI for taking away all the original research. The public transit system in a city is an encyclopedic topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article on the city itself, there is room for it there. Scoo 10:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a city guide. This is not encyclopedic information, is useful for very few people and will keep changing all the time. JoaoRicardotalk 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. this could be of use to a city planner of someone like that. Kingturtle 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to city article. Eusebeus 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 silly vandalism - let's not waste time. -Doc ask? 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male bikini wearing

No clarity, uncertain article, proof needed Holms19 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • speedy or redir to something in Bikini (disambiguation) -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 14:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom
  • Speedy delete, not worth spending five days discussing. --Angr (tɔk) 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, rather nonsensical. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to meet any of the strict speedy deletion criterion, although this does call for a WP:IAR. Stifle 15:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The most popular search term for this seems to be "men wearing bikini". Delete nonetheless unless proven to be a notable phenomenon. Punkmorten 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The author needs to cite some reports of the phenomenon. -- (aeropagitica)  17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I very much doubt that there are any notable ones. Dan 18:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutron and positron radiation

Neutron and positron radiation are two very different types of particle radiation, therefore they should not be an article on both of them. Therefore, this article should be deleted. There should be separate articles on both of them. Polonium

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape runes

The reason I've nominated this for deletion is because the information is already listed under the "Runes" section, at RuneScape Items.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The RuneScape items article is already too long and adding the extra info here onto that page would make it even longer. It would be better to move anything included over there to this page and link to it. Evil Eye 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep The RuneScape items article is rather cumbersome. Seperate articles for the more predominant forms of item in RuneScape will enable much more detail to be provided. Have added a link from the runes section to this article. Kcordina 16:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought the community in general was opposed to having numerous individual articles relating to RuneScape equipment, as per the TzTok-Jad/Fire Cape debacle.

That aside, the RuneScape Items article is hardly what I would call "cumbersome".Mike 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Beebop Records

Appears to be a non-notable record label - main evidence includes having a myspace page. Stifle 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no claim to notability, the article even says they're "small-scale", and the 'record label' was created just a few months ago. 2 google hits for "Academy Beebop Records", both on myspace. - Bobet 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group (having myspace homepage == not even in the ballpark of notable). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:50Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guyon Denis Chiasson

Non-notable Canadian genealogical entry. YUL89YYZ 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I cleaned up a few links that shouldn't have been redlinked, but that shouldn't be construed as a keep. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on genealogical data. Delete it. Bearcat 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pn. Dan 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:49Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ALL to Current Home and Away characters. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but this new article is constructed directly from the individual ones, appearing to incorporate all the information in them. So, I'll apply redirects to each article, which is an ordinary editorial decision. -Splashtalk 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Vale (and other Home And Away characters nominated for AFD -- Daniel Baker, Matilda Hunter, Ric Dalby, Martha McKenzie, Kim Hyde, Beth Hunter, Barry Hyde, Tasha Andrews, Irene Roberts, Flynn Saunders, Alf Stewart, Leah Patterson Baker, Jack Holden, Sally Fletcher, Tony Holden, Robbie Hunter, Cassie Turner, Lucas Holden)

Delete Most (if not all) the articles for Home And Away are very short and the characters wouldn't pass the "google test" if they were real people, much less characters on this TV show. The vast majority's #1 hit is their respective WP article that has very little information. A concise page listing all the characters would be the best way to handle this on WP, if necessary at all. Dbchip 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. If you want to merge articles, merge them. Uncle G 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The merger document doesn't seem to cover a scenario where you're merging multiple pages into one and don't intend to keep the originating pages. For example, these articles don't have any inbound links besides eachother and aren't necessary to keep or redirect. Dbchip 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's because such a scenario isn't permissible. If you want the text merged, the source articles may not be deleted. If you want the source articles deleted, you may not merge the text. Decide. Uncle G 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks, changed to Delete above accordingly.

*Delete per above. Home And Away is the place for that sort of thing. Dan 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) *Delete These characters do not seem to pass the google test. Separate articles for each of these fictional characters seems excessive, especially with the brevity of some of the articles. -- Bovineone 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I note that the original articles could have been turned into redirects and these merged into one big article with no need for AfD intervention. And then even if we wanted to merge and delete the redirects, we could move the page history elsewhere, if it was needed. Morwen - Talk 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Lacking any history to preserve and unnecessary clutter of the namespace in my opinon. Still needs to be notable to warrant a redirect. Dbchip 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say we should hold off the deletion yet until someone with indepth knowledge of H&A could come and merge the details either into the character section of Home and Away or else their own article, say, Characters of Home and Away. I'd like to point out how Neighbours has done this. They have a families and other characters section on their page detailing current characters, with a separate article for past characters. I think H&A should go along similar lines. Afterwards I think we should deleted what remains of the articles. Evil Eye 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Eastenders has individual profiles for characters. I can't see why Home and Away should be any different. Englishrose 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know that the two are comparable or that the precedent of other shows changes the fact that most of these characters are not notable and have only a handful of google hits with the WP article being #1. Dbchip 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Beth Hunter article is detailed and would be useful to someone wanting to know about the series. No doubt so would the others. GRuban 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I would also accept Merge in support of Evil Eye's work. Either way works for me. As Honbicot writes below, this is information that is actively interesting to millions of people now (interesting enough for hundreds of them to make pages about it!) and will still be interesting to hundreds of people -- all over the world, not just in the neighborhood of one parking garage -- researching the show after it goes off the air. That's as much as you can say about any encyclopedia article. GRuban 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Potential for being useful isn't a metric for inclusion on WP. For example, you could write an article on a parking garage that would be useful to someone wanting to know about parking there, but that doesn't mean it's notable or worthly of a WP article. Dbchip 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • These characters are of interest to millions of people (not including me as I've never watched the show), so that comparison has no value. Honbicot 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A natural part of wikipedia's growth. Honbicot 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The ones I checked passed the "google test". ReeseM 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Like this[13] or this[14] or this[15]? Again, fails, and completely not notable. Dbchip 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Try searching "Dan Baker" with "Home and Away" instead of "Daniel Baker" as the vast majority calls him Dan. [16] Amanda Vale and Lucas Holden are very new additions, thus will take time to get google hits. They have yet to appear in the UK, thus I have no idea who they are and they might even have shortened names themselves. Englishrose 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Got it. Minimally, the article should be renamed to reflect the most common name. If the commonly used name isn't even right, it calls the accuracy of the whole thing into question.Dbchip 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as character bios for soap operas are the job of a fansite, which is one of the things WP:ISNOT.
  • Keep for all the reasons given above. We need more good bios like these. -- JJay 02:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm genuinely puzzled by that remark. Why do we need more bios of fictional characters? I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with bios of important fictional characters in an encyclopedia. Where would we be without articles on Zeus, Harry Potter (character), Gandalf, Falstaff or thousands of others? Those are just 4 characters I thought of off the top of my head, but they are excellent articles, better than most in the Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with being fictional. Even television characters are certainly not a waste of space. GRuban 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Listify. I would only suggest keeping important character profiles for main characters a la Buffy Summers or Willow Rosenburg in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. None of the nominated articles seem to fit that calibur. If, once the fancruft has been deleted, an entry in the list gets too big for the page, then it should be split off. Chanlord 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To say that all of those characters and are not main characters, thus not important to Home and Away is rediculas. Irene Roberts has been in it since 1992), Flynn Saunders - is extremely popular, Finally Alf Stewart and Sally Fletcher have been in Home and Away since the very first episode and both hold the Australian Record for longest running actors on a Soap Opera. Englishrose 10:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (or at least merge). Notable characters from a notable Antipodian soap. Youngamerican 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to redirect to new article created by EvilEye. GFDL, then, requires that these articles be kept as redirects, so no deletes should be done. Youngamerican 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Englishrose. EastEnders and Coronation Street both have articles for individual characters.
  • Comment (and vote at end). I've decided to go through with the idea I mentioned above and I'e created a new article incorporating most of the info from the individual articles. Thinking about it now, maybe it should have been done on my user pages or something, but it's too late now (sorry). You can find the article at Current Home and Away characters. You can see it is rather a rough effort and some characters would need to be expanded while others seriously cut back (we don't need details of every story every characters has been involved with). I also propose a second article, Past Home and Away characters to which this information is moved if/when a character leaves. I feel it is better to have all this in one article as it compares H&a WITH EUALLY POPULAR SOAPS (LIKE neighbours) rather than comparing it with soaps which have much higher global viewing figures or are more widely known about (like Easterners and Coronation Street). It also provides an easily comparable source detailing info on all characters in one place, rather than having many different articles with very little info in each. If we want to keep thi article, we would need to make a link on the main article page, do some serious work on improving the content and I propose a box on the page detailing and ranking the episode and order characters first appeared (like in the Neighbours article. My vote for these articles is then redirect to Current Home and Away characters.Evil Eye 12:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to list of characters article.--nixie 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Redirect to EvilEye's article. I'm still not 100% convinced of the need for a separate article, but I'll give it a chance. Dan 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to the list of characters articles per Evil Eye and WP:FICT. None of the individual characters have had a notable enough impact on popular culture to warrant their own articles, and most of them are short enough to be merged into a single article. Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per user Englishrose. I'd also add that H&A is a very famous programme in (at least) Australia and the UK. --kingboyk 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Evil Eye's list. I remember seeing each one of this articles being created when I was in RC patrol, and thinking to myself that it wouldn't be long before I saw them here in AFD. Ah, Wikipedia, to know thee is to love thee.JoaoRicardotalk 20:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to the new unified character page that was created. A single page much more consisely describes things. -- Bovineone 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above, Eusebeus 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - H&A is one of the most popular and succesful shows in Australian history and has a HUGE fan base and following outside AU. With much more viewers than stale old unimportant shows like Eastenders and Coronation street - two shows that not a single soul outside the UK cares about. The Idea of deletion is anopther example of the UGLINESS of colinalism and bigotry- one thinks only American characters from buffy should be allowd to saty and a british poster thinks someone actually cares about Eastenders and CS' who's number of viewers outside the UK (combined) is not even a quarter of the H&A viewers.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. -Splashtalk 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pycnogenol

Blatant advertisement 司徒天 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Copyright Violation from Pycnogenol webpage
  • Delete pn. If that speedy doesn't materialise. Dan 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup then Keep. I agree this article is incredibly promotional (® after every occurance of subject name?!). However, the subject appears to be quite notable. >900,000 Google hits for Pycnogenol and another 300,000 for proanthocyanidins. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:43Z
    • Here's what http://www.vitaminsdiary.com/pycnogenol.htm says:
      Pycnogenol is the trade name for a group of bioflavonoids called proanthocyanidins. Although these flavonoids can be extracted from various foods such as fruits, grains, vegetables and grape seeds, pycnogenol is derived under patent, from the French maritime pine tree (Pinus maritima).
      —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:44Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Looking at the unwikfied text dump makes me think it a likely copyvio from somewhere, too. -Splashtalk 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Col. F.M. Seymour, S.C.C.

Not notable. No information found on the same. Linked sites on article have no information. -- Krash 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom, not notable. -- Jbamb 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename This is a stage persona, the real person metioned in the article is Frances Seymour. If this Seymour is notable, write about him and mention the Colonel as a stage persona, not the other way around. It is similar to writing an article on Captain Picard using the biographical details of Patrick Stewart. Person and persona should not be confused. -- (aeropagitica)  17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I quite agree. Dan 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename, Article is not helped by getting his real name wrong. It is "Frank Merrill Seymour". For which a Google search turns up this obtiuary in the Magic Times from where there is a link to a longer obituary in a newspaper: which also suggests that the article has the date of his death wrong. Gaius Cornelius 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Additionally: This site says "John Crippen began studying magic in 1975, as a student of the legendary Col. Frank Seymour". There is a trick here credited to COLONEL SEYMOUR, but it is not clear that this is the same magician. It seems that there is a "Colonel C R F Seymour", but this appears to be somebody quite different (see here and here). Colonel Frank Seymour's "Free Museum of Magic" gets a mention here. Gaius Cornelius 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Apparently no major news outlet bothered to comment on his death, and even that Arkansas newspaper just published a small note on him. JoaoRicardotalk 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for nonnotability. DreamGuy 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 merged --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walden Pond State Reservation

There is no text on this page, except for the pointless "See also" part. The article should be deleted or merged with Walden Pond. If merged, I suggest Walden Pond State Reservation be redirected to Walden Pond. --Thorri 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, but you can merge and redirect it boldly. bikeable (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless you consider adding that one link to Walden Pond a Merge, and Redirect to aforementioned article. Dan 17:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think merging the little information there is in the article with Walden Pond and then redirecting it is the best option. I'll do it. --Thorri 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. This debate shouldn't prejudice a rewrite since it's a not-really-sure by itself and is brief. -Splashtalk 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prenatal test

Veiled advertisement James084 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete pn. Plus it's Chorionic Villus Sampling. Obviously someone who knows little of the topic. Dan 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal psychosis

Not notable enough, as it is about a fictional disease that was only mentioned in one episode. Philip Stevens 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete If this condition has to be referenced at all, it is best done over on Memory Alpha. More people wanting to look up Star Trek minutae are going to go there to review this sort of material. -- (aeropagitica)  17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pn. It's not good enough to merge into the particular ST:Voy episode, and indeed that article isn't fully written either. Memory Alpha is the best place for this type of thing really. Dan 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article at Memory Alpha [17], where this is more suited contains no more information than here, so I feel it's not notable enough for a general encyclopedia. Evil Eye 19:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable reference to fictional work. And the info is already where it's supposed to be (Memory Alpha). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:37Z
  • Delete per WP:FICT --rogerd 00:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IWay

Ad copy. Rhobite 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Villegas

I can not find anything to back up the claims of this supposed 23-year old self-made millionaire. Delete unless verified. BD2412 T 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment None of the content of the article makes clear why this person is notable. He may well be a young, charismatic dollar millionare but how is this information useful in scholastic research? I would expect to see copy like this in a venture capitalist directory, not on WP. If the author can cite articles and clarify the status of the subject and his notability, this would go a long way to promote inclusion in WP. -- (aeropagitica)  18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Not a single assertation on this page is verifiable - a hoax. MNewnham 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evil Eye 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a hoax. At least it gave me a chance to try out my new admin powers. Tom Harrison Talk 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:32Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 View Askewniverse. enochlau (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey films

The page lists information that is already present on, View Askewniverse. Only View Askewniverse contains more information on the subject than this page. The Filmaker 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge with View Askewniverse. --Myles Long/cDc 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to View Askewniverse -- MisterHand 18:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The page lists information that is already present on, View Askewniverse. Only View Askewniverse contains more information on the subject than this page. The Filmaker 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to View Askewniverse. Evil Eye 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to View Askewniverse. ManoaChild 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above but only if the term "New Jersey films" is closely associated with Smith's work. I say that because I was under the impression the films were more or less universally known as View Askewniverse. 23skidoo 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or redirect). I agree with 23skidoo. I can't find any evidence that "New Jersey films" is an alias for View Askewniverse. In fact, I suspect the article came from someone filling in a redlink that started out as "The New Jersey films:" in that navigation at the bottom of the View Askewniverse film articles. With the "the" article it's clear it wasn't a formal name, only an informal way to group some of Kevin Smith's films. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:32Z
    • I think we can assume it is. A Google search for "New Jersey films" + smith shows lots os links in which the movies are collectively called his "New Jersey films". JoaoRicardotalk 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Essexmutant 11:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. JoaoRicardotalk
  • Redirect. --Liface 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect or merge with View Askewniverse.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Note that the cited text does exist, and appears not be on a vanity press. -Splashtalk 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Else Grabner

Added by an anonymous author, zero non-wiki google hits, I put a If this page does not list a reference by the end of the week, I am nominating it for deletion on the talk page a week ago. Its writing style alone makes me suspicious that this is a spurious work of imagination, for example Her power over the camp, the more than 60,000 female and juvenile inmates, and more than 1,000 female guards, was absolute. - it's possible that she was an actual person, but even if she was, Wikipedia is unlikely to be lessened by losing this article, and since it seems "likely" to say it's a hoax (since all other female Nazi guards listed on Wikipedia are google-able), I'd rather we be safe, and not used at another plaything for the media ("I put my three year old daughter on Wikipedia as a Nazi guard, and it stayed up for months", etc) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I did a search at http://www.ravensbruck.nl/ and turned up nothing about Frau Grabner. -- MisterHand 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible hoax, if not then clearly unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for expert review. It would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Acctorp 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for expert review as suggested above. This issue has arisen before. A good many of the articles on Female guards in Nazi concentration camps have been supplied by a single editor 68.248.199.3 (talk · contribs) (also as 68.248.199.2 (talk · contribs)) who cites the source as a book: The Camp Women: The Female Auxiliaries Who Assisted the SS in Running the Concentration Camp System, by Daniel Patrick Brown. But it worries me that this editor seems to be the sole source. Tearlach 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leverage (to)

This is a dictionary article about a word that has been submitted to the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's nothing here of any worth to Wiktionary. Indeed, Wiktionary already has leverage, which leverage (disambiguation) already links to. There is no good reason for even a redirect by this title. Uncle G 18:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Bobet 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Fried

Doesn't seem to be very notable, nothing concrete from a google search [18]. Delete as nonsense KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Evil Eye 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This is a vanity page. -- (aeropagitica)  22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --rogerd 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confessor (band)

Non-notable band. Only claim to notability is three albums that I can't find on three different "independent" labels. Ifnord 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete never heard of them--Snakes 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I'm no personal fan of the band, I certainly think they deserve the space. Earache Records, Combat Records and Season of Mist are no tiny underground labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The photo I uploaded show them on a gig with Arcturus (band), Red Harvest (band), Tsjuder and Nattefrost (although the latter had to cancel).
  • Comment. On that gig, these bands were all filmed, and there will be DVDs out shortly on Season of Mist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The band split in the nineties, I believe, but are back now. Anyway, as I said, I'm no fan, but I think you should consult the Doom Metal people before saying they are non notable.--KFD 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The labels are apparently sufficiently significant to have articles on them. Allmusic has a brief bio on this band that appears to confirm the records. So I don't see any good reason for deletion here at all. I bet they even meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. There are hundreds of thousands of articles about things I've never heard of, that doesn't mean the articles shouldn't be. Friday (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. PJM 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. They fit this WP:MUSIC description:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Earache alone has 341 releases.

Combathas ceased to exist, but has released albums by Megadeth, Nuclear Assault, Exodus and Celtic Frost. They're all very big names in Thrash Metal and Black Metal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD (talk • contribs)

  • keep. No reason for them not to be on here. Verifiable and at least somewhat notable. Not hearing of a band isn't grounds for deletion.--TaeKwonTimmy 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've never heard of em but if in doubt, keep. Seems fairly clear to me that this band went 'beyond the bedroom'. They released records, have fans, and picked up an AMG entry. More than enough surely? --kingboyk 19:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep***as a musician i say keep all music alive, there's no good or bad
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nnbio. -Doc ask? 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honour citykhan

Non-notable musical artist. "Preparing a debut album" doesn't qualify someone for WP yet. -- (aeropagitica)  18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This should be a Speedy delete.--Mitsukai 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Even though the claims of notability are vague, they're still claims. Not quite a speedy. PJM 18:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Mitsukai. Obli (Talk) 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete see Geogre's Law. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nagao Masakage

This was previously nominated for a speedy (CSD A7). I'm not sure if A7 applies, since it attempts to establish notability by saying he's the father of a daimyo. No vote from me, since I don't know enough about Japanese history to reliably comment on whether this is a valid bio stub or if it should be deleted for being about the non-notable father of a daimyo. --Deathphoenix 18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, establishes notability. I added the info about him also being a clan leader from a linked article. - Bobet 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Again tagged too soon. -- JJay 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real person, no reason to delete. JoaoRicardotalk 17:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep now that it's clarified that he is also a clan leader. Thanks for the additional info, Bobet. This gaikokujin thanks you. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBG records

Was tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio, but it's company, not a person. However, it's a very NN record label that has 3 albums "that have not been met with any tangible success." howcheng {chat} 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is the production of "MotherLoad" that will garner the critical acclaim that so many of his artistic peers know he and his work deserves" Crystal ball much? Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it voilates the Secret of the Founder's Name, which cannot be revealed for legal reasons. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't buy that stuff about the founder's name (and shouldn't it be 'N' 'O'?) but delete as nn. --kingboyk 19:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moraxian

Apparent self-promotion attempt for porn website; no evident notability. Sandstein 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrone McFarlin

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Sliggy as nn-bio, but it claims significance, so bringing it to AfD instead. However, the multiple links to his web page don't work, and Googling him reveals a number of links to sites that he presumably runs that also don't work. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason the links don't work is they're mistyped, and copy-pasted. There's an extra w in wwww. http://www.bettercalltyrone.com works. That said, it's still blatant self promotion ... worse, it's a scam. Here, look at this : http://www.igotpaidonline.com/National%20Exposure/html/casting-calls.html, linked to from the first page. Apparently this guy is teaching others how to hype themselves. Either delete, or rewrite to explain that it's a scam. GRuban 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete self-promotion, non-notable. The website referred to is poorly written. Atrian 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Holy mother of God! Burn it now! Even if the subject were notable I'd want to kill this lot and start again. Vanispamcruftisement at it's very worst! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • When I originally looked at this page my Vain-o-meter exploded, what with the hyperbole, repeated broken links, etc. Sorry. Having had the chance to re-read it, and look at the web site, I now realise that (a) this man will make everyone rich and famous and (b) it only costs a few dollars to find out his secret formula, which has already beaten the wildest dreams of his many satisfied customers. Delete as advertisement and vanity, unless there's a significant NPOV re-write. Sliggy 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Invidious advertising/vanity page. -- (aeropagitica)  22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Could He Be The Next Big Name Actor and Director? Dare we delete Him? Let's be bold and risk divine retribution - I've already voted down Bible verses today. Dlyons493 Talk 23:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, and then rename, and add cleanup tag. enochlau (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal locomotion on the surface layer

This is a strange article. I'm quite sure that there is a science of studying animals which move about using the surface tension of water, but Google at least supports my view that it doesn't have this name. Perhaps a delete is too strong - the information should be moved to a correctly named article and cleaned up. Richard W.M. Jones 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • strong keep. What exactly is wrong with this article? It's clear, referenced, wikified, and refers to a very interesting and noteworthy topic. Delete is indeed too strong. I could be persuaded to split the article up into two (ie lizards and water striders). keep. Robinh 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The title is a bit unwieldy. Wouldn't this be a subset of an article on animal locomotion? -- Tenebrae 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and look again. Seems like OR, title is - ahem - quirky, but the concept is sound. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup/Merge Can this information not live with the respective animal articles? The title is too vague, how many researchers would look for this? -- (aeropagitica)  22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Interesting article, I think, lurking somewhere in there; I took the liberty of asking some questions on the Talk page, just what sprang to mind. I suggest linking the relevant animals' articles to this one, rather than merging, as this is a standalone topic. The title is no good, though. Who'd search on that? Sliggy 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons stated above. -- JJay 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, and learn how to google for references. -- Marvin147 02:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Animal locomotion links to the page. That's how a researcher would find it. The "point" of the article is that meniscus climbing is a totally new mode of animal locomotion. Read the Nature paper; it's really good (and, BTW, is a contraindication for the page being OR). Meniscus climbing happens to be "animal locomotion on the surface layer" but the energetics are different from water striders. Sliggy, you ask some good questions on the talk page. I'll do my best to answer them. I am corresponding with Jonn W. M. Bush (co author on the Nature paper) so maybe we can have some authoritative answers. Best wishes, Robinh 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to animal locomotion on the surface layer of water. —Ruud 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Animal locomotion on the surface layer of water. Ruud's copyediting has improved it a lot. (I am the original nominator). Richard W.M. Jones 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Area Reconstruction Society

Not notable, just a fictional organization in a role-playing campaign GRuban 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Pendell

Was tagged for speedy deletion by James084 as nn-bio, but he's an author. I found his books on Amazon, so bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howcheng {chat} 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep notable and verifiable -- MisterHand 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup If this person is a notable author, I would like to see citations for reviews of his work and influence on other writers in related fields. -- (aeropagitica)  22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I went to the Mercury House website to find out if they were a vanity press, but they seem to be a legit independent press. I did find this on their website:
Dale Pendell, PHARMAKO/DYNAMIS: Stimulating Plants, Potions, and Herbcraft: Finalist, 2003 PEN CENTER USA Literary Award, Creative Nonfiction.
And from the PEN CENTER website:
PEN USA is a non-profit membership organization made up of writers of every stripe that work west of the Mississippi. Its members are connected by the goals of building interest in the written word and defending writers worldwide.
Based on that, I'll vote weak keep, but things like that should be added to the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes it exists and no I don't feel it's notable. Weak Keep Thanks to JoaoRicardo for that link. Allen Ginsberg being for it is some sort of notability! Dlyons493 Talk 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Clearly not a speedy and we might have better info if the article was not tagged after one minute. -- JJay 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please stop attacking AfD nominations and nominators, or I will start deleting your comments. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On reflection, may have been a speedy and the newbie editor had more than enough time to submit a decent article. Still think that the article should be kept and deserves clean-up. -- JJay 03:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Publishing a book is too easy today. JoaoRicardotalk 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. On a second thought, his page at Mercury Press does seem to imply some notability. He won two literature awards which are sure real and seem relevant. JoaoRicardotalk 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)



Although he seems a minor writer, there is a substantial interest in this author as evidenced in his presense elsewhere on the web. I vote to keep it.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The vincent

Band appears insignificant, no direct hits from google. Only one band they have listed as playing with actually has a wikipedia entry BUT they have recorded cds. Appears to be a self glorifying stub of an amatuer musical group NJ 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter fandom/RPGs

This is a recreation of Harry Potter RPGs, which has already been merged and redirected to Harry Potter fandom (under the "Roleplaying Games" section). It's not a speedy criteria because that content wasn't deleted, but I believe this article goes beyond the trivial details into one subset of fandom that doesn't deserve its own article. Not only that, but putting a /RPGs subarticle is contrary to what I've seen on main articlespace articles. For these multitude of reasons this article should definitely be deleted. --Deathphoenix 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Failing that, redirect to Harry Potter fandom. All the pertinent information is already there. Hermione1980 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely unnencyclopaedic, plus an obvious WP:FORK. In what way is the fact that Harry Potter RPGs are RPGs based on Harry Potter anything other than blindingly obvious? Anyway, this is a subpage. Kill it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Just zis Guy, you know? -feydey 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiernan Millar

Local music promoter, manager of apparently non-notable band, insufficiently notable currently Average Earthman 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete "Who?" Even after reading this vanity nonsense and Googling I still don't know who he is. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page. If he really wants to, he can put this information on his user page but not in a reference work like WP. -- (aeropagitica)  22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:21Z
  • Delete NN/vanity --rogerd 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hal houser

Tagged as an A7 nn-bio speedy, but it's a fairly dodgy one as it does assert significance in some ways. Anyway, it's a managing director for BearingPoint - not sure it's "notable" enough for here though, probably not. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Managing directors, in the UK and commonwealth sense, of very large companies probably are notable, but in the US that's a couple of steps down the ladder. Looking at a list of BearingPoint's top management [19], he isn't on it. A search finds very little on him, but does find this [20] which looks awfully familiar. I'm not sold on this one, delete. Average Earthman 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reasoned opinion - we need more of that here :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete reads more like a CV than an encylopedia article. Non-notable. Atrian 20:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment seems like the MD of a large firm which clearly meets WP:CORP, does that not qualify automatically? If kept needs aggressive cleanup, though, as stated above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, but surely you mean MD in the British sense. The person who fills that position for Bearing Point is Chief Executive Officer Harry L. You, who doesn't have an article yet. Average Earthman 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Guy, I don't think so. Maybe that is the case with large companies like Coca-cola, but for smaller companies like this one I believe the managing director should have some other claim to notability. JoaoRicardotalk 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a member of the company's top management team, as per Average Earthman's link. The only verifiable details in this article are essentially a CV (such as where he got his MBA). The rest is unverifiable business-speak jargon. Delete. Sliggy 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Average Earthman said. JoaoRicardotalk 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Zoe —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:22Z


[edit] David Etheridge Bartou

I doubt if it's encyclopedic content... Maybe moving into Uncyclopedia? Adam78 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete it's a shame, because this fellow is quite attractive. -- MisterHand 20:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete this is pure vanity and non-notable. Atrian 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This looks more like a personal attack rather than vanity. Would anyone hype/laugh at themselves in this manner? -- (aeropagitica)  22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

peedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


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

===Berabow Man=== Remake of older copy/paste & search&replace article by part of User:193.164.112.20, careful reading reveals the article to be just a grossly made vandalism/joke, and the user has a well-known history of vandalism/unconstructive edits. All relevant info about the game's arcade version can already be found in the Bravoman article. EpiVictor 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) March listing is moot, was speedy redirected to Bravoman. Angr/talk 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berabow Man

The Berabow Man article appears to be a shallow copy of the Bravoman article with just changes in the names, no images, and no apparent reason for creation e.g. like "Berabow Man" being an actual alternate name for the actual Namco's game Bravoman. Also, its author vandalized the original Bravoman page and redirected to his/her version. This article offers little or nothing extra information compared to the original, and has little reason to exist.

Berabow Man is NOT a shallow copy of the Bravoman article. The game name is BERABOW MAN based upon Namco's own listings: - BERABOW is in the default high score listing - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in Namco Museum Volume 1 (PS1) - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in the end credits of Dragon Saber (1990). Bravoman is just an NEC PC-Engine conversion of the game, translated into English.

I cross checked, and seen that there is indeed an arcade (Japanese only) "Beraboh Man" (the sources are uncertain between Berabow and Beraboh, however it's even emulated under MAME). But still, IMHO the best thing would still be merging the "Berabow man" info with the Bravoman article, as this is the most common name under which the game is known and under which its ENGLISH versions are known. And, gingerfield rocks, your article IS just a copy of the original, and claiming that it focuses on the original japanese arcade version while keeping the NEC's version english texts unaltered iand deleting the whole article is a bit hypocritical... EpiVictor 12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, and add any "extra" information it may have to the original Bravoman article. EpiVictor 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
After seeing that "Berabow" or "Beraboh Man" really exists, I still favor my original proposal: Strong Delete and merge Beraboh/Berabow info and trivia with Bravoman article. EpiVictor 12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice as apparent WP:FORK Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The original page has the better reference material. -- (aeropagitica)  22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete This article focuses on the original arcade game, not the NEC PC-Engine conversion. Gingerfield rocks 11:09, 5 January 2006
Again, it would probably be better to merge the info and redirect to the original Bravoman article than merely copying it and changing all Bravoman references to Berabow, including the english texts...you are merely contraddicting yourself by claiming that Berabow Man focuses on the "original arcade game" (in Japanese) while keeping all the original texts from the "english" PC-Engine version in your article....this is called duplicating an article, if I'm not wrong. If that was the case, then we should have continuous edit wars over Vega, M.Bison and Balrog, since the Japanese versions of Street Fighter games name them differently... EpiVictor 09:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UT Society

This looks like a lot of nonsense to me; however, it could indeed be somewhat notable. I don't know. I'd vote Strong Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 January 2006

  • No, this is actually a real secret society at the school. The school name has been changed, but it is indeed a real society. We want to have a wikipedia entry to immortalize our society in wikipedia. Please don't consider deletion; this is completely valid; it just needs some cleaning up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgwikiwiki (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 January 2006
  • Delete not notable. -- MisterHand 20:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete from orbit. Only way to make sure. --Syrthiss 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Atrian 20:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable +/- hoax. Ifnord 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another student club. Can someone please link WP:BAI =from the Create page? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable: "The school name has been changed, but it is indeed a real society." ManoaChild 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The name has been chnaged back to the actual school name, the name we had earlier was exchanging the first two letters, not exactly "changing the name" if you'd like to see the schools wiki, University School
    • The quoted statement was my first concern, and you have addressed that, but I still see verifiability as a serious issue. Beyond that, there is also the issue of notability. ManoaChild 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Society, Real School

  • If it's real, why should it be deleted?
  • Are you seriously saying that, because it's not that big of a deal, it should be deleted? Come on, what happened to the Wikipedia that's full of details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.94.206 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 January 2006
    • It's still here. Uncle G 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Real I believe. Notable though it is not.Obina 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another frag party. Non-notable. -- (aeropagitica)  22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. I am going to be bold and delete all of those scary red links, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete Not-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.151.61 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2006
  • Delete nn Incognito 05:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How About a Change of Title?

  • Would that work? As in, make the title "The USUT Society" or "The University School Unreal Tournament Society." Would that work? ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.94.206 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 January 2006
    • I support that idea, I mean, if it's a real society with actual members linked to a school that's already existant on wiki, University School then why not keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.223.23 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 January 2006
  • Delete as non-notable online gaming group, non-notable student group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:19Z
  • User:Omgwikiwiki tells us above that this is a "real secret society" at a school. That tells us straight off that this subject is too secret for Wikipedia. However, I checked anyway, and there are indeed no sources to be found for this society. (The article, as usual, cites no sources.) The article is a novel, previously unpublished, description, history, and membership roster for a school society. It is thus primary source material and original research, which is forbidden here. The place for this sort of thing is the school's, or the society's, own web site, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for club home pages. Delete. Uncle G 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Adam Bishop —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:17Z


[edit] Ian_Eppler

Non notable Oscarthecat 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per nom James084 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that this article should be considered a stub until more information is added 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedied can someone close please? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas From The Morse Family (album)

Vanity, non-notable Crid 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Based on the title of the article, I was expecting a whole group of "Merry Christmas From the Morse Family" articles, and perhaps a disambiguation page. Sadly, my dreams were shattered. --MisterHand 20:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep I'm changing my vote now that more information has been given about Neal Morse's notability. However, I think the article needs to be expanded a bit to provide context on why it is encylopedic. As it reads right now, it looks like a CD some guy just recorded in his garage, and thought it would be funny to put on Wikipedia. Also, the article should be renamed to "Merry Christmas From the Morse Family". The "(album)" part isn't necessary as there's no disambiguation going on. -- MisterHand 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've renamed it. --kingboyk 12:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments, I take them onboard entirely; I will try to make the changes you recommend - no real time at present. I should get round to it soon though. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 15:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't understand how this article is "advertising" the album. There is no information on how to get it, no price listed, and not even an external link to Morse's website or the website of his record label. I'm looking at it as objectively as I can, and all I see is an explanation of how this album came to be and how it differs from the rest of the artist's considerable body of work. If you can convince me that it's advertising, certainly I'd be willing to rework the article so that it was much more NPOV. -- Mitchell k dwyer 10:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, as per WP:Music. -- (aeropagitica)  22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe the individual album could be considered not-notable - the artist is however. The inclusion of this helps to keep the encyclopedic record of his canon of work. If we keep removing material such as this, surely we damage peoples ability to understand work of such a musician. Admittedly not of the same level but should we remove, articles about Electronic Sounds by George Harrison, - it is part of his corpus of work and should be reasonably described to suit the stature of the artist. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The artist is clearly notable. I understand that perhaps this one album, in the grand scheme of rock and roll, may not be especially notable, but individual albums by notable artists have their own articles all over Wikipedia, whether especially notable or not. It seems to me that if this album, one of twenty-seven (or so) the musician has released, is not notable enough to warrant the article, nearly all articles on his albums and nearly all articles on anyone else's albums would need to be nominated for deletion. -- Mitchell k dwyer 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: aeropagitica above cites WP:Music in calling this album non-notable, but there is no criteria listed there for individual works by notable musicians. Perhaps this needs to be discussed. Neal Morse and his former band, Spock's Beard, are the most written-about progressive rock musicians in America and as artists, easily satisfy the notability criteria listed at WP:Music. -- Mitchell k dwyer 11:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with both Kevinalewis and Mitchell k dwyer. Snader 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Official album (B000071JTV) by a popular progressive rock musician. Chiok 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The consensus on past AfD decisions is very clear: albums by notable artists should stay. Unless someone shows that this guideline harms Wikipedia in some way, I'll stick to it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents. JoaoRicardotalk 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I notice that the artist isn't up for AFD and therefore nor should his album be. Sure the page reads a bit 'promo' but it's a good start, and I found it quite interesting even though I knew nothing about the guy. --kingboyk 19:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is my problem with this album: Allmusic doesn't list it. It does list Morse, as a member of Spock's Beard, but Spock's Beard themselves are clearly no supergroup, having no chart hits or awards to their name. So to allow this unlisted album because it is by someone who was once a member of a slightly famous band seems like a bit of a stretch. Perhaps someone could help out and show me some actual data showing that this album is important? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Allmusicguide is really out of date on Neal Morse. It doesn't even mention Transatlantic. It doesn't list God Won't Give Up and Lead Me Lord either. The bio is circa 1999. I'm sending them some updated information. Chiok 21:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*Chart hits are no way to measure the notability of a band or a musician. Frank Zappa never had a hit, and as far as I know, never won a mainstream award. Within the world of progressive rock, there isn't a soul who doesn't know Neal's name. Googling "merry christmas from the morse family" returns over 11,000 hits, including just about every website and publication that deals with this genre of music. Now, I'm not saying that Google should be the measuring stick; I'm merely saying that, considering the genre and this musician's importance within it, there's no denying the notability of the artist. As for the notability of the album, I've already conceded that it's questionable; however, as JoaoRicardo points out above, albums by notable musicians have been determined important enough to keep. Mitchell k dwyer 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Frank Zappa charted a few times, with the tune his daughter sang on and a few other albums from the early 70's, and won a Grammy or two along the way. More to the point he left behind hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts, on several continents, many of us fanatic, who can describe his works and talent at length by citing references in the most popular media (Time Magazine, the New York Times, etc). This individual has no such body of work or impression of impact. Even if he were an "important" contributor to the art form, the form itself has shrunken to a few dozen listeners and given up the ghost (hence the Christmas album with the family). Mostly, this entry is embarrassing: There's a sense that if he can't maintain a listing in Wikipedia, all those hideous rehearsals were for naught. Wikipedia ought not record such things. Charlane's Sugar Shack is the premier ice cream parlor in the town of Creosote, Texas; It is not therefore notable. Delete. Crid 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am puzzled by the statement "Within the world of progressive rock, there isn't a soul who doesn't know Neal's name". I am a huge fan of prog rock, one of the last surviving Genesis fans in captivity and I have never heard of him. But my question was not about Neal, but about this album. It looks almost like a private pressing. Is it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The "isn't a soul" phrase isn't defendable, that this is a major album isn't defendable, that it sold well isn't defendable, that we are trying to sell this is also not defendable (surely you aren't claiming we are that naive). What is at stake here is the principle of Album articles for notable artists. Within Progressive music Spock's Beard, Transatlantic and Neal himself have become notable, if only in the regalvinising of support for modern progressive music. It is possible that your connections with progressive music are dated back in the 1970s and 80s (you quoted Gensis, of whom I am also a fan). Which is fine but this is a vibrant and growing part of the music world today. One of the interesting side developments has been the growth of Christian Prog (Cprog). Not major, but definitely noteworthy and notable. Ok, so if the artists are notable there should be nothing to cause the album articles to fail the following precidence test. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents or are you trying to challenge this. If so we can look forward to many an article deletion for minor releases. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This is silly. Which do you hate Crid, the article, the album, Neal Morse, or modern progressive rock? Sure, the article could use work. I've made it a little more formal today, but it still could do with some tweaking. Yes, the Christmas album is a minor one of Neal Morse's CDs, but it sounds like from the discussion that minor albums by notable musicians are okay. Neal Morse albums do well. They are well received by reviewers, he gets some radio play on progressive radio stations and is starting to be played on some Christian radio stations. I don't have the numbers, but I think the TransAtlantic and latter Spock's Beard albums were selling hundreds of thousands of CDs--not a few dozen. His Christian solo albums are selling less than that, but are still doing pretty good. Modern prog rock isn't what it was in the 70s, but there are a few bands that are doing well. They are not top 40 bands, but do we really want to delete stuff from every artist/genre that isn't in the top 40. Yes, Neal Morse is a genre artist, but so what? Chiok 05:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). enochlau (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Duquette

Non-notable. 468 Google hits, 1st page is two different guys, one a Hell's Angels member and the other a professional wrestler. His "biography" (the external link) leads to his webpage - which has nothing written about him, it's a commercial site that sells cartoons from many different cartoonists. Ifnord 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep notable and verifiable, I had no problem getting the site to work. -- MisterHand 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I agree with MisterHand. Links work fine to NCS site. Maybe the editor needed more than four minutes to add more information. -- JJay 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Steve Duquette is a cartoonist who has worked on several advertising campaigns. So what?! --kingboyk 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete here is the bottom line: The article does not make a case for notablity. --rogerd 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How is "He received the National Cartoonist Society Commercial Award for 1990" not a case for notability?
  • Delete agreeing with above. Eusebeus 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Language Learner

An university project, complete with a conclusion and the authors' names at the bottom. JoaoRicardotalk 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Wilson (hockey)

I've added the stub content of Ron Wilson (hockey) to a preexisting entry for an NHL player/coach, Ron Wilson.

Having two NHL player/coaches in separate entries, with only one marked "(hockey)", was confusing, and looked at first like entries for the same person. Their birth years are only one digit different, as are their Overall draft positions, either at which, at first glance, could pass for typos. A dual entry follows the style of other such entries as Ghost Rider.

Part Two to this: Deleting "Ron Wilson (hockey)" will allow the current "Ron Wilson" to be be renamed "Ron Wilson (hockey)".

This would be good since there are many, many Ron Wilson entries (see Ron Wilson (disambiguation)) and it makes wikifying other Ron Wilsons problemmatic, since "Ron Wilson" with no qualifier looks like a good blue link, but it currently goes to a hockey entry rather than, more helpfully, the disambig page. -- Tenebrae 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: The merger you made has already (and correctly) been reverted by another user, so it wasn't that easy to understand what you were trying to do here. But no, sorry, I think you have misunderstood how bio pages work. You are not supposed to merge several people like this, and neither of these pages is going to be deleted. All that is needed is to rename both articles to something more specific. u p p l a n d 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: Just because the two players have the same name does not mean they are not worthy of their own articles. And the Ron Wilson page is there because he is the most notable of all the Ron Wilson's that had a page. I have now added the little disclaimer at the top of each page. Also they are both listed on NHL players W as two separate articles, so it is not like we are dealing with orphaned pages here. P.S. I did not know this page was even up for deletion until I scrolled the Afd page, so make sure to put the deletion notice on the actual article next time and do it correctly. I just put it on the page now. Croat Canuck 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio2XS

This isn't a UK radio station. In fact, it doesn't look like it's much of a radio station at all. The article attached to the title isn't even about the radio station - it's about a non-notable British DJ. So, not notable, not clean-up-able, article not related to subject.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Smith (psychologist)

Since Novemeber of last year on Talk:Edward Smith (psychologist) we have been trying to figure out if this person actually exists, what his academic credentials really are, etc. Is he a hoax? Is this vanity? I suspect he is a non-notable with a diploma mill doctorate. Ifnord 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep While the tone of the article is a bit off, I think the guy is real and probably notable. I think he is on faculty at Georgia Southern University (scroll down), with a PhD (and MS) from University of Kentucky (see [21]). My only concern is it is a different Edward Smith, but Edward WL Smith's interests seem to overlap with the description from the wikipedia article.--Hansnesse 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Changing to Delete. Do deletion discussions ever get anywhere? Evidentally. I am changing my opinion. While there seem to be notable Edward Smiths in the world, the article increasingly seems unverifiable, beyond what an assumption of good faith carrys me. --Hansnesse 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if he is the same guy, what makes him more notable than any other professor? I was going to quote some policy but looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics/Precedents I don't see a real consensus. Ifnord 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Perhaps we should delay deletion until a consensus emerges? I think it is certainly the case that a claim of notability is made in the article. According to the article, Edward Smith created a new field of psychology (so-called "abstract spatial psychology"). I know nothing of the field, but this is certainly a claim of notability (whether true or not, I can not judge). I think we should avoid the "let's delete it until we know more" approach. This article is about a real person with verifiable contributions to the academic literature. Lacking a criteria of notability for those contributions, it seems premature to delete. To delete until a consensus on deletion emerges is to de facto enforce a policy for which there is no agreement. The article can always be deleted later, but not so easily is it recreated. --Hansnesse 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think we can assume that when consensus is reached it will look something like, "Is this professor notable amongst other professors?" I do not believe this article meets that. Ifnord 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It is my view, as I note on the Academic notability talk page, that full professor rank is a priori sufficient notability for inclusion, so I do not agree with that assertion. Moreover, the article asserts significant notability by any reasonable standard. Do we have evidence to the contrary?--Hansnesse 01:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes there is a debate. But meanwhile this is non notable. Obina 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If we can't tell if this is Edward Smith the psychologist, or some other psychologist named Edward Smith, then he is not sufficiently notable. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Isn't this an argument that the writing is poor, not that the person is nonnotable.--Hansnesse 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Forcefulness divided by seepingness equals sharpness seems at best original research. Dlyons493 Talk 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google searches on "justice maximism" and "abstract spatial psychology" find no evidence of their use by any credible source, and there's particularly no evidence of their use by the psychologist Edward WL Smith (like in this interview or this biography). In addition, the ultimate source appears to be uncredited documents [22] [23] at a homeboy web address www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/*. Tearlach 03:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment American Psychologist (1998 Apr Vol 53(4) 368-370) has a note about an "Edward Smith" recieving an award "For his outstanding and diverse contributions to the study of cognition, including word perception, semantic memory, concept use, and reasoning." As I noted, I don't think the article is well written. I don't know if this is the same Edward Smith as in the article. I don't even know (and in fact, I suspect not) that he is the same as Edward W.L. Smith, since the citations in the American Psychologist article are to an E.E. Smith. A poorly written article, however, is no reason to delete. I think rewrite is needed, maybe a quality or dispute tag, but not deletion. --Hansnesse 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For me, notability and quality aren't issues: it's the complete unreliability of the article as an information source. We don't know who it's about, and the content originates in documents of equally unknown authorship on mailing lists and personal websites. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources on that point. Tearlach 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Tearlach said. JoaoRicardotalk 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have verified the scientific findings of Edward Smith (such as the correlations of abstract spatial psychology) via observation and experimentation. I too am bothered by the fact that Edward Smith's exact identity and educational certificates are uncertain, and that his work has not been published in any major scientific journal, but the fact remains that his contributions are major and scientifically verifiable, not even mentioning the catalog of correctable omnipresent human flaws, which is not even a scientific thesis, but simply a readily-observable large contribution to society. I know, I know, we would all like to believe that all people that make major contributions to society, especially in scientific advancement, must meet those social prerequisites. We would also like to believe that everything that is abstract and/or humbling is b---s---. I too feel the temptation to suppress this article for those reasons, and to word that reasoning as you have -but come on, we're supposed to be responsible adults here, not like children in an unsupervised candy shop. I know it's hard though, despite being comical when viewed from the outside or in retrospect. Besides, wikipedia also has an NPOV policy. We shouldn't be selectively deleting information just because it goes against beliefs that we hold dear. IrreversibleKnowledge 04:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not deleting the article because it goes against our beliefs. In fact, I don't even remember what Edward Smith is supposed to have said now. Our concern here is notability, not importance. Different things. JoaoRicardotalk 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Come on, Joao, don't misrepresent what I said. I don't like to admit it either. To reiterate, for the sake of clarity, I am not referring so much to the specific findings of Edward Smith as going against our beliefs, but more so, the way that we want to delete this article because the fact that he has made major contributions is evidence against our belief that 'in order for a person to make large contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, they must have certain social prerequisites, namely having been published in major scientific journal(s), having gone through the official educational system, and/or having a certain identity'. IrreversibleKnowledge 13:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I am quite confused. Can you enlighten us as to whom the article refers to? If this is an unpublished Edward Smith, he is clearly not notable. If you know what material the Edward Smith of the article has produced (in a professional publication sense), by all means, please note it. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a person's work which has never seen the rigors of professional scrutiny. Moreover, I do not think "scientifically verifiable," in the sense that such discoveries could be independenly reproduced by readers, is a good standard for Wikipedia (to say nothing of trying to "verify" the material based on such a short discussion, no lab report, etc.). Such a standard would invite all manner of crackpot. If you have information about who is Edward Smith, please let us know. I maintain my position to keep the article, as I noted above, as long as the aricle refers to someone with academic credentials. --Hansnesse 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know what Edward Smith's academic credentials are and aren't, so if you intend to delete all articles about people that lack credentials, then you may as well delete this article. However, that is not an honest policy, as we both know. I can see clearly from your sentences that you strongly adhere to the belief that 'in order for a person to make large contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, they must have certain social prerequisites, namely having been published in major scientific journal(s), having gone through the official educational system, and/or having a certain identity, and anyone that lacks those social prerequisites that claims to have made such contributions is a crackpot'. I too am tempted to believe that. I know the feeling. It is a pleasurable crude forceful feeling of disrupting fine subtlety, in this case, the value of people that lack those social prerequisites, as such people are perceived as having the abstract property of subtlety, just as children and animals are. This is precisely one of the things that Edward Smith has discovered, so you have inadvertantly supported his findings with your very reply. However, I am responsible enough to resist that temptation so as not to make this encyclopedia biased. Anyway, it is clear that we will not resolve this dispute with personal discussion, and this dispute involves more general policy principles, so this is a matter for an RfC. IrreversibleKnowledge 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I didn't intend to misrepresent what you said. But I'm affraid you don't understand the situation here. You claimed that you had reproduced and validated Smith's experiments, but this is not the point. His experiments may have arrived at true conclusions, but they are not notable yet. JoaoRicardotalk 20:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
and this dispute involves more general policy principles, so this is a matter for an RfC
Bring one if you want, but it'll probably go straight in the bin because it's based on a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. The article is up for deletion purely on its lack of merits as an information source: anonymous unattributed material fails Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliable sources (because anyone can put up a web page claiming anything) - and your defence of it, on grounds of personal knowledge, is a classic example of original research. Tearlach 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've read his works with interest. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Original research again. How does your interest demonstrate notability, verifiability, or reliability of source? Tearlach 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Maru- You can verify the correlations of abstract spatial psychology yourself if you want by following the methods outlined at the bottom of the page http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/ctlg.html , though it takes time to gather the necessary data. IrreversibleKnowledge 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Doesn't appear to be any of the "Edward Smith"s I can find through Google, and the article itself reads like the work of a crackpot. --Carnildo 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Carnildo, I too am tempted to believe that any possible scientific fact that is abstract is bunk, and that a person that believes such possible facts is a crackpot. It is a pleasurable crude forceful feeling of disrupting fine subtle truth, as abstract concepts are perceived as having the abstract property of subtley. Just as with the case with Hansnesse above, this is precisely one of the things that Edward Smith has discovered, so you have inadvertantly supported his findings with your very reply. I however, am responsible enough to resist that temptation so as to make an unbiased encyclopedia, and I ask that you at least try to do so as well. IrreversibleKnowledge 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Del on Carnildo's reasoning, and the facts that the new psych field he invented Googles at "8 of about 19", and the major document w/ "Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws" in its title Googles "25 of about 67", counting WP-derived material in both cases.
    --Jerzy•t 03:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: Per recommendation of IrreversibleKnowledge. Ombudsman 03:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I note, with interest, that the user IrreversibleKnowledge is a recent create and has only made edits to this AfD and a RfC regarding the article's subject. I don't know if anyone is missing any socks lately, but... Ifnord 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if only verifiable source is his personal webpage...then this is a no brainer. Sethie 18:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Original keep vote changed after skimming the sources, I have no idea who this Smith is but he doesn't seem like an actual psychologist and there is no biographical information about him in the article. If scientific, or at least coherent sources, can be found then keeping this as an article specifically about his alleged new "psychology" might make sense. The sources were at best unfocused. zen master T 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not who or what he is. The issue is that we have no way to verify who or what he is other then his own web page!Sethie 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed my vote to delete after overcoming my anti-deletionist instinct. The issue as I see it is there is 0 biographical information about him in the article, merging the content to an article about this alleged new "psychology" may be appropriate if coherent sources can be found. zen master T 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, as above, there is that crude forceful desire to disrupt the truth of fine subtlety, as abstract concepts are perceived as having the abstract property of subtlety. I too am tempted by that feeling to believe that abstract concepts are incoherent or bunk or blather or some other belittling description. Just as with Hansnesse and Carnildo above, this is precisely one of the things that Edward Smith has discovered, so you have inadvertantly supported his findings with your very reply. I however, am responsible enough to resist that temptation so as to make an unbiased encyclopedia, and, as with the others, I ask that you at least try to do so as well. IrreversibleKnowledge 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Please forgive me because I interpret your posts to be nothing but incoherent rambling combining various disparate words and concepts together apparently for some psychological or provoking effect, similar to the writting style of Edward Smith's "sources". Is creating a non-sensical web page about an at best mispresented "psychology" a way of buttressing the pro-deletionist position within wikipedia? If this subject is in any way serious it needs to find an actual coherent method of presentation. Good luck with whatever you are doing here. zen master T 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So you have decided to proudly indulge your crude forceful emotion of discreditting instead of levelling any honest arguments. That is a gross violation of the policy Wikipedia:Civility . If you want to support the deletion of this article, then that's your right, but you may not libel myself and an outside party on behalf of your position. IrreversibleKnowledge 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, WP:NOR, WP:V.... lots of problems here. Fun read though, very Cubicist, including the Cosmology at http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/csm.html . If there was as much background as we have on Gene Ray, I'd say keep, but we don't have that info. Ronabop 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have followed your link to the cubicism / time cube page. Cubicism isn't even a real belief; it is a hoax that was created for the sake of creating an extremely ridiculous belief. So basicly you are discreditting Edward Smith's analytical works by comparing them to a belief of pure absurdity, in gross violation of the policy Wikipedia:Civility, due to your lack of any honest argument against them. I too am tempted by a crude forceful emotion to disrupt the fine subtle truth of abstract concepts by comparing them with pseudoscience. I however, am responsible enough to resist that temptation for the purpose of creating an unbiased encyclopedia. IrreversibleKnowledge 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I made no claims whatsoever as to the validity of Gene Ray's research, or Edward Smith's research, only noting that they were similar in the way that they read (and note that I said it was a "[f]un read"). I did not denigrate either source, I merely noted similarities. If Edward Smith and Gene Ray were equally sourced, and cited, and discussed, and verifiable, then I would put them on the same level of notability, regardless of whether or not some other people viewed their works as... how did you put it? "[P]ure absurdity", "pseudoscience" or an "extremely ridiculous belief", to use your own words. Lets be civil Wikipedia:Civility to both Ray, and Smith. Ronabop 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So now you are falsely portraying me as being uncivil toward the very person that I am defending, and you have also falsely portrayed me as being uncivil toward some remote person, when you are well aware of the fact that I would not have described time cubism in that way unless I believed that that description was the consensus to begin with (and therefore not meant as uncivil persuassion). About 99.9 percent of people, including yourself I'm sure, would agree with me about time cubism. Besides, Gene Ray wouldn't mind, because his belief is a hoax. Lying, and especially lying about the policy violations of others, is a gross violation of the policy Wikipedia:Civility . Don't do it. This is your second violation, Ronabop. I have already warned you not to violate the civility policy. IrreversibleKnowledge 14:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RfC discussion InvictaHOG 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article makes extravagant claims for an author who appears to have only two published articles. "Abstract spatial psychology" is a non-noteworthy field. Basic biographical information is lacking. The page's advocates are unable or unwilling to raise it to encyclopedic standards. Durova 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is interesting to note that this is for the most part a rehash of an old debate: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Justice_maximism and User_talk:EdwardSmith. All of the 'research' relating to this page is unreferenced and seems fairly non-notable. I also object to the title of the page as "Edward Smith (psychologist)". He may be doing some research in psychology, but I don't think he meets any usual definition of 'psychologist'.
Some of this stuff really does seem like original (and slightly kooky) original research. For example, there is no reference for the following "As a result, after humans defecate, feces is caught in the hairs unless it is thoroughly washed out, such that it increases the amount of volatile moderately toxic chemicals in the air, and increases the spread

of disease-causing intestinal bacteria." [24]. Limegreen 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desk Metal

This almost certainly doesn't meet WP's music notability standards, but it is a little novel. So maybe it should be included in the metal article? If not, I think it should be deleted. Esprit15d 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The creator of this article (also the only contributor of regular content) which appears to be a not-noteworthy ad for his website has been linkspamming all kinds of metal-related articles. Delete. Ray Dassen 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, despite the awesome album cover. -- MisterHand 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This SHOULD NOT be delted. This is a real band with a real history and a real album. It's an undergound cult band and genre. Leave it up!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.253.253 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 January 2006
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete someones bad idea of a joke/parody of the many different types of heavy metal. Wikipedia is not a holding pen for lame jokes. This has nothing to do with metal in any way, shape, or form. This must go. Fmalcangi 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Wanting it to be a subgenre of death metal doesn't make it so. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:13Z
  • Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Incognito 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it, there must be a way for fiction like this to be Speedy Deleted. --kingboyk 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PEGR

This looks like a hoax, with no references given. Google doesn't show any such organization, other than an unrelated Partnership for Economic Governance Reforms, some radiotherapy pEgr, and a departmental abbreviation at Western Michigan University. And I find no reference to any Walther O'Toole on Google, nor did I see at first glance any Walter O'Tooles that seemed likely. I'm not real sure how PEGR is supposed to stand for People Against Gamma Radiation, but I don't find any PAGRs that fit the description either. NickelShoe 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morbid Abortion

Does not meet WP:Music; see also Desk Metal Ray Dassen 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a REAL band with a REAL history and a REAL album. It's a cult underground sub-genre. It may seem like a big joke, but it's not! There's no reason to delete it. Go to the offical web site. This isn't BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.253.253 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2006
  • Speedy Delete tagged as {{nn-band}} -- MisterHand 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable band. They already have their own website, the copy isn't useful as reference material here. -- (aeropagitica)  22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per aeropagitica. —Cleared as filed. 22:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, three demo tapes released so far. JoaoRicardotalk 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sahil lavingia

not notable. Speedy Delete James084 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitleigh

Delete. Not notable. Part of Plymouth, no noteworthy information. Didactylos 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep and cleanup. We have articles on the other districts in Plymouth such as St Budeaux, Plymouth or Crownhill, etc. This is pretty standard for many cities. Please provide better reasons for why this should be deleted. -- JJay 23:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, real place. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cleanup and expand Dlyons493 Talk 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous comments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:10Z
  • Keep. Political divisions are inherently notable. Article could use a cleanup though. JoaoRicardotalk 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - this was a single-author-only deletion request; closed early. --HappyCamper 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiki bar

Not encyclopedic podcast with no notability. feydey 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Another podcast article? This is not useful as reference material, more advertising. -- (aeropagitica)  23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page has no merit and merely seems to serve as an ad. It is also poorly written--levophed 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, random podcast with no claim to notability. - Bobet 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:10Z
  • Delete, not notable, and seems to be occupying the place of something else (see "What links here"). JoaoRicardotalk 16:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedelec

Yet another fork. By consensus, there is an article on motorized bicycles which User:CyclePat (who makes electric bikes) has been trying for ever to fork into a separate article on electric bikes. There have been edit wars over the redirect at electric bicycle, addition of excessive detail re Canadian regulations and all sorts. I'm sorry, Pat, I know you are sincere but you just can't keep doing this! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This article exists in Deutch at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedelec. This is a translation in progress. There really ain't enough room to put all that information in the motorized bicycle article. --CylePat 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
They have their article; we have ours. If we were missing an equivalent to the German pedelec article, then we could of course translate that article to start ours. However, motorized bicycle lists the German pedelec as its equivalent, and vice versa; there's no justification to start a new article here, because there's no article missing. If "there ain't room" in the existing article, there are procedures for dealing with that, and content forking isn't one of them. Delete per JzG. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per JzG, yk?. Not only because I trust his judgement in AfD but because his extensive interest/knowledge of two-wheeled transportation. Ifnord 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
and when you're in a tunel you should keep digging out so you can try to see the light. Now

I think perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Content forking instead of WP:FORK because I couldn't find anything in that guideline relating to your issues. Let's go through that article on content forking. Here is my analisys:

  • This is not another article on the same subject. This is another subject. (ie.: You have a roller blades and you have inline skates. Both are similar but one talks more about the company than the inline skates.)
  • Stop right there. Pedelec is a class of electric bicycle is a class of motorised bicycle. It says so right there in motorized bicycle and has done for ages - there is even a picture of one. Your legal case in Ontario notwithstanding, nobody else seems to have this problem with somehow thinking a "pedelec" electric bike is in any way a separate class of machine from all other electric bikes. Since that demolishes your point 1, the rest of the house of cards goes with it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No! Your reasoning is flawed. It only takes one of these following criterias for this article not to be a POV FORK. (You have reversed the rolls again. I have proven to you with this that all the criteria with POV fork have not been met. You should continue on... in particular the section that regards summary article, to which I have asked you many times... (as discussed further down). --CyclePat 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Asserted ǂ proven. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Pedelec is a title that is not a synonym of an existing article title motorized bicycle. A motorized bicycle in canada is a totally different class of vehicle (ie.:limited speed motorcycle vs a pedelec often considered a power-assisted bicycle. Also, in certain jurisdictions, such as Oregon, a motorized bicycle is like a moped. We have had a discusion in regards to moped vs motorized bicycle and the concensus was not to merger these articles. Again, for other jurisdiction such as Canada that consideres a motorized bicycle a A pedelec is considered a type of electric motor assisted bicycle. Once the detailed specs on pedelecs are cleared up it will be far much easier to understand that this is non synonymous of the existing article.
  • The content in the pedelec article is being developed not according to personal view but according to consensus elaborated in the German article, and probably the content from the french article.. There is much content that exist on the subject. Not only that, but there was never any issues brought up in the talk page in regards to lack of consensus.
  • There are no personal theories that are at issue for inclusion. Au contraire there may be some interesting research on Food consumption vs. electric consumption and that is a published document. etc...)
  • It is bad faith to assume because of my knowlege about the article "motorized bicycle" it may be a content fork. I believe one should give the benefit of the doubt to the creator. This is not a duplicate article. This is a different class of vehicle.
  • According to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles,: (for the ease of reader I include it hear):
    • Even if the subject of the new article is one about which people are bound to hold strong POVs, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Even if the new article was created because it's a particularly controversial aspect of the article subject, that does not mean that the new article is a POV fork; if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.
    • (Seeing as there is difficulty in editing and adding anything to the article of motorized bicycle... such as the current debate we are having in regards to the inclusion of a picture of a motorcycle/motor assisted bicycle/motorized bicycle from Triumph. It is 10 folds harder, even though it may fall in as a sub-category of motorized bicycle, to place a little information on a class of vehicle that is not trully related.)
  • Furthermore, According to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles;
    • Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, while the main article, written in summary style, will give a balanced summary of each of the subtopics. The sub-articles can each treat a particular aspect - which might reflect a point of view for each of the sub-articles - but these sub-articles should anyhow be linked to the other subarticles and to the main article, for instance by a navigational template.
  • Though it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks, this is clearly not the case and nor has it been proven in this instance. Or previous instances. (assides from maybe the in september when I first joined and was new a though I could include a bunch of laws... and that was not a content fork but more or less a fueding debate about what should be included). As soon as user found out about the article he nominated it for deletion. This justs seem to re-enforce my belief that user nominating this article has absolutely no faith in my editing.

Conclusion: There is nothing left for you to argue according to those guidelines. Nomination of this page for the above reason WP:FORK is not justified. --CylePat 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • CyclePat, please go back and read the part of Wikipedia:Content forking which clearly states that those are not affirmative defenses -- if you're the only one who thought that there should be a separate article on electric bikes, creating one and calling it a "spinout" (weren't you just claiming that it was a translation of the German "Pedelec" article? It can't be both!) doesn't make it not-a-content-fork. Neither can you justify it by claiming that the consensus reached at the German Wikipedia means you can ignore consensus at the English Wikipedia, not when your article's in the English Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You address the subject very vaguelly. I understand that some of those issues such as "is not a synonym of an existing article title" is not an affirmative defense. But you are reversing the roles here. You are attempting to make me prove my innoncence, when you haven't even proven that there is guilt. There is no doubt that this is a translation. And yes it can be both! This is because it is a "sub-class" of motorized bicycle... or in the case of this alleged POV FORKING, a "spin-out." (I call it an article with more details.) These vehicle may be, in some instances similar, but they definatelly warants their own pages. The first part of Wikipedia:Content forking stipulates:

  • POV forking, occurs when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, and such forks may be nominated for deletion.

I haven't experienced any disagreement about the content of "pedelec". What content don't you agree with? You see none of this was discussed, even with past issues that might have occured with the totally different class of vehicle called the "electric bicycle." This makes it difficult to assume good faith when you don't prove your case. I'm sorry but if the German Wikipedian have decided to "spin-out"(I call it have more details in another article), I see no reason why this precedence could not be used?... But that doesn't really matter because it's not a spin-out or a POV FORK. The key idea here is "summary". When "motorized bicycle" was created consensus was that this was a summary file. Editor firgured it would be better to have all articles under one roof. It was created to summarize power assisted cycles and power assisted bicycles and electric bicycles, etc... Again, as per Wikipedia:Content forking Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking. Again: there is no disagreement on content and motorized bicycle article is a summary style article. We need to go into more details. --CylePat 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I think that there is a good argument that the Pedelec article should exist. Amongst other things, the "Electric bicycles" section in "motorised bicycles article is hopelessly inadequate regarding technical explanations of the operation of these vehicles (as is that entire article). The pedelec article is clearly not a content fork, duplicate or stub, and I think that the grounds stated by the nominator for deletion are not sufficient. However The pedelec article is no better than a babelfish of the German article, not including the (excellent) formatting of that page. Cyclepat is clearly not competent to do the translation (or there wouldn't be an AFD). Therefore, the article in question is no better than the babelfish link to the German article [[25]], and I might add that the link preserves the formatting. Wikipedia, is not a personal sandbox, and unusable rough versions belong on user pages. I therefore support a delete until (or unless) a good quality translation results. I would note to Cyclepat, that wikipedia has all sorts of articles with dubious content but excellent quality, but having low quality (even with excellent content) is a guaranteed way to end up on AFD. AKAF 13:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • comment: First, thank you for you comment. I do agree that this article needs much {attention}. Working on my user page could be an answer that might please the situation temporarily. However, it is sugested, according to WP:DEL, that an {attention} needed logo be added. I also read through WP:DEL and found no grounds for deletion. I understand your concerns for lack of "format" but I don't really see anything that supports that for deletion of an article. --CylePat 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • comment: Now, Cyclepat, don't take this badly, because I can see that you mean well, but [[26]] has an option for Gibberish, and I think you'll agree that the article is not readable english by any stretch of the imagination. Also, if you delete all of the gibberish (all of it) and replace it by the link I provided, then the article is a substub [[27]], which is grounds for deletion. Additionally, due to your association, the article probably would qualify as a vanity page [[28]]. Now, if the article was well written, you'd have a good ground for dispute, but as it is, there are plenty of grounds to delete, and none to keep. So, I have a couple of suggestions for you. (1) Move the article to your user space and accept the deletion. (2) Ignore this, and other comments, and focus your attention on improving the article. If you spent the energy on improvement that you've spent on this article, there wouldn't be an AFD (3) Spell and grammar check the article and add cross-references (but no references to any companies or organisations with which you are personally involved). (4) Wait 7 days and then re-read (5) Re-create the article and leave a note on the user pages of everyone who participated in the AFD. ; Good luck with the article. AKAF 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Poorly writing or formating is not criteria for deletion. I recommend that this discussion be moved to RFD. JoaoRicardotalk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was. I mentioned it because other people, such as AFAK, claimed the current mess as one of the reasons for deleting. That notwithstanding, I still think this should go to RFC, as we clearly have a dispute between two users, one who claims this article is a fork, and another who claims it isn't. I don't think AFD is the right place to settle these issues. JoaoRicardotalk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That might be the case if it were an isolated incident, but this is not the first time Pat has forked this topic. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I really don't understand how this can be a POV fork when it is a work in progress from a translation... This is typical bad faith on behalf of the nominator because he knows I have built 2 electric bicycles and he assumes I have an agenda. Since when do we punish people for their knowledge and previous wikipedia edits (That of which I was fairly new to experiencing, lacking arguing skills, and having poor wikipedia etiquette.) Next thing you know you'll be saying Granny Smith smith and Gala (apple) are POV Forks from apple article because the primary creator really likes these types of apples. If the issue of delete is not about formatting, {attention}, etc... and solely about a POV fork, I think, this issue should be closed. Again, according to "content forking": "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, while the main article, written in summary style, will give a balanced summary of each of the subtopics." There is obviously a mistake in the nomination of this article for deletion. This, I believe is an error in procedure and may lead to an appeal. As for the gibberish... well... I couldn't possibly comment on that, except for the fact that I am working, slowly but surely at translating this page so inherently there be no POV. (It's a win-win or lose-lose situation.) (I'll be gone for the weekend so if anyone wants to start translating!) Talk to you monday. --CylePat 02:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • More nonsense. If you want a work-in-progress you can do it in your user space. The right way to add this content is to merge it into the relevant sections in the existing article - your history re electric bicycle is enough to guarantee that even if this fork is not a bad-faith action on your part, it is always going to look like it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • furthermore; just to prove my point. Here is a snip of a conversation on my user page.
    • "Pat, I wish you hadn't done that, I really do. Pedelec is a subclass of electric bicycle is a subclas of motrized bicycle. It's already mentioned in motorized bicycle. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Understandable; but I don't think their is room for that information in the main article. Plus the article exist in another language already. --CylePat 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CyclePat"
This above quote demonstrate that "pedelec" article is a subcategory of motorized bicycle. It easy to see that motorized bicycle will never really be able to go into as much details as that of the pedelec article. Hence, motorized bicycle is a summary article to pedelec. Hence, pedelec is a sub-article giving greater detail. Conclusion: not content forking. --CyclePat 03:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded the electric section of motorized bicycle slightly to include some additional detail alluded to in the German article and other sources. I have also created two new stubs for crank sensor and torque sensor since we didn't have those. I don't think there's much more in pedelec which does not already exist in motorized bicycle now. There is, however, still no article on storage density or half a dozen other related topics, none of which are addressed by the pedelec content. Incidentally, accumulator is deprecated in favour of capacitor these days, but the translation is inexact since an akkumulator in this context means a battery.
One minor update to respond to a specific point: you say you don't think there's room for this content in the existing article, but you did not even try, let alone talk about it on the talk page. Whereas you have previously tried to turn the redirect at electric bicycle into a separate article, against conensus. I do think there is room for the additional content, not least because most of it is already there and I have recently added some of what little was not. It is useless to appeal to the clauses on splitting out controversial content, because the inclusion of electric bikes in motorized bicycle is not controversial. It represents a consensus position with, as far as I can make out, only one dissenter, who is acknowledged to have a vested interest. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking. --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NO. STOP MISQUOTING Wikipedia:Content forking. "meeting one of the descriptions listed here" -- such as "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail" -- "does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork." Your bad faith is becoming more and more blatant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Obejection... bagering the defence. euh! Yes... :) I think if you calmed down and explained yourself you would make a litle more sense. YOu might then be able to see that my second comment, way up top, shoot down every hypothesis that this is a fork. I suggest you present your counter arguments instead of claiming bad faith. (You really haven't proven anything we don't know.) You see, to argue something I have to take a side... it is your responsibility to try and point out these things. I am clearly aware that "it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks," however I still haven't seen any proof. As I indicated this is a translation page. No agenda's. And I don't think I am close at all to meeting the situation that is portrayed in the Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles for content forking.
I can use the same argument you have used... "meeting one of the descriptions listed here" (wherever here is?) -- such as "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail" -- "does not mean that something is not a content fork... And that may re-enforce my hypothesis. However I wouldn't try to infer such a wonderful though because that goes against the afformentioned quote, that of wich you have alleged I missed quoted in bad faith. (To clarify the subject I suggest anyone joining in read the section... it's better to get it from the main source!)--CyclePat 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, new articles on existing subjects are content forking. As previously when you tried to make the electric bicycle redirect into a separate article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "again" because that's virtually the first time you talk about it that way. And you have stated that it's not the same subject it a sub-class vehicle of "motorized bicycle." Kind of like my afformentioned apple example. I have discussed that above in the section you ignored because you assumed all the house of cards had fallen. But just for clarity here it is again:

According to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles,: (for the ease of reader I include it hear):

  • Even if the subject of the new article is one about which people are bound to hold strong POVs, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Even if the new article was created because it's a particularly controversial aspect of the article subject, that does not mean that the new article is a POV fork; if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious. --CyclePat 00:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Pat, an old English proverb for you: when you are in a hole, stop digging. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete For reasons stated in nom. The annoying and repetitive comments by cyclepat above don't help. Eusebeus 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A precedence exists at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Content of articles ]] that is related to this article. "Statement(s) of principle: An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." Using this precedence, we may argue that motorized bicycle, should remain a summary article. Furthermore using the precedence Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Splitting of articles will also support my theory of creating this article. I must make an attack on the article of motorized bicycle for we are generalizing within that article and have started original research. ie.: That a pedelec is a motorized bicycle. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Neutral point of view (and associated principles), "Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues." (It however makes sense to include all machines that meet the definition of a "motorized bicycles", right? I would say yes, but that's only because we have mis interpretated Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy which "contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion." We are meeting the wiki policy of NPOV in the article of motorized bicycle and I think we need some supporting sources regarding the subject of the article. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) "Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves." This being said, I sugest we resolve this issue as per a suggestion from NPOV precedences: "Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." --CyclePat 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Pat, do you not realise that bearding Arbcom members at their talk pages (User Talk:Fred Bauder) over AfD debates in process is considered extreme bad form? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Vestey

Non-notable and unencyclopedic, especially as it is utterly unclear who he's supposed to be. Google turns up 96 distinct hits for "Sir Derek Vestey", most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. This article has been here two years without improving from its origins as an unwikified and confused text dump. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, withdraw. He exists after all. Thanks for the rewrite. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable person. Is there no information available to describe his notability in any field of human endeavour? There's a lot of space on the page waiting to be filled with these facts, if they exist. -- (aeropagitica)  23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable --Snakes 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless substantive improvement in old sub-stub during Afd Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've updated the article. There are plenty of references in Newsbank, though none give a birth (and presumably) death date. The nephew of someone born in 1859 isn't too likely to be alive in 2006. Tearlach 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. Obviously it isn't vanity, since this person must be dead by now. JoaoRicardotalk 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Alpaca

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise games under development.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, practically vapourware. They can use their own website for this sort of advertising, as reference material it is useless. -- (aeropagitica)  23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article and image per nom. --Muchness 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh. I'm sorry, I admit that I did not fully read through the guidelines for an article. I suppose you can delete it. - (Turnip)
  • Delete as non-notable vaporware. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:07Z
  • Delete, but (Turnip) deserves our compliments for actually comming here and recognizing that the article should be deleted. JoaoRicardotalk 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea di Robilant

vanity page badbio

This person is an unknown, claiming to have written one book nobody has heard of, and the original entry, very badly phrased in telegraphic style, came from an unknown source with only IP number. further entries on the page were style improvements and wikification, the only one that added real content was spam

even if it's not a vanity page proper, it's worthy of deletion on badbio grounds--Svartalf 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable writer. Ifnord 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - minor but real author, and the book is a proper one ((not your usual e-book about Wibby, Queen of the Pixies) published by a major publisher and in reprint: see Random House catalogue. Tearlach 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per above. Author and journalist. Furthermore, a link to an interview with an author is not spam. -- JJay 02:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real author, published by a big editing company. Poorly written article is no reason to delete. JoaoRicardotalk 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Rose Collective

Advertising. Oppress this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete One bookshop? Doesn't appear to have a notable status. -- (aeropagitica)  23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While I support its goals, I have to agree with (aeropagitica) that one bookstore isn't notable. Ifnord 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:05Z
  • Delete - Maybe a mention in the Portland article, but not its own page. Blackcats 11:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What everyone else has said. JoaoRicardotalk 16:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to help you delete the delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me buy my hummer

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Misza13 as spam, but it's not really. Article is about some guy's web site selling ad space so he can buy a Hummer (which would plastered with those ads). I hate to break it to him, but it's already been done. Anyway, brought it to AfD to respect Misza13's desire to see it gone. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Copied from Talk:Help me buy my hummer: This page is being reported by Various media outlets here in Australia. This morning i have done 3 new paper interviews and a pre recorded radio interview. It is fast picking up pace online with already dozens of emails coming through with support and enquiries on the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascape (talk • contribs) (creator of article) 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Which newspapers and which radio? Nothing in Google news at this stage. Delete--Porturology 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn website, no alexa rank, no traffic data. Zero Google hits for "help me buy my hummer" or helpmebuymyhummer. Zero hits on Google news (which includes Australian newspapers) for either spelling. Use of first person in talk page note makes it clear this is unadulterated advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete almost spam. --Snakes 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Zoe. As noted above, the author of the article says he's the beggar, so I do think this is outright spam of a particularly rancid variety. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails the WP:WEB hurdles.(edit conflicted by Finlay) --Alf melmac 23:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. If this should be referenced anywhere, it should be as a footnote to the Million Dollar Homepage; the idea has been done to death. -- (aeropagitica)  23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete : as per above, this is an ad, not legitimate information, plus it is by definition temporary, since the site will close when the man has its money, and unlike articles with previsible deadline, it will not become a historical even worthy of its own article. --Svartalf 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this along with all other spam. Ifnord 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. WP:NOT a place to get someone money for his car (it might not say that specifically, but I'm pretty sure it's in the spirit of the policy). - Bobet 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable imitation of Milliondollarhomepage, of which there are way too many too mention. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 04:03Z
  • Delete. Ambi 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 04:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Poor Editing That's my vote. Delete, put in another article or not, it's poorly edited. Very poorly edited. I'd err on the side of delete, but I also think we should explain to the author how to edit so they don't make the mistake the next time. I've had others have to teach me things and it has helped. DyslexicEditor 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC
  • Speedy delete as vanity, spam and copyvio from the website. (So close to making Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement...) pfctdayelise 05:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it were an article about this phenomena in general, it might be worth something, but as it stands its just advertising. An An 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. spam Incognito 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, also linkspammed at Million Dollar Homepage and hummer, reverted from these more than once. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a policy of Deleting spam on wikipedia. --Roisterer 13:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Adriantame 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, clearly spam. --bacco007 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pragmoptimization

Non notable neologism. A Google search yields 0 hits. Phædriel 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologisms are inherently non-notable. Let it return only on the infintesmal chance it becomes a word in usage. Ifnord 23:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This phrase has become a commonly accepted portmanteau when discussing business process improvement. --Ghofbauer 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Can you please cite one or more sources showing that this is used? Stifle 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 silly vandalism.

Something for editors to bear in mind when next April the 1st comes around: We are still cleaning up the silly vandalism from April Fools Day eight months later.

Uncle G 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climbing jack

Article appears to be fake or a joke article. A google search [29] did not return pertinent hits. Uthbrian (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Hoax, abuse, vandalism. Considering that the page links through to Snipe hunt it should be db-nonsense instead. -- (aeropagitica)  23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax. No BJAODN, just rid of it. Ifnord 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete hoax; page links to "Nihil Artiklowski" Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete likewise. Note original posting date. Tearlach 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete hoax; Was almost convincing Phaldo 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 03:48Z
  • Delete. It almost got me. User:Nordelch should receive some warning about this. JoaoRicardotalk 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mike Rosoft (Neologism, no context/references) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 02:42Z


[edit] Meef

Neologism. Loads of Google entries, but mostly acronyms which are unrelated to this supposed definition. Ifnord 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was (Doesn't belong on AfD) enochlau (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Plan Espiritual de Santa Barbara

Incorrect title for an article on a document. Another with the correct title has been put in its place. Delete this and use only "El Plan de Santa Barbara (correct title) Fcendejas 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't put quotes around the article title, just brackets. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 02:49Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The debate boils down to keep-vs-merge, which is not a decision for AfD, and there is no consensus on that question anyway. -Splashtalk 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randal McCloy

Was tagged for speedy deletion by 64.27.214.250 as nn-bio, but he's the survivor of the recent coal mine accident, which is certainly a claim of notability. Not sure, however, if it's encyclopedic. No vote. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. We can break him out into a separate article when he does anything that warrants it. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was tagged by an anonymous unregistered user which takes away from the credibility of this article being tagged for deletion. Mr. McCloy is the sole survivor of West Virginia's largest media event and disaster in quite some time, and I think he is deserving of an article since his name will be forever tied to this event. If we delete this article, we will then have to delete the article on Jessica Lynch, and articles on other people who have survived major national tragedies. --Caponer 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • McCloy is the only first-hand witness of the 2006 Sago Mine disaster and most likely will create more headline news if he either dies or is able to tell the story of the disaster from the perspective of the victims. Vote to keep. appzter 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a current event. We won't know how notable this will or will not be until the dust settles. After reading the arguments for merge and redirect I am compelled to change my vote to that.Ifnord 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The two sock puppets above do cause me some distress however. I'm hoping this isn't some buzz generator to sell a story for a movie-of-the-week. Ifnord 23:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Re: Comment -- Sock puppets? I'm sure you don't mean me, as this is the only account I've ever had. Please try and contribute to the article about this tragedy and its victims instead of making blatant personal attacks. Thanks! appzter 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Re: Comment -- In reference to your comment, Ifnord, this is my only account as well so I would take offense if your statement was directed toward me. I've made thousands of contributions under one name: this name. In fact, none of the individuals that had edited this talkpage before you are sock puppets, so your personal attacks are quite unwarranted. Thanks. --Caponer 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Both of you posted within minutes of each other and had the same strange formatting: with voting on the end and phrased "vote to keep". I notice that this has been changed, and note that both are once again within a short time frame. So forgive me for assuming sock-puppetry. No personal attack was meant. Ifnord 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is more than a bio. I have decided, after reading the below statements, I will change my vote to Merge, but only after the main news event is over. Perhaps we could add a special section on the 2006 Sago Mine disaster page that incorporates most if not all of the information on this page. Station Attendant 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to 2006 Sago Mine disaster, since McCloy is not notable for anything else except that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like with the kid who went to Iraq, there is no reason to delete this at this point. -- JJay 01:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing is bad about it and it is a good summary of his life up to today. There is no reason to delete this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.107.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I came looking for this artical for information that I indeed found on it. Wouldn't want to search through the entire mine disaster article to find that information. Plus, he could become more important in the near future. -- Tyrel
  • Keep. After all the crap today about what to call the main article (resulting in a move-protect), there should be no debate about this. Daniel Case 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't follow your logic. Why does dispute over what to call an article about a disaster make the survivor of that disaster notable in some way that is separate from the disaster? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is certainly verifiable and noteworthy - McCloy made national news. This might be merged with 2006 Sago Mine disaster at a later date, if desired. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Will likely be a merge and redirect in a month, but its ok for now. Youngamerican 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There will be all sorts of administrative, legal and public inquiries, debates and discussions about the 2006 Sago Mine disaster for years to come. If he recovers and speaks out, McCloy's testimony will be singularly important and historians from the far future will fairly need to look up his background more than many other people with accepted biographies in Wikipedia. If he really fades in the storyline, a merge/redirect could be considered. He hasn't yet, and assuming he will treads dangerously close to the crystal ball... Samaritan 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your logic seems entirely backwards to me. Right now there is nothing encyclopedically notable about him except that so far he has survived the mine disaster; he hasn't even regained consciousness yet, AFAIK. It's assuming that he will recover, that he will speak out, that his testimony will be singularly important and historians will need to look up background on him that is relying on the crystal ball. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Antaeus here. This article is assuming lots of things, and relies on little information. Perhaps we should not rush to create an article about everything we see on TV? JoaoRicardotalk 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; he isn't notable. If he writes a book, he'd be notable, but as-is, he's just a random name and a picture in the media. There isn't enough useful information about him, and even if there were, his only "claim to fame" is this mining disaster. He should simply be mentioned in the mining disaster as the sole survivor. Mining disasters happen fairly frequently, and surviving random disasters (unless you survive, like, 10 in a row) is not noteworthy enough for an article. If he writes a book or brings down the Bush administration with his testimony about how they beat coalworkers with sticks, then he's notable. But surviving? No. That'd be like mentioning every single soldier who has been mentioned on the news for dying in Iraq; it just isn't noteworthy enough. 69.59.212.172 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Right now, Mr. McCloy is notable considering the current media coverage of his condition and survival. He's not just a random name and a picture in the media, but on the contrary, he is a media darling and has the potential to recover and be outspoken about the events that took place within the mine. He is the only eye-witness to what occured within the mine before his recovery and has the potential to write a book, which meets one of your criteria for making a notable person. Also, not every single soldier has four days of intense media spotlight directed towards them including non-stop 24-hour footage of their ambulance being taken to the hospital and journalists reporting their vital signs and progress from the parking lot of their hospital. To deny Mr. McCloy his deserved and merited status is ridiculous. His name will forever be attached to the 2006 Sago Mine disaster and 2006 in general. --Caponer 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a major story, and he has become the major player. If he regains consciousness and remembers what happened down there, his will be the recorded version of this tragedy and this article will be greatly expanded. Important and encyclopedic. BigGuy219 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, "if" those things happen. Why on earth are people leaping to the conclusion that a man who hasn't yet even come out of his coma is going to be a major spokesman? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2006 Sago Mine disaster --Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - major story. Essexmutant 11:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. When will Wikipedians stop making an article for every person that makes headlines in the United States? We are not a newspaper, and we are not USA-centered. Wasn't this supposed to be a world encyclopedia? I haven't heard of this guy, and I doubt anyone else in my country has. We just got the news of the accident itself, and that's enough for us. He may be notable for something else in the future, but now he isn't. People will forget him as they have forgotten thousands of other accident survivors. JoaoRicardotalk 15:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why the anger? The idea behind Wikipedia is that if we wanted to have an article about every single person who appeared in American Newspapers then we could... In fact, I would rather have that than no entry whatsoever about them! In this case, I voted for merge (see slightly higher) but honestly I would be fine either way... If you want to start contributing individuals who are involved in media-important events in your country, I'm not going to stop you... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nick, I apologize for my angry words. I just believe that this tendency to create articles based on news events harms Wikipedia. But I expressed my views too harshly. Sorry! JoaoRicardotalk 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not understand why this article was created. As noted by many above, if Mr. McCloy becomes a public figure, then he will certaintly receive an article; so far he has done nothing to suggest he wishes to become such. Sdedeo (tips) 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

*Total count thus far--I think it is safe to say we have ourselves a keeper. --Caponer 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC) **Keep: 13 **Merge: 4 **Delete: 2

  • Merge. I actually don't think we have ourselves a keeper....--Khoikhoi 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If the over-reported story of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway can get an article, then this should too. Being a lone survivor of a disaster that is has been reported nationally (and somewhat internationally) is enough to me. I'm guessing he will be making the talk show rounds eventually. Let this stay and accumulate info. Kalmia 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The difference being that there is no other article besides Natalee Holloway for the events that make Natalee Holloway to be described at. If it were discovered, for instance, that she had been by a previously unknown Aruban branch of the Matamoros cult, then I'd be for moving the article to Aruban branch of the Matamoros cult and making "Natalee Holloway" a redirect to it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with Sdedeo on the point that he has not at this point become a public figure, however, he is a very important part of this tragedy, and will most likely play a larger part in the future. -- inhuman14
  • Keep. As the sole survivor of a disaster like this, he's notable right now, and is highly likely to remain so (c.f. Stuart Diver). Ambi 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Information is certainly relevant as part of the disaster and the disaster is certainly encylop(a)edic. -- Berserkr731 04:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect for the reasons already stated 24.9.10.235 04:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; encyclopedia-worthy --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I feel the same was as Berserkr731 does about this article. --That Guy, From That Show! 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - If this guy becomes a media sensation, which he might, then having his own article would be acceptable. But assuming that he's going to become one and then writing an article is just not for wikipedia. Because then we'd have to keep articles on "up and coming" singers and actors who are just seeking some publicity/promotion. But anyway, all the information here should just be added into a section on the mine disaster. And I've voted merge on other AFDs only to have my vote counted as keep. I would rather have the thing deleted. - Hahnchen 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for now since he's obviously pivotal in this whole ordeal. Once he begins to stand out, move to his own section. eszetttalk 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to 2006 Sago Mine disaster, as his survival and progress are currently nothing more than a postscript to the Sago accident. As mentioned, he can have his own article if he actually does anything noteworthy in the continued aftermath. --DavidK93 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the sole survivor from a major incident, he definitely warrants his own article. mdmanser 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, he is the sole survivor of a major mining disaster and has receivied massive international media coverage. Zerbey 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, Not notable. Unknown outside the USA. If he ever does become notable, the redirect can change to a stand-alone page. We don't write articles based on sympathy.
  • Merge and redirect, as Mr. McCloy does not presently warrant an article. As it presently stands, all the information about him that is encyclopedic relates to the 2006 Sago Mine disaster. Jeff Lipschultz 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. He is an important part of the story, but this article is short enough to be a section in the main disaster article. --Chattycathy 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. Chuck 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is notable and this will definitely expand. FullSmash26 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd like to see you breathe CO for 42 hours and not die. I think that makes one pretty notable. Eightball 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as listed above, perhaps under "survivors" in the main category. For all the emotional ones out there, merging doesn't take away from importance or prominence - it is just a more appropriate place, possibly even better, consider the fact that maybe a user in Colombia wants to read about the survivor, and cannot recall his name; a survivor's section in the main article would prevent such. See also the AfD on CNN Coverage of Sago Mine Disaster --Jay (Reply) 04:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree with Jay. It is right to merge this into the 'Sago Mine' topic because this site ONLY talks about the disaster that happened to him and NOT his life story. Housefan 12:43 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable and topical article. Revisit in a year to merge and/or delete. Turnstep 23:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, especially if nobody's going to expand it to include actual biographical data about him. Other than his birthdate, everything covered in the article occured after the incident. Many news sources are reflecting on details about his life before the accident, so it shouldn't be hard to fill out, but that should probably wait a couple weeks until we know how significant of a figure he's going to be (because let's face it, if he dies tomorrow, he'll just fall in among the other victims and won't be so noteworthy). -VJ 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Temporary Keep until it is no longer a news story, then Merge with 2006 Sago Mine disaster. Captain Jackson 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with an option to merge into Sago Mine Disaster article after time has passed. Arbiteroftruth 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kinda borderline, but this mine story has gotten a lot of attention. The dead miners probably don't need individual articles, but the sole survivor may be notable enough to qualify. Everyking 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge event-driven conflation with encyclopedic material. Eusebeus 18:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. All those that advocate deletion because all of the information in the article pertains to the 2006 Sago Mine disaster should be voting to delete (many of) the articles on sports figures or celebrities that contain little biographical information and instead focus on the notable information about the person. No attack meant. appzter 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No attack meant in saying, incorrect analogy. A sports figure or a celebrity (well, most celebrities) actually take some action that makes them notable. Randal McCloy, on the other hand, was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the only notable thing that he did was endure longer than the others. Someone said "I'd like to see you breathe CO for 42 hours and not die. I think that makes one pretty notable." Well, no, it doesn't; it may qualify you for the Guinness Book of World Records, but it doesn't make you encyclopedically notable. Now if the various predictions that have been made for Randal McCloy did come true -- that he's going to be a major spokesman or get his own talk show, or something -- then those actions would be an argument for keeping a separate article instead of merging. But none of those things have happened yet and we don't know that they will. According to the latest news, his biggest achievement is having some signs of brain activity even though he is still not out of a partial coma. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge--Nn-user 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User's 6th edit. CDC (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin's Bar Mitzvah

This band hasn't achieved a degree of notability sufficient to be referenced in WP. See WP:Music for criteria of same. -- (aeropagitica)  23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. They seem to be touring the UK with music released in Japan. Therefore must have received press attention.[30] -- JJay 01:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The band seems to be going on the right way, but they are not notable yet, and may never be. No entry in AMG. JoaoRicardotalk 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, falls well short of criteria at WP:MUSIC. Chick Bowen 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --rogerd 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Halakha. We don't merge original research. It's all in the history if anyone wants it. -Splashtalk 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kabalistic Laws

This article purports to list all Jewish laws with either a kabbalistic source or a kabbalistic rationale. However, it is overwhelmingly original research without a system or clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, lacks sources and has been abandoned by the one author who was editing it (Jon513 (talk · contribs)). JFW | T@lk 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asaurus Records

Highly non-famous record co. founded in 2001, no claims of large sales, notable bands, etc. Vanity, promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think "small CD-R label" says it all. Blackcats 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Blackcats said. JoaoRicardotalk 14:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --rogerd 22:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HydE (band)

Doesn't seem to fit WP:MUSIC. Rob Church Talk 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blackcats 11:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Their most acclaimed song is circulating among "Philadelphia area fans and DJs". Not notable. JoaoRicardotalk 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 23:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Pfalstad 18:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HydE

I'd tag it as {{nn-bio}}, but someone would complain. See also AfD for HydE (band). Doesn't seem notable in his own right, and the article was either created by its subject or a sexually-crazed fan. Rob Church Talk 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. "Keeps most of his personal life a secret, including his full birthdate and real name(only a few really know, and don't believe anything you hear unless it's from him)." Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 02:36Z
  • Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardotalk 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Pfalstad 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 article certainly is about the company, not about açaí itself, the redirection and typing-in of which is a different matter. -Splashtalk 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MonaVie

  • Delete - advertising Badagnani 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tearlach 01:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete for being an advertisment without any encyclopedic value, although I am amending this to allow that it could be made a useful article, after reading later comments. Jfiling 05:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Although, after reading the latest reverts and additions, I'm doubting that this could ever be anything more than an advertisement. At least pages for Coca-Cola and Pepsi have historical and cultural relevance to them. Jfiling 06:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Promotional; not notable Tom Harrison Talk 01:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We do not delete articles because they are read like advertising. Read Wikipedia:Deletion policy for instructions on how to deal with this sort of prose. Thanks. -- Perfecto 02:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I'm sure that you can find other reasons, though.)

Nothing is wrong with this post. Keep in mind there are other brand names which are posted here. Does this mean we are going to remove Coke, Pepsi, 7up, etc...?

  • Comment There is a relavant policy under discussion for notability criteria of corporations. Note that it is not yet policy. --Hansnesse 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted in the article, the products have been discussed in national (US) media, which is notable enough in my mind. I should add I am dubious of the claims made, and perhaps a neutrality tag is more appropriate. --Hansnesse 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the mentions on Oprah and by Doctor Perricone were mentions of "Acai fruit," not of MonaVie. I don't really find any media coverage of the company, but maybe I'm overlooking it. Tom Harrison Talk 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - mostly as per Hansnesse, even though the Janos is being annoying in a revert war to remove the AfD tag from the top of the article. I think an NPOV tag is appropriate, though. Dharmabum420 02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a repository for miscelany info appearing on American TV shows. And for God's sake, the name is açaí. :-) If you write it "acai", it becomes "a-KA-ee". If you want to adapt it to the English orthography, do it properly. (Ok, I'm ranting) JoaoRicardotalk 14:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that explains why I didn't find an article about it. Would a redirect using English orthography be appropriate? Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Tom, I didn't understand what you are proposing. Are you suggesting a redirect from the English spelling of "açaí" to açaí? If that is the case, I surely agree, and I would make one myself if only I knew what is the English spelling for this word. Googling came up with "assai", which looks awkward to me, and is ambiguous (it could be pronounced "a-SAY", couldn't it?). JoaoRicardotalk 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, a redirect from the English spelling. I have no idea even how to type in "açaí," except to copy and paste;) Is there an official method of transliteration? If I search Google for açaí I get lots of links to acai. That may be wrong, but if it is a common misspelling, maybe a redirect or dab would be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There must be some rules for transliterating Portuguese into English, but I don't know them. Well, let's leave it at that for the time being. :) JoaoRicardotalk 04:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, even in English, Portuguese and Brazilian words and names should be written with the correct accents, tildes, cedillas, etc., as in São Paulo. It's not difficult at all to get these characters in word processing or Internet these days. Badagnani 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • In Microsoft Word, type CONTROL-comma, then type "c" and you will get the "c" with cedilla. To type "í," type CONTROL-apostrophe, then type "i" and you will get an "i" with acute accent. Or just go go to the Wikipedia article on açaí, which redirects from "acai." Badagnani 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • In Wikipedia, when editing look down below the edit screen and you will see all these characters there for you in blue. Just click on the character you need and it will be inserted into the article. Badagnani 22:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • D'oh! I'd seen those characters down at the bottom, but it had never occured to me to use them. Thankς! Tom Harrison Talk 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete reads as advertising copy, and does not meet WP:CORP. "MonaVie is certainly “On the Move” and as they have entered their 2nd year, the news of the nutritional benefits of the Acai Berry is continuing to spread." "It’s rich blend of wonderful and forgotten fruits..." Plus a long list of questionable health claims. If you took out the ad copy, not sure what would be left. CarbonCopy (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article makes a case for the importance of the fruit, not for the importance of the company, which is clearly in the early stages of development. Chick Bowen 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Languages