Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 5 January 7 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 6

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexting

Delete, neologism. - CorbinSimpson 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Georgia guy 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alr 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Rhobite 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom James084 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. "There has yet to be an act of "Sexting" that I know about, but I'm sure it has happened. Edit if you know of any." —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:38Z
  • Delete. I get 5 unique hits from GoogleGeorgeStepanek\talk 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Quarl.--SarekOfVulcan 07:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 08:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -MegamanZero|Talk 08:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 10:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Qwertyca 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom dr.alf 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Search shows almost nothing on Google --B.ellis 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. KHM03 15:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Even as an inclusionist. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Even if it is valid it is more Wikitionary.--Dakota ~ ε 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. rodii 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. — TheKMantalk 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:47, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.yelram4life.org

Website with only 2700 visitors Quaque (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Similar articles like this can be found here. Quaque (talk • contribs) 22:09, 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 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free IP Call

NN company r3m0t talk 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to IP Freely Delete, no general business directory. Gazpacho 06:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 10:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy spam. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. --Snakes 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Seems like adveritising. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:48, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pieman

Unverified comic, possibly a hoax - Rudykog 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable Ashibaka tock 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. No relevant google results for "pieman bean" or "pieman peach". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:23Z
  • Delete probable hoax but not funny enough to seal the deal (ESkog)(Talk) 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 07:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and nn. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. I originally thought that this was a refernce to the Simpsons episode where Homer takes the guise of "Pie Man" in a Spiderman spoof, so it coud be redirected there if it is not deleted. Movementarian 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not verifiable B.ellis 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like it might be a hoax. --19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:48, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Preaky 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Authentic Evanjh tock 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.112.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, but explain. I know the creator. He singlehandedly created and distributed the comic, and even created a website and series of movies which were distributed onilne. So while not exactly well known, it is not a hoax. 165.234.189.244 15:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifiable article should be removed.--Hurricane111 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep very much authentic. DVDs Sold. has nothing to do with the simpsons
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to GMail Drive. - ulayiti (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhpGmailDrive

This is an Opensource Gmail applet originally added to preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a disambig. I've split it off and turned PGD into a disambig to accomodate it, but this is probably not notable. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Page is updated with further references and it should be undeleted.

  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Requested for Undelete. (unsigned comment by B26b26).
  • Requested for Delete Endomion 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Despite the fact it's NN I believe it should be kept, dunno why, just do ComputerJoe 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into GMail Drive. howcheng {chat} 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Relisting to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Mindmatrix 01:42, 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. Strong majority for delete and no persuasive arguments for keep. —Cleared as filed. 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goth-punk

Non existant genre. Neoglism. Barely any description other than to repeat the Death Rock article. Blatant promoting of bands that have nothing to do with Gothic music or Punk music. Leyasu 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, non existent genre. Nonsense. --Terence Ong Talk 08:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Goth-punk" gets lots of Google hits, even adding 'genre' and subtracting 'clothing', but as the two subcultures blend into one another that's not surprising. There's no verification of a clearly defined 'goth-punk' genre. --Last Malthusian 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Further to that, only one of the bands listed, Aiden, is defined in their Wikipedia article as 'goth-punk' (which is one more than I was expecting). Moreover, they've only been defined as 'goth-punk' for two days [1], the definition being added by one of the editors of this article.
  • On an unrelated note, Leyasu, I'm a bit puzzled by your labelling of the edit which added the AfD notice as 'minor', with no edit summary. I'm sure you had your reasons but bear in mind that it won't be apparent from the editors' watchlists that their page has been nominated for deletion - they could easily assume that you were correcting their spelling :-). I've notified them myself. --Last Malthusian 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I must of clicked it by accident and not noticed. Apologies for any confusion this caused. Leyasu 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP I see no real reason for deletion. Goth-punk? The two seem similar. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-verifiable. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete A few issues, first of all edited out the "Bands are closely related to Deathrock" part, because these bands AFI, A7X, MCR, Aiden, and other current Hot Topic style bands have nothing to do with the Goth genre or Deathrock.

It must be noted, Goth-Punk is a phrase sometimes used to describe what Deathrock sounds like but non of the bands in the article.

This article has been heavily edited by the same guy who made the "Gothcore", joke article "BatlordCarcas", which is also nominated for deletion at the moment. He seems to try to incorporate his mallcore leaning into every article that he edits, that is why it did say "Goth-punk" in the Aiden article. - Deathrocker 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Overcategorization is not our goal. The article basically says "goth punk is a combination of goth and punk." Yeah thanks, we couldn't have figured that out ourselves. DrIdiot 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep, but rewrite. goth-punk is definitely a genre and its got a long history. whats being talked about on this page is only a small and not very significant part of it. goth punk has been around as a genre ever since Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Damned who are almost always described as goth-punk. oh and over 300000 google hits.
Youve just repeated the Death Rock article. Well done, as that was one of the reasons this make believe genre was recommended for deletion. Leyasu 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
the deathrock i know is nothing like what that article says... but since that exists and covers goth-punk, why not redirect goth-punk to death rock? or are 300000 google references wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BL Lacertae (talk • contribs)
Well, this being the Internet, some of those 300,000 pages are pretty certain to be wrong. But carping aside, those Google hits don't prove that goth-punk is what this article says it is, or indeed is a clearly defined genre at all. --Last Malthusian 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Both knife and fork are similar too. Should we have an article knife-fork? Non-notable and redundant. Ifnord 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this fictional genre and all others like it Makenji-san 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete made up. Eusebeus 20:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - yet another in a series of hair-splitting, 99%-overlap, teeney-tiny Goth &/or Metal &/or Punk categories. Madman 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the term clearly exists. Take AFI or My Chemical Romance for instance.  Grue  14:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • According to their own articles AFI are "hardcore" and MCR are difficult to pin down, but described in the infobox as "post-hardcore/rock". Obviously if you were describing them to a friend you might call them 'goth-punk', but a genre isn't just any old adjective that can be used to describe a band. To meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability, it has to be used to describe a distinct category of music by different sources who are all talking about roughly the same thing. (Although it looks like this is a relatively uncontested delete, I mention this now because imaginary genres keep coming up on AfD, and editors can find it difficult to pin down what makes a genre a genre and not an adjective someone made up).--Malthusian (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, too similar to Death rock and the just deleted Gothcore, overly vague, no sources. - DNewhall
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pangelinan Post

Not notable. r3m0t talk 02:06, 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 Speedy deleted (twice) by OwenX and W.marsh. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:16Z


[edit] Devon lynch

inserted this for nominator TheRingess 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

DELETE SPEEDILY. WillC 02:09, 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 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kith

A word with a random meaning someone made up for it. Not a dicdef since I can't find any verification of this use anywhere. - Bobet 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:14Z
  • Delete. I've heard "kith and kin", but that would be a dicdef.--SarekOfVulcan 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This qualifies as patent nonsense (though I decline to pay any patent fees for pointing it out) and the title-space should be locked (unless a verifiable other meaning can be adduced) in favour of the dictionary defintion (which, I understand, requires to be archived elsewhere) --Simon Cursitor 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. It's not incomprehensible. It does, however, have all of the appearance of an attack page — i.e. One chat room user has decided to write a disparaging article about the nickname of another chat room user. Uncle G 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 15:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 'Kith' essentially means 'kindred' in typical usage, but this usage is non-notable B.ellis 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:49, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:13, 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 redirect to Redneck. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redneckistan

Tagged for speedy deletion as "nonsense", but it makes sense to me. Not sure of its notability as a concept. Kappa 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE offensive and not at all academic. WillC 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please try to maintain a neutral point of view when voting, we have articles on far more offensive terms like "nigger". Kappa 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Surely you are not arguing that to state that an offensive thing is offensive is itself an offensive act. No vote at this time -- Simon Cursitor 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I'm says that an article being about an offensive concept is not a reason to delete that article. Kappa 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - I originally tagged this as "nonsense". After receiving notification from Kappa that it had been moved here I went back to re-read the article. Although, written in a "authorative" tone I don't think there is any bit of truth here. If there is I'd like to see some references or citations. James084 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a citation. Kappa 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give you that. There is a citation listed in the article; however, that hardly seems to be enough to make the article notable in any way. James084 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep if the term can be shown to have widespread use. A single use of the term doesn't make a neologism encyclopedic. It will also have to be made a little more neutral in its POV. Logophile 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A letter to the editor doesn't carry as much weight as an editorial or a newspaper article. I find no other support for this term outside web forums and blogs. It hasn't assumed the prominence of Masshole. Durova 02:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jesusland. Youngamerican 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The reasoning for my vote is the fact that they relate to the same general mene. The Jesusland article space is a better fit for all of the info about the topic, since it is A) the best-known name and B) the most developed article. Youngamerican 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as neologism with some evidance of usage from lots of Google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:13Z
    • 122 is "lots of Google hits"? Delete, nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge with Jesusland. Valid term, but limited usage, so we don't really need a whole article for it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's a good meme but just not notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jesusland. This is a poorly written article which seems to explain the same concept as Jesusland. A redirect will discourage recreation. Movementarian 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Very obscure, seems to be used by one person. Blnguyen 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Redneck, the article doesn't support any connection between this term and the Jesusland map. Gazpacho 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Redneck. Reyk 07:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Redneck. --Terence Ong Talk 08:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep isn't this related to Jesusland? If so, keep Sceptre (Talk) 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per Gazpacho ComputerJoe 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki is not a slang dictionary B.ellis 15:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I'm convinced this is nonsense. —gorgan_almighty 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete por reasons listed above -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into "Parodic, fictional, and cultural -stans" section of -stan. AnonMoos 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as slang. Edgar181 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term has been used by the NY Times and other publications [2]. -- JJay 23:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Weak Merge to Redneck. — TheKMantalk 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: neologism. --King of All the Franks 04:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as repost. Note that there is a comment in the Discussion from 8 November, but this article was ony created yesterday. It is on my watchlist (which means I have edited it in the past, quite possibly to tag it for AfD or cleanup), but I do not appear in the edit history. All of which says "repost" to me. Perhaps some friendly admin could check the deleted edit history? If not speedy repost, then delete anyway as heavily and irredeemably POV. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, esp. in light of JzG's note above. Made up terms should not be legitimised by WP. I would accept a redirect to Redneck, although I think it is wholly unnecessary. Eusebeus 20:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eject

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, according to this, they are unsigned. - FrancisTyers 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Promising"? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete.--SarekOfVulcan 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-Notable, I have CD's of myself too, Should I have a wikipedia article? B.ellis 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • yes! (well, maybe not =P) — TheKMantalk 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not fulfill Notability (music) standards. — TheKMantalk 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

comment a band does not have to be signed to meet WP: Music. Why do people here have distorted perceptions of their own rules? I'm not saying they should be kept, but they should not be deleted because they're not signed by a label. That's ridiculous.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:18, 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 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Herro

Not very sure what this "rising star" does, but he doesn't seem to be a professional sportsperson, which would get a 'keep' vote from me. Kappa 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable biography. Can't tell what he does either except he's in the "sports business" world and a university student. 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) 2006-01-06 03:58Z
  • Delete as google brings up many james herro -es but the only sport ones seems to be as a v-p of a local amateur rugby club, VANITY page. Blnguyen 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity bio. --Terence Ong Talk 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity biography --Cabazon 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom B.ellis 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity bio. NeoJustin 18:51, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:19, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeWitt Clinton High School

DELETE not notable or famous. WillC 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. Kappa 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, please format your nominations properly WillC. Kappa 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is notable does not have to be famous Yuckfoo 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Youngamerican 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A high school with 4,611 students. I didn't know any schools that large exist. CalJW 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 03:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCH. No need to nominate high schools, especially ones of this size. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 03:48Z
  • Keep. This is actually one of the most notable and famous high schools in NYC. Grads from here are going to read like the who's who. -- JJay 04:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per cabal. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be real, quite large 45000, and appears to have a lot of notable students. Blnguyen 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even I've heard of this one, and the alums are notable.--SarekOfVulcan 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear past precedent to keep verifiable high schools (let's hope we don't start keeping the unverifiable ones). Article is a stub, but the alumni list is quite impressive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Quarl. --Terence Ong Talk 08:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCH. --Rob 09:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evil Eye 12:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.This is a notable public New York City high school. Could use expanding, but keep. Crunch 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Would one of the keep people mind telling me what about this high school is notable? -- Bachrach44 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've seen those arguments a 100 times already - my comment was not "give me one reason to keep", it was "please tell me why this school is notable". Several people have voted to keep as the school is notable, yet I fail to find anything on the page that auggests it is. Has it been mentioned in the news? Have they set some sort of academic or athletic records? I know why many people voted to keep (the reasons you presented), I was wondering why other people claimed notability. -- Bachrach44 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It meets the WP:SCH proposal from November. That is all that matters to me for the sake of civility anymore.Gateman1997 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm going to answer my own question since for some reason no one else could. this makes them notable. (An article in the NY times about a massive student walkout/protest). Keep in mind people that a simple vote is a lot less convincing and useful than explaining your vote. I'm chaging my vote to keep --Bachrach44 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable even per deletionist standards. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. High schools are notable. Andrew73 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs improving, but notable, stub it? B.ellis 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is a non notable school - not all schools are notiable, the Wiki policy does not give all schools impunity doktorb | words 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, per WP:SCH --Nick123 (t/c) 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all valid High Schools. Yet another useless HS AfD exercise. — RJH 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no problem with this stub article. — TheKMantalk 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per other keep votes. --King of All the Franks 04:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable or informative MattHucke(t) 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable school that needs a more expanded article. Dustimagic 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has notable alumns. this discussion is pointless. Rejnal 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - not notable? think again. Kingturtle 08:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks-Pioneer Village, Kentucky Tornado

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep A disaster that caused a $100 million of damage seems notable to me. It just needs clean up. CalJW 03:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with CalJW. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but tidy. Jcuk 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've done some minor tidying, but could do with more. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I admit to some geographic bias... but it kind of works against it here, since I live maybe 20 miles away and have scarcely heard of this. Then again, I don't really watch TV News at all. Anyway, it just happened less than a week ago and the article was created yesterday... let's at least give it some time to see if the article goes anywhere, and if anyone remembers this event in 6 months. --W.marsh 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clean-up work appears to be in process and already met many of the objections here. -Jcbarr 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research unless it can cite sources not only for the factual claims, but also for evidence that this tornado constitutes a discrete topic of research. From what source does the article title come? Is that a NOAA name for the tornado, or the author's own arbitrary designation? Postdlf 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep despite the faults. Edgar181
  • Keep, but still needs some cleaning up. — TheKMantalk 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Kingturtle 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodlet

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, or at least we don't know that it does. Delete. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Maybe we could have given a new user more than one minute to establish that. Kappa 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, the language is demotic rather than neutral. -- (aeropagitica)  07:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and a major cleanup. --Terence Ong Talk 08:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Minorly Notable B.ellis 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and cleanup. Good heavens, they just want to delete every band/artist article they don't think is worthy and it seems as if some people will twist the rules and take them out of context to do so. --TaeKwonTimmy 04:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. notable enough. Kingturtle 08:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. BD2412 T 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Paul Methuen

No claim to notability. Nonnotable, no accomplishments or actions listed. EdwinHJ | Talk 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Borderline {{nn-bio}} (claim of notability: was a military captain). 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) 2006-01-06 03:47Z
    • Weak keep, needs importance asserted (other than having a peerage title). I hadn't considered the Baron Methuen title before. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 22:31Z
  • Delete. Appears to be a family promotion
  • Keep holder of the title Baron Methuen which seems to be notable enough for its own article. Also.....vanity by a dead man? New one on me! Jcuk 11:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a Baron, he was eligible to sit in the House of Lords. Clear notability. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable, minor figure B.ellis 15:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Member of national legislature. The article title was orginally in the correct format, but it was moved by the nominator. I have moved it back. CalJW 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Baron Methuen and redirect. —gorgan_almighty 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Is every person who ever held a title in the UK notable because they could sit in the House of Lords? If so that would fill thousands and thousands of pages. did this person actually ever sit in the house, introduce legislation or address the house? if not then he is certainly nonnotable. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. There are thousands of barons and other such titled people across history, and being one is not a claim of notability. I disagree with Quarl that being a captain is a claim of notability; captains are even more numerous than barons. --Last Malthusian 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think being a baron is probably too close to being an assertion of notability to stick my neck out. Still don't think an inherited title confers automatic notability, however. --Last Malthusian 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Does that mean we can get rid of Liz Windsor then? Unless opening parliament and shaking peoples hands are themselves notable activities.......(tongue firmly in cheek here, btw!) Jcuk 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Tongue firmly in your WP:CIVIL, more like, I don't see any evidence of Mr Methuen being a head of state. But I haven't checked all the Google hits, so I could be wrong! :-) --Last Malthusian 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Pardon? I wasn't in the least bit uncivil. Jcuk 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Subject may be notable enough, but the article needs to assert his importance. — TheKMantalk 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no problem with this per comments above. -- JJay 00:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, agree with LastMalthusian. Eusebeus 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So with the nominator withdrawing his/her vote, and still no evidence of this chap ever having done anything interesting, now I'm one of only two people who doesn't think that getting a hereditary title (that is, one you get simply by being born) is an assertion of notability. Whoever knew that Wikipedians were such a lot of Old Tories :-) --Last Malthusian 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have had that exact same thought. God help us when they discover the squirarchy. Eusebeus 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The British aristocracy is approximately 1000 times more entertaining than Star Trek, and takes up about 1000 times less space on WP. Your idea of biogs for all the countless gentry is fantastic, too. I'll instruct my butler to commence the project. --Earl Squiddy | (squirt ink?) of Territorial Waters. 12:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Then maybe you can start by telling us what sort of jolly japes this particular gent got up to make him 'entertaining'. I'm starting to sound like a republican here (small r), but I'd wager that the extra 'interest' that attaches to a baron compared to an ordinary person is entirely down to having more money and more media scrutiny. Comrade Malthusian 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, he devoted his life to improving literacy among marine invertebrates, and is also the inventor of cheese. Seriously, there doesn't seem to be consistency between categories of people. All professional sportspeople are kept, but not all academics (they have to publish something noteworthy). Bishops seem to be kept, and I'd keep aristocrats on the same (admittedly weak) basis - they aren't expected to do anything useful. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Also, he probably shot a grouse and set his dogs upon a fox. Eusebeus 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Neither bishops, nor professional sportspeople, nor academics become what they are simply by being born. There is no comparison. --Last Malthusian 17:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seeing as it incorporates so many more trivial reference works, Wikipedia has room for a complete peerage. Piccadilly 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. all Baron Methuens are notable. Kingturtle 08:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grove (nature)

Delete Content already covered in grove. Uly 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That's because grove is a disambiguation and this article has not yet grown beyond a stub and so contains only as much as the disambiguation contains. We only delete (proper) stubs if there is no possibility for their expansion. Are you asserting that there is no way for this stub to expand? Uncle G 03:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, result of disambiguation. - CorbinSimpson 03:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Kappa 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, ha ha ha. Very witty. Keep anyway. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Almost seems like a bad faith or misunderstood nomination to me. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 08:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A good example of why you should check links before claiming that the content is already covered. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I have added some further text and there is substantial scope for expansion by arboriculturists. -- Simon Cursitor 11:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand that a stub should be allowed to expand, but I nominated it for deletion because the article had been created for more than an year and absolutely no addition had been made, and no talks of expanding it either. The link to the disambiguation page only loop back to the same pages. Well, it seems that this move for deletion has gotten some people to notice the page and new content had been added. That was not my intention but it's all the better. Uly 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nearly every stub, including this one, has the potential for expansion, and inactivity doesn't mean it should be deleted. — TheKMantalk 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per expansion potential Dustimagic 20:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preaky 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wiktionary. Most of the detail claimed in the article is untrue; what is left can't be turned into a useful article - MPF 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Viriditas 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Kingturtle 08:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was taken out back and shot speedy deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:05, Jan. 6, 2006

[edit] Godless Black Metal Band)

Badly named article, no Allmusic.com entry, appears to be cut & paste but unable to find source. Possibly notable, but article as written fails to establish notability under WP:Music. In any case, needs to be renamed and rewritten. --Alan Au 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have requested speedy under A7: band with zero released recordings. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:53, 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 taken out back and shotspeedy deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:04, Jan. 6, 2006

[edit] Godless(Black Metal Band)

This is a duplicate of Godless_Black_Metal_Band), which is also up for deletion. - CorbinSimpson 03:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have requested speedy under A7: band with zero released recordings. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:53, 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 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Von Neumann

26 Google hits Likely vanity.

Lotsofissues 04:00, 6 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) 2006-01-06 04:44Z
  • Delete. Vanity Blnguyen 05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity article. --Terence Ong Talk 08:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non-notable, I live here, and never heard of him B.ellis 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete vanity/nn (Signed: J.Smith) 21:06, 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 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21st Century Bohemian

This article seems to be an unencyclopedic protologism. It yields very few Google hits. I propose deletion. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 04:10, 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 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True sport

A fine idea, but a neologism nonetheless. Lots of Google hits, but none with this meaning. Denni ☯ 04:21, 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 01:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speed limit/proposed

This page is an old draft of Speed limit. It comes up in searches of the words speed limit. It has served its purpose and does not belong on Wikipedia anymore. Novasource 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This should be in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion because it's not an article as such. But feel free to delete at will. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree, this is in the main article namespace and so is covered under AfD. No need to go to MfD; we can delete it here just fine. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BRossow 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uman Bakshi

absolutely non-notable and possibly fictitious "...his busy company provides personal assistant rental to busy professionals,...In Argentina, they do stray dog removal"! Prashanthns 04:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable California athlete, 9 google hits containing no information besides his name and the amount of time it took him to run from one point to another. All other claims appear to be false. In a perfect world, this could be speedied. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:26, Jan. 6, 2006
  • Delete non-notable and non-verifiable. Atrian 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable bio. --Terence Ong Talk 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Freakofnurture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom B.ellis 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no verifiable notability. Does "personal assistant rental" mean he's a pimp? Barno 16:19, 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 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAM--The Institute of Advanced Media

Appears to be advertising John (Jwy) 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Patent vanispamcruftisement. Unfortunately can't be speedied. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:35, Jan. 6, 2006
  • Delete Looks like advertising to me. Atrian 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. (Adcopy would be criterion for cleanup, not deletion.) Ironic that it is a school for web design but the article is poorly formatted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 07:13Z
  • Dekete, non-notable, and an advertisment. --Terence Ong Talk 07:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 'nuff said. Qwertyca 10:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable advertising. — TheKMantalk 00:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Pierce

Article about a fictional wrestler in an E-wrestling federation. Per our notability guidelines on fictional subjects, Fanfiction, on the other hand, may well be considered vanity (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion. This includes anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press; information about a character in roleplaying or MMORPGs... Unless there's some reason to make an exception in this case, Delete. Megamix? 05:02, 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 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gawab

Was not sure if this merits an entry Prashanthns 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete . MArketing/advertising .Blnguyen 05:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup then Keep, because the website is extremely notable according to Alexa. http://gawab.com has Alexa traffic rank of 875 (rank of 10,000 needed for website to be considered notable). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:59Z
    • Cleaned up. Now it just needs to be expanded (but the stubbiness shouldn't matter for AFD). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 07:08Z
  • Weak delete Seems like an advert, to me, but it is notable B.ellis 16:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 3.7 million sounds notable but is probably not so when compared to Yahoo Mail, GMail, Hotmail, etc. Also in it's current form this is just ad spam. —gorgan_almighty 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe not notable when compared to the top 3 webmail providers, but probably notable when compared to the set of all webmail providers, and very notable when compared to the set of all websites. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:35Z
  • Keep as per Quarls clean up Jcuk 21:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's cleaned up, looks good. But still not-notable enough for me. Ifnord 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you please elaborate on why you think it is non-notable? I hadn't heard of it before, but I also haven't heard of most of the websites with Wikipedia articles. The criterion I'm going by is Alexa rank. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:35Z
      • Sure. The criteria is a guideline, not an absolute. This stub reads like an ad and I don't think it will (or even can) be expanded to an encyclopedia article. The "biggies" in email providers such as Hotmail (first big web-based email) and Gmail (first huge space email) are notable as they were the first and most oft used when people reference email. At best I may change my vote to merge (to email perhaps) then delete. Ifnord 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Google shows many hits for gawab and their website is ranked in the top 1,000 sites by Alexa. Although the article does read like an advertisement, that can always be cleaned up and shouldn't justify it being deleted. --BWD 04:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. this site is legit. Kingturtle 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baer's Poultry Ranch

Non-notable poultry ranch Prashanthns 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • -Delete Self-promotional advertising. Non-notable.Blnguyen 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. 0 Google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:57Z
  • Delete poultrycruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost advertising copy; perhaps the debeaking machine is notable, can an expert comment on this? -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:31, 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 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Levanas

"Alleged, in Venona project files, to have met with a Soviet intelligence officer." Ummm... and so what? Non-notable personage. FCYTravis 05:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As USSR and USA were allies at the time in WW2, surely this would be a routine thing and not a scandal at all, let alone of any magnitude. Blnguyen 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. 3 Google hits, only 1 of which is not Wikipedia. (I think the point of the article was to allege that the subject may have been a spy for the USSR.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:56Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing logos of Screen Gems

The article is not of interest to the general Wikipedia population and is irrelevant. Stuff regarding these "logo fetishes" should be deleted as they damage the intregity of Wikipedia. There's a similar article regarding Viacom that apparently was nominated for deletion and kept. Anyone who thinks that these articles are of relevance to this encyclopedia should seriously reconsider being a part of the editing process. --James Stanley Barr 06:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment If you knew about the nominations for the other "logo" articles and that the consensus is to keep them, why bring up another AFD? Why disparage people who may vote in this AFD in the nomination, especially since we can expect most votes will be "Keep"? Please be civil. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:53Z
  • Keep Verifiable and sourced. What is the "general Wikipedia population"? Should we only cater to them? If so, I have some Pokemon articles for you next... (ESkog)(Talk) 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. --Terence Ong Talk 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per.... Jcuk 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Quarl. Englishrose 12:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Has strong potential. Essexmutant 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable. It could certainly be improved (maybe less text and more images, and then merged into Screen Gems). I'm offended by the ominator's implication that people with opinions different than his own are somehow not welcome at Wikipedia. Perhaps you should spend a little time thinking about social norms in a massive community project such as this. -- Plutor 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep though I don't quite understand the attraction, it's definitely of interest to more than a few people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep verifiable, interesting B.ellis 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Screen Gems or just keep. I agree with Plutor about the form of the nomination. But is this closing-logo interest a widespread niche of fandom, or just one person's obsession? Barno 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "often cited ... as one of the scariest production logos ever made." No actual citations except one fan "tribute" website. Eeek. Barno 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's whole sites and Yahoo! groups devoted to these types of logos - and to making fun of them. They're quite fun, too. :) --CJ Marsicano 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete This article and others like it have no place and no appeal to the normal person who visits Wikipedia and damages the intregity of Wikipedia. Add to that, perhaps the amount of visits on the article should be looked at as to where it's even worth putting here. --James Stanley Barr 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

    • You've already voted by way of your nomination. 23skidoo 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and I too take offence at the way the nomination is worded. 23skidoo
  • Strong keep. As I always vote keep for this type of material, I consider this nom to be a personal attack. -- JJay 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. One of the most notable closing logos in television history. (And it never scared me when I was a kid.) --CJ Marsicano 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preaky 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per just about everyone else. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all other keeps. Besides, since when were logo articles damaging to the Wikipedia integrity? There were articles that did such a thing, but this isn't one of them. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Although it really needs cleaning... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents. Georgia guy 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. an article does not have to be "of interest to the general Wikipedia population." this article is encyclopedic. Kingturtle 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP an example of how Wikipedia can tell you about something you always wondered and no place else could. --The_stuart 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The information may be of value to someone in the Wikipedia population, but as already noted the article could use some TLC. Still, badly-written articles aren't enough to warrant killing off.--Mitsukai 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 pure hatemongering and as a total rant. - Lucky 6.9 06:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why only Muslims?

propaganda and intensely religious Prashanthns 05:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Strong religious propaganda Prashanthns 05:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Unintelligible rant--Porturology 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Political propaganda/ranting... may be intended to incite violence. Blnguyen 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete quickly --Ajdz 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Gone. I came by as an anon and about choked up a lung when I saw this mess. - Lucky 6.9 06:08, 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 merge. Ichiro 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Hillard

This there really anything that could be said about this rather minor film character that couldn't be put on the Mrs. Doubtfire page? james_anatidae 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: The subject of the article is not a minor character in the film where he appears (Mrs. Doubtfire); he is the main character of that film. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge as nominated. You could have done it without bringing it to AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:51Z
  • Comment the main character in a film is hardly minor I'd have thought, and other fictional characters get articles. However there would appear to be only so much you can say about him.... Jcuk 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Mainly throwing my 2d in because I can't resist pointing out that James probably meant that he is a minor film character when compared to, say, Neo, Superman, Darth Vader, etc, rather than a 'minor character in the film'. --Last Malthusian 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree, that's probably what was meant, but since it would be possible for someone to misread it that way, I thought it was better to clarify. (And, honestly, you never know -- I've seen someone vote delete because the subject was a "minor character" -- well, the subject wasn't an individual character, it was an entire 50-episode TV series... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment I guess that all depends on the films you watch *G*! I can honestly say I've never even heard of Neo , so to me he's (she's?) far less notable than Danny-boy....but then you get into discussions about POV and all that good stuff... Jcuk 21:02, 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 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Cooper (b.1661)

Subject of article is not inherently notable, but is the ancestor of notable people. Wiki is not geneology--Porturology 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Porturology 05:46, 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 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semitic pagan deities

First of all, the whole thing is copied from the link at the bottom and could be considered a copyvio (possibly not speediable since not "blatant"). More importantly, it makes no sense. These are not pagan deities--they are mostly Miltonic angels and devils along with various random creatures from the Bible that were never worshipped by anyone and a few Greek figures thrown in for good measure. They are neither Semitic, nor pagan, nor deities! Chick Bowen 05:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens←ну?
  • Delete per nomination. Kerowyn 09:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There were Semitic deities and, presumably, to someone adhering to an alternative theology, they would be callsed as pagan. I agree these probably aren't they, but this is a valid encyclopaedia entry, and ought not to be deleted out of hand lest, when the "right" information is entered, it is speedy-deleted as an "already-deleted-once". -- Simon Cursitor 11:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) who is not sure which vote category this falls under.
    • Any admin would check to make sure it was genuinely the same article before deleting under CSD G-4. Chick Bowen 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's a list that tells me nothing. If there is a real article that can be written under this title, it will have different text and not be subject to speedy delete as a 'recreation'. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. By the way Semitic gods already exists (but needs improvement). Don't even think of merging, as the information in this article is inaccurate. Logophile 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Lame D&Der agglomeration of stuff, misnamed, then Delete. Agree with nominator and Logophile. Barno 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Convert to Category: [[Category:Semitic pagan deities]] —gorgan_almighty 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not an appropriate category in my view. The word "pagan" is a misnomer. A Category:West Semitic deities already exists, and contains actual Semitic deities (the ones on this list are not deities at all). Chick Bowen 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A redirect might help people confused by the modern popular understanding of Yahweh and Allah as the only Semitic deities (neglecting a good bit of history of course, but then, most people couldn't find the Middle East on a map much less speak of what had occurred within a people group thousands of years ago). --eleuthero 20:37, 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 speedy delete as having no salvagable content - brenneman(t)(c) 07:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal faith

Non-notable cult. Fancruft Prashanthns 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Melchoir 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. no google hits regarding such an organization or a theoretical concept. Either a hoax or a non-notable suburban cult. Blnguyen 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete A very important faith which many people follow. Deleting it would be like deleting a page on christianity.
    • Hooray for rampant relativism! Melchoir 06:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The encyclopedia of religion has a religion closely related and possibly the same as the Metal Religion.
  • DONT DELETE We cant delete his page he has powerfull kicks and dashing good looks!!!
  • Delete. Fancruft? Moar liek faithcruft, amirite? --King of All the Franks 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OBJECTION YOUR HONOR!!! all the people that dont like it are NERDS
  • Delete Possibly speedy delete as patent nonsense. eaolson 06:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete these non-nerds as unverifiable, non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:47Z
  • Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice Phoenix Wright
  • Dont Delete Keep this page up for all that are sane. Removing it would be like removing our very existence. its murder. MURDER
  • HEY!!! clown guy YOU ARE NOT FUNNEY!. The guy that wants to delete cool people because he's a nerd, you suck. Nonsense guy this site has almost 4 dollars. Frankfurt more like FUCK OFF. NO GOOGLE HITS OH NO!!! just because every one doesn't have the time to publish a website because their to bussy being sugnificant doesn't mean it is worth dismissing. Most of all why do YOU CARE ? let him have his site!!!

LET MY METAL GO!!!!

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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Collections

nn flash animations r3m0t talk 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge with Newgrounds. --Liface 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete flashcruft. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, important part of flash animations phenomenon. Kappa 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll withdraw my vote in the light of Aaron's homework, although it googles better without the definite article. Kappa 07:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Homework I apologise for not providing this before. Almost nonexistant Google, even when too broad a search is used. Nothing on news either way. As I see the recomendation to date, we have a three naked votes without any backing rational, one "important" and one "helpful". As always, I would be happy to see this included if any evidence of notability is presented. WP:WEB has further notes on how to demonstrate this for websites. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's "Daily Collections", not "The Daily Collections" - try this search instead ("daily collections" newgrounds → 180 results). r3m0t talk 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be more specific about which votes you consider to be "naked". As far as I can see, almost all the votes are longer than the nom. -- JJay 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've already given the nominator a poke about that. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as not notable enough. If they were more well known and/or existed for longer, perhaps. -- Kjkolb 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge as per Liface B.ellis 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or userfy. A large amount of work seems to have gone into this--which is by itself insufficient reason for a keep. However, this article is helpful in identifying a "genre" (if you will) of online media creation.--eleuthero 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the article states that the 'animations are of extremely poor quality'. Nothing in the intro points to encylopedic. The amount of work does not equal encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge about 5% of this with Newgrounds, then Redirect. -Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the information paragraph with Newgrounds then redirect -- Astrokey44|talk 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge information paragraph with Newgrounds, then redirect. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SMerge to Newgrounds. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:47Z
  • Delete. Nothing worth merging. —Cleared as filed. 05:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced vanity CDC (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- just not encyclopedic and never will be. Reyk 07:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm coining the term relist cruft: a second relist is a waste of space. The discussion already had nine votes. Durova 07:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity and non-notable. Zunaid 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zunaid. --Terence Ong Talk 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Summarize and Merge with Newgrounds. - Pureblade | Θ 17:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per homework, nn WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, same as WAveg--SarekOfVulcan 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic Pintele Yid 22:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado Cricket League

Appears to be non-notable sports league. Recommend delete or at most stubbed for cleanup/expansion Atrian 06:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and entire rewrite. --Terence Ong Talk 08:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at least as notable as the West_Lancashire_League. Rewritten by the way. Jcuk 12:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're only saying that because your a Yorkshireman. Average Earthman 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's over a hundred and twenty years old. ReeseM 14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, this league started in the 1980s. The title 'sounds' impressive, but I'm not sure the reality is as yet. No vote. Average Earthman 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough, though I'd like to see it fully referenced, jguk 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As cricket is almost unknown in America, my guess is this is no bigger than your average recreational softball league, with no fans other than the players' friends and families. -- Mwalcoff 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like articles on nonprofits, and this appears to be one of the more prominent cricket leagues in America.-Colin Kimbrell 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't want to argue (your vote is a good as mine). However, I would like to point out that saying "one of the more prominent cricket leagues in America" is like saying "one of the more prominent Klezmer bands in Mozambique." Heck, if I were to gather up a bunch of South Asian college students at Ohio State, divide them into elevens and give them bats and balls, I'd have one of the most-prominent cricket leagues in America by default. I'm afraid that some of the voters on this topic may not be aware of just how much of a nonentity cricket is in the U.S. I'd bet most Americans haven't ever heard of the sport. (Not that I personally have anything against the game.) -- Mwalcoff 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ichiro 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet Cacoon

  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}}

This band looks non-notable. No entry on AMG. Article is filled with info about rumoured releases and about how the band members spread disinformation about themselves. The "real" releases were only released on P2P networks, only had 100 copies of CD-Rs handed out, etc. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:42Z

  • "Real" releases are "Genevieve" and "Northsuite" on FMP (a respected indie black metal label), neither of which were limited pressings. The band is notable within the black metal scene, and I would cite from the notability guideline: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." Multiple and varied black metal and general metal press reports can be found here: [3]. Since black metal has its own page on Wikipedia, I'd assume that it is a notable sub-culture. Also, just as a general note, why would we want to diminish the amount of overall knowledge available on Wikipedia? With all the disinformation spread about the band, an encyclopedic entry is the perfect vessel with which to gradually sort out what's true and what isn't. Keep. Night 09:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see. I couldn't tell from casual reading that those two albums were more "real" than the others. Could you reformat that section so that it is more apparent? Since you appear to be the primary author of the article you I assume you know about the subject well. If we end up deciding VC is notable then perhaps you should create an article for FMP as well. Wikipedia has a policy of requiring verifiability; are the claims in this article verifiable if the band lies about themselves? How do we know the band lies about themselves; how can we trust you more than the band itself? Please provide cite all claims, such as that the band really formed in 2002 rathern than 1996. AMG would be good, but VC is not listed in AMG. If someone else can say about the band's notability, that would be nice; your opinion might be biased. A list of press releases is not the same as "frequently covered", and in addition, by your claims about them being not truthful, it's hard to trust that web page, isn't it? :) As for diminishing overall knowledge, see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; many band articles are deleted every day for lack of notability. We have to have some standards, otherwise you and I can start a band today and have a Wikipedia article tomorrow :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 10:21Z

Delete - Band is not notable. Vanity page. --Iconoclast 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - This group may shortly be notable, so userfying the information might be useful. At present it would appear to have only one actual signed release with "Full Moon Productions" and thus does not meet WP:Music (cf., FMP Prod.) The notability of FMP is also in doubt because of the 40,000 Yahoo! search hits, only ~1000 actually relate to that company (crosslink with search term "black metal") with a number relating to a promotion company based in LA.--eleuthero 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

keep article is completely legitimate, band is legit and verifiable. They're clearly not an unknown garage or local band. No reason for this article to go except for some vague, poorly defined suggestions (not guidelines) as to what is worthy of coverage here.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Velvet Cacoon has made some of the best black metal of the last couple of years. Unlike most of you users who are commenting here, I actually listen to black metal (sorry if I am wrong) and am a fan of this band. Even if VC has lied about aspects of the band, or even releases, they still are a band, and a notable one in the USBM scene. I think that the fact that they have lied and formed an image that is fabricated actually adds to their importance. It is a social experiment that shows that we as music listeners are as much attracted to the "hype" surrounding the band as the music they create. All Music Guide is not the definitive source for all music, as it would imply. There is much notable underground music that goes unnoticed. It can only be used as a resource, not the only source for what "music" is. I have also talked to people who have some of the other releases, and they do exist. And I think you can consider them "notable" in the scene, as on FMP's message board, the latest VC thread has 2,140 hits. Pretty high. FMP was the first black metal label to be formed in the US, which takes the wind out of the argument that the label is not notable. This is a strong keep.--Fmalcangi 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. They don't seem to have met WP:MUSIC. Stifle 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" If you followed WP:MUSIC to the letter, you might have to delete 75% of the metal bands on Wikipedia. And these guys have been featured prominantly in many underground black metal publications and websites. You must keep this article.--Fmalcangi 23:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you can provide some citations for the articles in these publications, it would be a big help to your case. -Colin Kimbrell 15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Velvet Cacoon is a real band, and Full Moon Productions is a real label. AMG/WP are not effective tools to garnering information on underground music. Anybody familiar with underground black metal knows who both VC and FMP are. This shouldn't even be up for debate. --Astrosa 13:24, 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 as this is a debate, Last Malthusian "wins". :p Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premiere Production

Not a strong delete, but don't believe it's as notable as claimed Oscarthecat 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC). Expanded / tidied it a little myself. --Oscarthecat 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • keep and expand if possible Jcuk 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 06:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was heading towards a 'weak keep' when they got a Google hit which described it as one of the 'big four' studios in the Philippines, but it went on to say that those four "...are all virtually closed down due to the proliferation of individual and collective modes of film production". That was the only Google hit I could find that related to this company that looked anything like a possible source for an encyclopaedia article. As it stands, we have no verified evidence of anything, let alone meeting WP:CORP. And of the five blue-linked actors, we have two articles created by this article's author (who might themselves be deletion candidates), two actors with no apparent relation to the studio, and a redirect to a Tintin character. I'd really like to know what the 'keep' voters see in this article that I don't. --Last Malthusian 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Further to that, it sort of seems from the few (very few) Google hits that this company existed and at least used to make films. But if kept, the article would have to be reduced to a tiny stub, since there's no verification that they a) made those movies b) worked in those genres c) were associated with those actors (those that appear to exist - both of them). And then the article would have to be watched to make sure that the unverified information wasn't put back in. Two last things worth mentioning: the official languages of the Philippines are English and Filipino, the latter of which uses the Roman alphabet, so the fact that Google finds very little isn't a language problem. And the Filipino Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this company. --Last Malthusian 20:15, 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 speedy keep due to the fact that recent AfD discussion on this article resulted in a consensus to keep.  Grue  08:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of video games considered the worst ever

While interesting to read, the topic is inherently biased, and clearly does not belong on the WikiPedia. DarrenBaker 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete - for reason above. --DarrenBaker 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This article simply cannot be made NPOV, unless it is split into two articles - one referring to video games that have received harsh criticism from verifiable sources, say 'List of controversial video games', and another referring to video games that were a commercial failure. You cannot combine the two concepts, it becomes completely subjective. --DarrenBaker
  • Keep. These are games for which there is broad consensus that they were just terrible; I don't think there's much debate about any of them. It's verifiable in the sense that there are plenty of magazine and web articles discussing how just how terrible they are. I am not a fan of pointless listcruft, and I see your point about NPOV, but this is very interesting reading and a good addition to WP. bikeable (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
(Comment: this page has been up for deletion at least twice before; last time the vote was 14-5. Just fyi; I'm not saying that that should drive this discussion.) bikeable (talk) 07:15, 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 redirect to shit as it has already been transwikied. - ulayiti (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shit eating grin

This is a simple slang definition, and so is not WP-appropriate since WP:NOT a dictionary. However, I don't think it's speedyable, so here we are. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Seems like a notable neologism from Google search. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 07:22Z
  • Transwiki as above. -- (aeropagitica)  07:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as per Quarl. --Terence Ong Talk 08:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to shit. This is already covered in Shit#Insults,though that should probably be cleaned up. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's in Wiktionary now: wikt:shit-eating grin. Do what you want in the 'pedia article.—Dvortygirl 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Segv11. Like Dvortygirl said, Wiktionary has it, so no transwiki. FreplySpang (talk) 06:13, 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 as notable. - ulayiti (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Conglomerate and its redirect Harry Shaw-Reynolds and Jules Pascoe

Harry Shaw-Reynolds was originally speedy deleted as nn-bio. Restored by Tony Sidaway without bringing to AfD, although he did notify the other admin this time. Completing process for the original article and its redirect target.

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. See allmusic.com. I note that The Cat Empire lists Harry Shaw-Reynolds as a member, but he doesn't have an allmusic entry, so I'd like to see more info per WP:V. This mentions him but this won't load for me. Delete unless more information provided, in the event that Harry Shaw-Reynolds' member ship can be confirmed, obviously don't delete that article, but "The Conglomerate" would still fail WP:MUSIC as it says "member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable", emphasis mine. brenneman(t)(c) 13:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and same story for Jules Pascoe. No allmusic entry, some links to Cat Empire as well. More information? - brenneman(t)(c) 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really can't find much beyond the research above. To me, it doesn't make the cut. PJM 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep released an album on a major label. Kappa 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is a band on allmusic called the conglomerate, but this is not them. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Kappa. -- JJay 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Album on major label, reviewed by major media. -- JJay 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Kappa, JJay - am I reading WP:MUSIC wrong or are you suggesting that we ignore it? - brenneman(t)(c) 08:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you are reading, but I read the review in the Sydney Morning Herald, hence my vote. -- JJay 08:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not "major music media", but I'd like to see it anyway. Generic name, bugger to search for, can you provide a link? - brenneman(t)(c) 08:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Not major media? I believe it's Australia's largest circulation newspaper. The link is in the article, which I assume you read. The CD was also prominently reviewed by The Age. And frankly, allmusic.com is not exactly an authority on Australian jazz.-- JJay 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I did read the article, however I had forgotten that that the link was from the SMH. It was so brief, I assumed that you were talking about something else. It's not a major music magazine, which is the criterion I was referring to. See Category:Music magazines.
  • The lack allmusic entry in of itself means nothing, systemic bias and all. It's just an easy way to see if something passes the bar: two albums on major label, international tour, gold album, etc. These guys don't appear to have those.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So, what's your point? -- JJay 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, my point is that these inclusion guidelines were worked out by a very large number of wikipedians over no small amount of time, and if we are going to ignore them in this case it would be nice to know what the reason for doing that is. This isn't straight forward, so I may spread the word a bit to get a wider opinion. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it is you that is ignoring the spirit of the guidelines. You like to make accusations, but reviews in two of Australia's leading newspapers with combined circulation of over 400,000 is far more impressive to me than a mention in many of the so called major music media in our category. Furthermore, do you really doubt given this exposure that the Conglomerate has been mentioned in Jazz publications in Australia? Have you even tried to confirm this? And why you deny the connection with the Cat Empire is beyond me. At times I can not understand what motivates your zeal. -- JJay 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm just trying to be consistant and orderly, as is my nature. I'm sorry if I've offended or insulted you, or if you feel like I've made "accusations". I brought this to AfD because that's the best thing to do with something borderline and I'm simply pointing out how the guidelines apply. It's not personal, nor is there zeal. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being extended and relisted to generate a clearer consensus. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm still very concerned that we're about to disregard a guideline based upon a 3/2 split. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - record on major label, coverage in two of Australia's largest circulation newspapers, seems quite notable to me. Certainly meets the level of exposure the criteria of WP:MUSIC suggest. -- Jonel | Speak 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primehacks

This article is spam. It makes no effort to argue the notability of the web magazine or that it's had much impact in the world at all. Wikipedia is not a resource for drumming up traffic for your site. Needless to say, my opinion is delete. Reyk 07:02, 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, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Petricevich

Many claims of notability but no sources cited. Virtually impossible to verify any details in the article.Delete TheRingess 07:46, 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 keep. Ichiro 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles

There are many music charts on Wikipedia. This is totally unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not some place to look at a radio station's music charts. This should be deleted. Terence Ong Talk 08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, this is clearly magazine material. Delete spam. -MegamanZero|Talk 08:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about all the other similar ones? 2004 Oricon Top 100 Singles, 2003 Oricon Top 100 Singles, 2005 Oricon Top 20 Albums -- Mikeblas 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I will find time to nominate all these for AFD. --Terence Ong Talk 11:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OK. Here are some others you might review: KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1980,

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1981, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1982, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1983, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1984, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1985, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1986, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1987, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1988, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1989, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1990, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1991, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1992, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1993, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1994, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1995, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1996, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1997, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1998, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1999, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2000, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2001, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2002, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2003, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2004. -- Mikeblas 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all as unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 12:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per above. Sliggy 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn in light of Kappa's comments. I missed the significance of the Oricon chart; my error. No vote. Sliggy 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this nominated article, and delete all those listed by Mikeblas above, as unencyclopedic, for reasons I've argued on deletion pages before. Barno 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep like List of number-one hits (United States), helps wikipedia users find out what bands and songs were popular in Japan in 2005. Kappa 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, why are Japan's main music charts being compared with those of some random radio station in the US? Kappa 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Because it's a convenient way to explore what topics are acceptable and which aren't. KROQ is an influential station and an industry pioneer, BTW. -- Mikeblas 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it's convenient to compare a country of 100 million people to a radio station with maybe 1 million listeners. In fact it seems highly misleading. Kappa 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It's the topics that are being compared; nobody is comparing the country to the radio station. -- Mikeblas 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Let me reprase then: It's highly misleading to compare record sales in a large country with listener votes to a moderately-sized radio station. Kappa 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Did I do something that suggests I'm so deceitful or biased? I'm just pointing out similar topics -- countdown lists. If we want to establish a guideline, then maybe we'll find that guideline will include the scope of the countdown lists as a way to discern which should go and which should stay. -- Mikeblas 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand that there has been some concern that lists such as this are copyright problems. Does anyone know anything more about this? Jkelly 18:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa —Wahoofive (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all Oricon charts. End the bias. -- JJay 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa, as much as I dislike music charts in general. However the code really needs to be changed to something much simpler and easier to edit, either just a list, like those KROQ articles or a more clean table using class="wikitable" (see usage example at Pieces of You, scroll down). Can I go ahead and do this to the Oricon articles or should I wait until the AfD is over? --Qirex 03:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and cleaned 'em up. -- Jonel | Speak 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep - This is the equivalent of the American Billboard Charts in Japan. There is a widening American audience for Japanese pop music, much of which is obtained here by importing the CDs, CD-R and mp3 trading, etc., and many of the artists that make this chart are notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. --CJ Marsicano 07:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all chart lists. Uncencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a database hoster. JoaoRicardotalk 20:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. Japanese singles and albums chart information is obtained from this chart. The site is extremely notable (Alexa ranking of 2,286). It is similar to deleting the Rolling Stone magazine lists. -- ReyBrujo 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. This page is a good resource for music fans. It's an organized list and is accurate. This is one of the few English sites that houses all of this data.--Stzr3 20:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of the few place with accurate sales figures and there are a lot of anonymous users changing figures back and forth. KittenKlub 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. If we kill off this, we may as well start hacking at the Billboard charts listed. As mentioned above, JPop, Shibuya-kei and such are becoming more and more popular in the US and other English speaking nations, and this is one indicator of that popularity.--Mitsukai 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge, er, somewhere. Maybe to Soul Calibur mystical weapons? (You lot could express yourselves a bit more clearly on AFDs.) - ulayiti (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Edge (sword)

It makes little sense to make two new seperate articles that basically split Soul Calibur mystical weapons word by word. Also note that the mystical weapons article was here long before these and these supposedly "new" seperate Soul Calibur articles just sprung up. Even the Images have been blatently reused again. Delete for redundancy, as any new info incorparated into the "new" seperate articles can be added back into the oringinal. MegamanZero|Talk 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. Place the relevant information into the parent article and leave a redirect to discourage recreation. Movementarian 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, as Movementarian suggests. -- Mikeblas 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wouldn't vote to keep, say, an article on Setsuka's iaito. But the Soul Edge and Soul Calibur are very much central to the plot of this very popular and notable series of games. They're what everybody is fighting over, and thus the driving force behind the story. Compare Master Sword and Death Star, or just about anything on List of fictional swords or List of fictional weapons. "Soul Edge" gets 111,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Not enough to each warrent an article however. See Soul Calibur mystical weapons, which is the oringinal article; stealing information and making two seperate ones is needlesly redundant. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep again per above. -- JJay 00:17, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Calibur (sword)

Blatent redundancy in the clearest sense of the word. Strong Delete per same reason as the Soul edge article above. MegamanZero|Talk 08:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. Place the relevant information into the parent article and leave a redirect to discourage recreation. Movementarian 10:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, as Movementarian suggests. -- Mikeblas 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wouldn't vote to keep, say, an article on Setsuka's iaito. But the Soul Edge and Soul Calibur are very much central to the plot of this very popular and notable series of games. They're what everybody is fighting over, and thus the driving force behind the story. Compare Master Sword and Death Star, or just about anything on List of fictional swords or List of fictional weapons. "Soul Calibur" gets 1,710,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
But there's no reason to split them up into two articles. See Soul Calibur mystical weapons which is the oringinal article that these two were taken from. Also, the Soul Calibur mystical weapons article was here first. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. - SAMAS 11 January 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imran Yousafzai

is this guy for real? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • if only. Speedy deleteKerowyn 09:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 09:50Z
  • Delete. Qwertyca 10:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googling doesn't find any medics of this name. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Hoax. NN ComputerJoe 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:45, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as probably hoax. Stifle 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Who's his biographer, Baghdad Bob? Speedy delete.--Mitsukai 16:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Laamu Atoll. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudafares

I have been working on redirecting all the uninhabited substub islands to their respective atolls, personally I think that an article "X is one of the uninhabited islands in Y atoll" is so devoid of content that it warrants deletion for that reason, but I cannot be bothered to start up AFD debates for all of them. Now, this article is not a substub however, there is a claim to notability, but I cannot verify it at all. A Google search on "Patricia Raglin Kudafares" turned up nothing. Suggest either outright deletion or redirection to Laamu Atoll without merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Laamu Atoll. --Oblivious 09:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, if the part about it being an island in the Laamu Atoll is true. This is the only non-Wikipedia source I found about it. -- Kjkolb 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Kjkolb B.ellis 16:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Laamu Atoll. Preaky 06:14, 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 and put more editors on cleanup. - ulayiti (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Greg

Not notable Kerowyn 08:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete TheRingess 08:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a notable Internet meme. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 09:49Z
  • Delete how is this notable? what a waste of space. Bartimaeus 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely non-notable. Whats more, the fact that this stayed on clean-up for over a year without being AfDed suggests to me that clean-up tags don't work. Jdcooper 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment We need more bold editors in the cleanup section. I think most people have their pet topics and are hesitant to deal with anything outside of those topics. Kerowyn 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I would like to think that I am one of those, its very rewarding, I have learnt an awful lot about Maltese nobility, amongst other things, in the recent weeks since I have been going through clean-up articles. It should be some kind of WikiProject maybe? Jdcooper 03:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quarl. Many thousands of G hits. -- JJay 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a notable meme. As comparison, all your base are belong to us gets 479,000 Google hits, while this gets about 20,000. JoaoRicardotalk 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fictcruft. Stifle 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. a legit internet meme. space is not an issue. Kingturtle 09:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment since when did wikipedia become the archive of every irrelevant piece of crap in history. How about this articles next Places Hugh Grant has been to the toilet or Types of stones most likely to get caught in your shoes. Bartimaeus 10:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose the argument would be that what is irrelevant piece of crap to John is fascinating and relevant knowledge to Harry. Its the job of consensus to get a happy medium. I am an inclusionist, generally, but you have to have limits. "Super Greg" is past the limit. Jdcooper 14:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington Academy of Hope

lovely organization but the article sounds like a press release and it's non notable. We can't include *every* charitable group and this looks like a generic one. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.--Ezeu 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably one of the few doing this work with Uganda. -- JJay 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Woohookitty. Stifle 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. yes, we can include most registered charitable group. Kingturtle 09:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew L. Kireker

non-notable, fails WP:Bio Krich (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Movementarian 10:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've speedy deleted this article for CSD A7. --Deathphoenix 14:12, 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 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakurani Gallage

Appears to be about a Bollywood actor. Problems are no Google hits, no references and so perhaps unverifiable. In addition, the filmography does not look particularily impressive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I watch bollywood movies quite often, read about stars in magazines etc and I've never so much as heard about this woman, let alone seen her in a movie. Qwertyca 10:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax. The IMDb entry for Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna gives full cast, and there's no mention of her or the character it's claimed she plays. Tearlach 12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable/hoax per Qwertyca, Tearlach. As a caveat for Google searches: sometimes Indian names have grossly varying translations. I once found an article whose subject as spelled had 5 unrelated Google hits, but I eventually found him in IMDb under a similar name. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:45Z
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:45, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tavisha Hewa-Gamage

Same concerns as with Sakurani Gallage (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakurani Gallage). Trouble with verifiability and filmography is not particularly impressive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is obviously a fraud - it claims that the person won the Miss Universe 2005 paegeant and yet the very same Miss Universe page that it links to lists the winner for 2005 as someone else. That plus the fact that google returns no results (plus that I've never heard of this person inspite of being fairly familiar with bollywood personalities) means this should be speedily deleted. Qwertyca 10:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax. The IMDb entry for Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna gives full cast, and there's no mention of her. Tearlach 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable/hoax per Qwertyca, Tearlach. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:46Z
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:45, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zornik

Was nominated for speedy, bringing it here for a vote...appears to be minor band with a few googles. Delete MONGO 10:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep ComputerJoe 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It obviously needs cleanup, its to 'ra ra six boom ba' for me, but they do have an album out. B.ellis 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. I cleaned up a bit. JoaoRicardotalk 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notability is not an issue, if I may quote Jimbo himself: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. But if you want to make it an issue, here goes.
Guideline:
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Article:
  • The band made it to the finals of HUMO's Rock Rally rock contest.
Same guideline:
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.
Article:
  • There the band was spotted by Parlophone Belgium
Perhaps the article could use some cleaning up, making it clearer that Zornik meets the guidelines. - MB (Talk) 19:26, 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 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Bracey

The article is fake. I am from Thomasville and this is a local resident who is still alive. Nothing is verifiable. Gogogadget55 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as vandalism/attack/nn-bio. Stifle 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. per nom. Obina 00:22, 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 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robotherapy

A thinly disguised ad; the only real references on Robotherapy that I can find all point to that same website. Mikeblas 10:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom dr.alf 13:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deltete as advertosement. Deathawk 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:45, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom.Obina 23:44, 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 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gegger

Appears to be a non-notable neologism with very little currency. Stifle 10:54, 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 "just being a bishop is no assertion of notability, just like being a singer alone isn't". -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Stevens

No assertion of notability, not notable bio. --Gary Kirk (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't think just being a Bishop is enough Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think that being a bishop just scrapes into notability. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per squiddy Jcuk 13:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all bishops. ReeseM 14:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Minor, but notable figure B.ellis 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being a Bishop lends adequate notability. —gorgan_almighty 17:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all. -- JJay 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. being bishop is enough. Kingturtle 09:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of city nicknames in the United States

This article is a list of loosely associated topics (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), many of the entries appear to be original research, and it sadly fails to meet the verifiability policy. Any nicknames for a city can be placed in the city's article, where they can be properly referenced and reviewed by editors familiar with the city. In practice, it is impossible to maintain this article up to Wikipedia standards. Dalbury(Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep All of the nominator's arguments are wrong imo. It is not indiscrimate because it is restricted to nicknames of cities in the United States. That's a pretty clear set of parameters. I totally fail to see the relevance of the point about original research; any of these names must be widely known so many people could have added them without doing research and many are also given in many secondary sources. If both of these ways of sourcing information are prohibited every single wikipedia article will have to be deleted. The claim that it is not verifiable is patently false. If there are some that are not verifiable remove them as errors, otherwise read the articles about google to discover how easily facts can be checked on the internet. Finally the article is edited almost everyday, and many different contributors have participated, so prospects for continuing improvement are excellent as it isn't just one person's random idea. ReeseM 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please read What Wikipedia is not, No original research and Verifiability, which are official policies of Wikipedia. -- Dalbury(Talk) 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, a better recommendation would be to read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Despite the assertion above that these nicknames are given in secondary sources, not a single one of them is accompanied by a citation in the article. Indeed, there are only two or three sources cited in the article at all (one of which is a source cited to disprove an element of the article). It would not be unreasonable for editors to come along and remove almost the entire content of the article and require that nothing be re-added unless a source was cited for it. This has happened to other lists. I strongly recommend that the authors of the article begin citing sources for each nickname immediately in order to prevent this. Uncle G 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You misread all the policies. The vote is overwhelmingly on my side. ReeseM 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as ReeseM. Skyscrap27 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Interesting list, but probably needs some attribution, etc B.ellis 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've read the policies and IMO this violates none of them, plus it's interesting in its own right. 23skidoo 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This List of City Nicknames is so interesting, alot of them are right and some of them are wrong. I would hate to see the article on List of City Nicknames get deleted. It would be very sad to see that happen. JeffreyAllen1975 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's right on target with the city nicknames I know, including the caveat that natives never call San Francisco "Frisco." Could use better sourcing, but on the whole an above average Wikipedia list. Durova 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The nominator should review Wikipedia policies about reversions and deletions. I noticed he or she removed several recent additions to Florida including the Jax for Jacksonville: I've reinstated that with the obvious link to the city's international airport code. Durova 21:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Did you also notice that 'Jax' was just one of three nicknames I reverted, none of which had any citation? [[Wikipedia:Verification clearly says that I would also note that airport codes are not the same thing as nicknames (I've never heard anyone call Tallahassee 'TLH', for example, although I did live there for a while). As it happens, 'Jax' has a long standing as a nickname for Jacksonville (well before the airport code was assigned), and I have a reliable hardcopy source for it, but I have to find the book, as I don't add unsourced material to articles. I'll add the citation after I find the book. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • you'd have been lax to do anything else! :) BL kiss the lizard 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • If everyone took your extreme hardline, Wikipedia would never have got off the ground. What matters is whether information is true or not. ReeseM 00:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent use of the list format. -- JJay 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. And I disagree about airport codes -- they aren't often used, but they're pretty well established where they are used. Around New England PVD seems to be pretty universally understood as shorthand for Providence. Haikupoet 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This was a completely unacceptable nomination for afd. The nominator should have his/her editing powers suspended.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I agree with some of the other posters that this probably needs some work, but several of these are well known (at least regionally).Rt66lt 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Very useful and encyclopedic list. Of course WP:NOR and other WP policies are applicable here, and that means improve, not delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep older≠wiser 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Verifiable place nicknames are a valuable and legitimate entry, and this is a good use of the list format with strong and narrow parameters, and I can easily see this as a reference source for many Wiki users. Nhprman 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. nothing is invented in this article. all the information exists. it is just being brought together under one list. it is NOT original research. according to wikipedia, original research is "novel narrative or historical interpretation". that's not what this is. Kingturtle 09:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as noted above.--Mitsukai 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Oricon Top 100 Singles

Delete Music charts are unencyclopedic, they do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Music charts can be viewed somewhere else but not here. Terence Ong Talk 11:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, like Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 2005 (USA). A good way for readers to find articles about notable Japanese musicians and songs. Kappa 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Scoo 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa —Wahoofive (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Japanese pop music just as important as American charts. -- JJay 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa, both here and at AfD: 2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles --Qirex 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Merging all the Oricon charts would make the article extremely long. -- ReyBrujo 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a good resource and deserves a spot here. All of the info is accurate and gives people a good place to find information about the top singles of a particular year. --Stzr3 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. why send people somewhere else? Kingturtle 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Oricon Top 100 Singles

I don't see why Wikipedia needs articles about music charts. This is unencyclopedic, though an inclusionist, many of these article needs to go. This articles are nuisance to Wikipedia. Terence Ong Talk 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, like Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 2005 (USA). A good way for readers to find articles about notable Japanese musicians and songs. Kappa 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Scoo 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa —Wahoofive (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. We need more coverage of Japanese pop music. -- JJay 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa, both here and at AfD: 2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles --Qirex 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Not every top 100 needs its own article. Create one article with information on several similar charts and include links to the artists mentioned. - MB (Talk) 11:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Merging all the Oricon charts would make the article extremely long. -- ReyBrujo 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. This is a good resource for single sells.
  • keep. this information is very useful to people interested in music charts. Kingturtle 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Oricon Top 20 Albums

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or some music chart board. This is unencyclopedic by nature and it does not deserve a place here. So speedy delete this article. Terence Ong Talk 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, like Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 2005 (USA). A good way for readers to find articles about notable Japanese musicians and songs. Kappa 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Scoo 19:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa —Wahoofive (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. More coverage of Japanese music is good. -- JJay 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa, both here and at AfD: 2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles --Qirex 11:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Japanese singles and albums chart information is obtained from this chart. The site is extremely notable (Alexa ranking of 2,286). It is similar to deleting the Rolling Stone magazine or the Billboard lists. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page deserves a spot here. An encylopedia is about holding information and knowledge, and this page has a lot of information about the top-selling Japanese albums of the year. --Stzr3 20:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. this is encyclopedic. Kingturtle 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryu-Ha Shin-Ninjitsu

I found this on CSD. It doesn't look like a speedy candidate, but it is basically an advert so it probably should be deleted. JeremyA 2 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

  • Probably advertising, definitely not notable. Delete. Fire Star 2 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
  • Delete This is pure ad, and not notable -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)
  • Delete promo. Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge into crossbuck. - ulayiti (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbuck safety

content doesn't seem to be encyclopedic in nature – delete – Klparrot 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Despite the assertions here, I see no OR on the page. There is no original spin as the examples are all taken from the International Railway Journal- hence they can all be sourced. -- JJay 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead says: "This article is examining Crossbuck Safety, comparing different crossbucks used around the world, to see which might be better and which might be worse." This sounds like a research project to me. JoaoRicardotalk 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Looking at the page it's fairly obvious that the creator is trying to provoke an original research project, which Wikipedia does not allow. Deathawk 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into crossbuck. (Some of the same info is in that article anyway.) Crypticfirefly 03:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An attempt at original research. JoaoRicardotalk 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but re-write to remove what sounds like original research. the comparisons are nice. interesting article. Kingturtle 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As far as original research projects go this one is actually quite good. Does anyone know of another wiki out there where original research projects are allowed? One of the Wikicities perhaps? This article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but it seems a shame to just delete it. —gorgan_almighty 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the non-OR material into Crossbuck -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense (by another admin, i'm just closing the AfD page). DES (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon wiley

Unverifiable slang term, maybe fake. WP:NOT a dictionary anyway. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:39, 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. -- Jonel | Speak 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem syndrome

Delete This article is expressing a theory derived mainly by one source (Bar-El), which isn't credited and reputable - also the study conducted isn't enough to prove there actually is a syndrome since there were few cases studied - in type III only 42 persons in 13 years period, and there was no actual evidence they had not mental problems before. As for the other types when thre are million of tourists going to jerusalem every year, some are bound to have mental problems of their own - and that's hardly news and certainly not a theory! Ricardo Silva 12:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep After re-reading Wikipedia principles and the article in question I was convinced by the opinions expressed by the voters below. Unsigned by Ricardo Silva on January 6 2006
  • Speedy keep. This has been published in peer reviewed journals. Reference section cites sources of opposition to the syndrome, and the article is written in a neutral way. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Welsh. Scoo 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting article. The fact that the issue has been seriously discussed makes it important enough as a concept, whether it actually is a real phenomenon or not. u p p l a n d 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. It's well written, Wikified, and sourced to legitimate peer reviewed journals. Wikipedia should have more articles like this. Durova 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This syndrome has been debated in peer reviewed medical literature (see yurl.com/abh49 articles on PubMed). The talk page also makes clear it's been the subject of works of art / film as well. Disclaimer: I'm one of the original authors of the article, but I thought it's worth pointing out the existing literature. Unsigned by Vaughan on January 6 2006
  • Keep. I wrote the "Jerusalem-Syndrom"-article for the german wikipedia. It's much worse...cu in paradise:Jesus..sorry:---Capa 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Keep. Whether or not the Jerusalem syndrome is a distinct psychological affliction, it is a widely-known phenomenon that deserves its own entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.240.14 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes maybe the tone of the article should be "corrected" to indicate that this is a cultural phenomenon and not a mental issue... --80.98.38.69 01:39, 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 speedied. r3m0t talk 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Near Life

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete Album "Of Love and Illusions" was recorded at Prairie Sun Recordings, a credible studio. NoraNl12345 13:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 13:23, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Pyramid of Giza: alternative theories

An absolutely clear-cut case of original research with no presentation of evidence or verification of allegations. Delete Zunaid 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if not OR, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but there are no sources cited. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Moreover, this looks like a POV fork from Great Pyramid of Giza. This author has also added information on alternative theories to that article, part of which was reverted as POV. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR, reads like OR to me. PJM 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. --Bachrach44 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks OR because of the lack of references. Also violates POV in various places. I do think an article about alternative theories has a place in here, but the alternative theory has to be documented etc. Mystman666 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research and POV - no sources cited. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite I suggested something like this article as a way to clear the non-mainstream theories out of Great Pyramid of Giza. There's all kinds of crazy stuff written about pyramids (such as this article as it stands), but some of the craziness is at least notable, in the same way that some JFK conspiracies are notable. Unfortunately, there appears to be a high correlation between believing alternative theories and being unable to write neutral prose. jmstylr 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • From the article: "much that is written about any of these buildings is only hypothesis and conjecture." Yes, especially this article. Delete in agreement with Mystman666 and most other voters. Barno 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:43, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • rewite / build This is in the process of being re-written and has received some initial amendments. However, some people would serve themselves and (more importantly) the audience of Wikipedia greater if they examined the mainstream version they are necessarily protecting, examined the evidence offered in some of the alternatives, and didn't simply dismiss something just because Graham Hancock also wrote it in a book! This page can and is being re-written - it is a process, just as some tweaks to bring neutrality were necessary and made to the 'main page'. Build the page, correct the bits that are not NPOV, and allow it to house the bits that otherwise will overflow to the 'standard theory' page. It is, after all, mostly arguable theory on both sides of the coin. FYI I am perfectly capable of writing neutral prose, although i do have my opinions; sometimes they sneak out. I'm sure you wouldn't do the same...--Genesis 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thought I'd have a go at trying to rewrite the article to achieve NPOV and remove unverified evidence, but I had to give up after only a few paragraphs. The article is just too POV (e.g. "These archaeologists claim that this amounts to sufficient evidence to state their model as though it were fact.") and makes both "extraordinary" and EXTREMELY VAGUE claims without citation (e.g. "The problem for any dating is that the age of the rock is of no help...") . You'd have to remove so much of it to get it into an encyclopedic state that you'd be left with no more than a few lines. Zunaid 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment NPOV doesn't mean it must adhere to the standard point of view, yet in this case it has to state itself as different from the standard. Making any mention of its claims (apparently, dating an ancient building based on the discovery of a small amount of circumstantial evidence, from debris found excavated near by, DOESN'T comprise an extraordinary claim then?) is interpreted as against the neutral, yet its actually just against the common view. Not so long ago, the NPOV was that women were less important than men... to suggest different would have been considered outlandish, and any proof offered through logic considered unsubstantial. Things change. Sometimes. FYI what is 'wrong' about the statement 'dating the rock is no help'? it's a fact, surely! Dating the age of the rock is completely useless in dating the age of a building! this is an example of an un-neutral viewpoint taking editorial action on a piece; the veracity of the statements doesn't actually matter.--194.73.217.241 (Genesis) 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Read the sentence again. As it stands here. Or in the article. It seems entirely counter-intuitive in both cases. IANAArcheologist but surely the purpose of dating is to determine the age of the rock, so how does that statement make any kind of sense? Zunaid 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • ...they don't date the rock itself; they don't date the actual building!? They date circumstantial evidence from the surrounding area; usually this has some authority, because the finds are clearly related. However, in the circumstances of the Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau, the evidence has been very meagre to come by. Thus they have found very little by way of viable archaeological finds, with nothing substantial to tie them to the actual building of the pyramid. Usually, with tombs, they have plenty of evidence by way of carvings or painting on the walls, non-gold artefacts left by the raiders... they have actual evidence tying the location to a person or event, even a god. It is not the case with the Great Pyramid. The question raised in some of the alternative theories of the age has been how valid the dating of these finds is. Yet, according to all the above, and discussions elsewhere, stating this is deemed outside the NPOV. That is to misconstrue, however, the meaning of NPOV. Neutral is not merely the mainstream view. Neutral is balance between opposing valid arguments, where they exist, and having the articles not express personal opinions. It is also exposing weaknesses in arguments where they exist. I am endeavouring to do the same to the alternatives, but at the moment I spend more of my limited time defending their right to exist than doing this. --Genesis 16:37, 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 as a non-topic. - ulayiti (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal_body_disposal

WP:NOT Not really notable, not really a topic. May be possible to expand, but as it stands, there's just nothing of substance here. Justin Eiler 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) - this was me, must have hit the tilde one too many times -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or bury in a hole. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't anything more than a list of methods of getting rid of stuff. Not useful for research. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Just as interesting as Human body disposal, which also describes how to get rid of stuff. -- JJay 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain: as I am not aware of the nitty-gritty of such things, particularly as I am a vegetarian (smiles). --Bhadani 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete before it rot or someone eat it. Scoo 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:42, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is an excellent idea; it just needs to become more professional. --Julie-Anne Driver 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. just like [[Human body disposal. give this one time to grow. Kingturtle 09:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlad Tepes (band)

Though the article states the band has 10 releases, most appear to be demos[4]. Abstain. PJM 13:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Unless proof of at least a minor label signing, non-notable B.ellis 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 1) I've heard of these guys and I don't know #@%! about death metal 2) "Vlad Tepes" metal gets 43,600 hits on Google, most of which seem to mention the band. Wisco 04:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete currently rather unverifiable. Stifle 01:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Black Legions Metal was released on France's Drakkar Productions in 1996. They are a very important band as far as The Black Legions are concerned. Skuspar 22:08, 8 January 2006
  • Keep Many of these albums have in fact been put out by End All Life and Drakkar, so they have had "at least minor label" consideration. skullfission 22:08, 8 January 2006
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seem fairly notable -- Astrokey44|talk 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable band in the black metal community. Themusicking 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farm_cove_observatory

WP:NOT There may be some notability, but the article was originally nominated for expansion back on 4 Dec 2005, and there's been no activity since then. It's been asserted that the article was originally created as part of a wiki-war. I'm wondering if there's anything here worth keeping. Justin Eiler 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete nothing on google (112 hits) indicates notability MNewnham 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — Actually slightly notable for assisting with the discovery of a planet by means of microlensing.[5] But I think it can be merged into the Stardome Observatory article, where Jennie McCormick works as an educator. — RJH 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per above. -- JJay 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it may be somewhat notable but I doubt it will get expanded. Themusicking 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — if it's somewhat notable, then it can be merged with something later. —Cleared as filed. 06:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Someone sets up a private amatuar observatory and it is here? This needs to be either deleted or merged - there is no references for this either. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Just because it isn't a three-volume novel doesn't mena it's too short to be an entry. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and no notability asstered. Zunaid 10:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified Pintele Yid 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Pearce

Non-notable; he may have been notable 150 years ago, if slightly, according to the article. CDN99 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per WP:Bio ComputerJoe 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a vanity and it may even help someone. Skyscrap27 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. PJM 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Not really notable, but *shrug* B.ellis 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, debatable whether he was notable even in his time, let alone today. Suggest that a good look be taken at all articles created by Whaleto (talk · contribs) to see if they are attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia or attempts to pack it with any and all historical figures whose views coincide with his agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • After carefully reading his agenda, I think this article deserves NPOV. Skyscrap27 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if he was notable 150 years ago, he's notable now, and he has entered the historic record. Kappa 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, somewhat notable and also published [6] Jcuk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't indicate how widely those publications were distributed though. I have more "publications" available to the public than Pearce does, but I don't merit an article. --CDN99 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First notable medical anti-vaccinator. john 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Note: John, a.k.a. Whaleto, is the article's author.
    • How does that square with what the article claims, which is that he was "one of the first to unite with Mr. John Gibbs in the scientific opposition to vaccination"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Gibbs wasn't a medical man, he rounded up some of the 'science', so I believe. john 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • "So you believe?" Articles can't be based on what you believe John. --CDN99 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks important based strictly on the article. -- JJay 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also very impressive references/published works. Article needs to be expanded, I believe. -- JJay 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't even begin to approach notability, then or now. Soltak | Talk 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. this is fascinating. the history of opposition to anti-vaccination, an issue which is still alive today. Kingturtle 09:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As evident from e.g. the Google test (WP:BIO), Pearce is seen as important, and therefore notable, by the current anti-vaccination movement and, although in a negative sense, by his contemporary and posthumous opponents. Pearce's work is directly linked with a fork or schism in medical history where those departing from the mainstream have had a notable and, so far, increasing impact (positive or negative depending on one's viewpoint) both societally and medically.  AvB ÷ talk 10:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: Noteworthy. Ombudsman 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overinnovation

Non-notable word/topic. 156 Google hits. ComputerJoe 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. [7]. PJM 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. It makes sense. Skyscrap27 14:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. B.ellis 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Skyscrap27. Shows up in some scholarly articles. -- JJay 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. —Ruud 21:13, 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. Punkmorten 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brigitte Peucker

Not a notable enough person to warrant an enyclopedic entry. Crunch 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I still say Delete even though suddenly today after months of inactivity someone in obvious response to the AfD notice came in and added parts of her resume to try to make the article more notable. Crunch 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is another obvious keep of a notable academic. She has published three books and probably many articles, and she has a leading position at a major university. What else do you want? We include professional baseball players just for being professional baseball players, as if that was something notable. Why exclude obviously important academics? The little work I did on the article probably didn't take more time than it took for you to list it here. u p p l a n d 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. An additional comment: I found all three of her books by searching in the Swedish National Library Catalogue Libris, and one of them, Incorporating images : film and the rival arts (1995), is held in nine of the Swedish research libraries included in the catalogue. I think this shows that she has a scholarly reputation that is not limited to American academia. u p p l a n d 16:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per Uppland Jcuk 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep notable, and published academic B.ellis 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough for Swedish research libraries. Kappa 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Uppland Dlyons493 Talk 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very impressive credentials. -- JJay 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • However, my point is that almost any tenured professor at a 4-year research university in the US could post his or her CV and show similarly impressive credentials. My question is, do we want Wikipedia to include all of these people? I'm not sure. Crunch 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As I pointed out above, we already include every 20-year old who has been payed by someone to play ball publicly. And I am not sure what you mean by "4-year research university". Anything "4-year" in the U.S. is, I assume, a college, not a research university. u p p l a n d 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. she's a PROFESSOR at YALE. Kingturtle 09:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cap and Gown Club

Is an eating club from Princeton really that notable? I don't think so. This article attempts to establish notability by listing some celebrities, and it's been around for a while, but I wanted to nominate it here to see what the community thinks of the notability of this club. --Deathphoenix 14:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's as notable as any other student society/group which has been included in Wikipedia. Andrew73 14:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. See Eating clubs (Princeton University). PJM 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep notable and historic princeton society B.ellis 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. -- JJay 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relatively old (1891 according to homepage), some celebrities. Do we need a notability guideline for student societies? It might possibly help the creators of such pages to understand what is significant from the POV of an outsider. Or is that just instruction creep? u p p l a n d 10:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. interesting. historic. Kingturtle 09:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phoebe2.com

Great concept, but is it really notable? Wrathchild 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This borders on advertising but appears to be a description of the site and its features rather than a reproduction of promotional literature. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa ranking of 4,705,067. JoaoRicardotalk 19:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert of a non-notable website. Stifle 01:15, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire and Steel

Vanity. (Author's only work. Only one author, except one edit. Non-notable.) Skyscrap27 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ther are at least 144 unique google hits on ("Fire and Steel"+ reenactment). The organization is apparently invloiced in rtegional and some wider activities. Re-enactment and living histroy in general are very notable activities, adn this socitiey seems to be ate least soemwhat notable in those fields. Weak keep. DES (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep per DES or redirect to Australian Men Without Girlfriends MNewnham 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete I am curious exactly how many people are involved. I'm not yet convinced whether this is more notable than my good friend's mother's bridge club, which has 40 or 50 members, yet is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I don't know that 144 google hits is notable. --Habap 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. The article itself describes this as a "local club." --Thunk 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete local, small, nn vanity WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity Pintele Yid 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purananoorru

This appears to be a hoax. Bachrach44 14:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I got 188 hits. Not much, but it's likely not something that one person invented. We should contact someone familiar with the issue. Punkmorten 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Purananuru (that gets 35,000 google hits) and keep the redirect. It looks notable and verifiable enough based on this amazon link. - Bobet 17:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I cleaned the article up a bit to make it more presentable. - Bobet 18:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now keep per Bobet. Punkmorten 10:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as random poem collection with little notability. Stifle 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, how can a 2,000 year old poem anthology that people still care enough about to translate be not notable? - Bobet 01:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Purananuru or Purananooru Tintin Talk 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Purananuru; create a redirect from Purananooru. --Gurubrahma 05:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tintin =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's a very significant piece [of] work in ancient Tamil literature. Move and keep the redirect per Gurubrahma. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to more common spelling. --King of All the Franks 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, move title to "Puraana-nooru" or "Purana-nooru", maybe without hyphen if people prefer not to have it. ImpuMozhi 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Seconding Sundar. Kingsleyj 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. most certainly encyclopedic. Kingturtle 09:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - GaneshkT/C\@ 13:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep by moving - as per Gurubrahma and Tintin --ΜιĿːtalk 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shamaranne Park

while verifiable, is a trailer park encyclopedic? Seems a lot like advertising to me.-- Syrthiss 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — small family park; non-notable. — RJH 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per RJH. No Guru 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. NeoJustin 18:42, January 7, 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ShixxNOTE LAN Messenger

Non-notable program, ~500 Google hits, vanity (article is written by the programmer) r3m0t talk 15:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Other competitive programs are described. It is notable program. Article is re-written by someone else after despute about copyvio and vanity. more details on Talk:ShixxNOTE LAN Messenger --Moravek 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think I put enough reason to keep it. --Moravek 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    article creator r3m0t talk 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am one of authors (more than one) of the article, but not a programer of program described in article. 1st article is deleted, then I re-make article, R3m0t delete it (2nd version) because of copivio (that is put in case by Perfecto and talk about on talk page) but 3rd time it is re-created by Sirola. --Moravek 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Importance asserted. Strong keep. These things needed the {{Importance}} or {{Not verified}} tag, not sent here. -- Perfecto 17:55, 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 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key Characters

Non-encyclopedic / Non-notable KHM03 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - presumably this relates to Venclate (also AFD'd, see below,) otherwise it's complete bollocks. Essexmutant 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research probably by the author of the supposed game about a non-notable subject under a broad title. - Bobet 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:22, 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 03:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ankur

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertisement. Punkmorten 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.--Mitsukai 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nothing encyclopedic in the current contents/ NN too. --Bhadani 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:41, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note however that the term "Ankur" has a significant meaning in Indic languages. Also, there is a GNU/Linux Open Source project by this name as well. Another article with the same title but of such context could be expected. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arena51

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it is not notable enough to even merge with Skynet. Themusicking 04:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baldati

This page was nominated for speedy deletion by Khoikhoi with the reason "It is advertising...". This is currently not a criterion for speedy deletion so I have moved the nomination here. No vote. Stifle 14:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. The creator was User:Baldati.com and the whole article just talks about how great the website is. --Khoikhoi 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Advert. — RJH 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a copyvio from [8]. I'm tagging it as so. JoaoRicardotalk 21:04, 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 speedy kept NSLE (T+C) 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Grammar School

This page is subject to high levels of bias towards this establishment. Wikipedia's goal is to give only the facts to readers, not an article creator's view of the facts. This line if of particular disturbance however: "the school's success is due to a well-rounded curriculum, skilled teaching staff, strong work ethic and a school-wide academic focus". No lines such as this should be featured in Wikipedia articles, as not only do they offend patrons of this online service, but they have no basis or evidence to support them. The reason this article should be deleted instead of changed, however, is because much of the information is misleading and/or deceptive. For example, the information that "BGS has consistently outranked all other Queensland high schools" is false. How is this statement justified, and upon what is it based? Also, "In most sports that BGS competes in, it ranks well compared to other schools". Where is the evidence? I have checked records of the school and found that in many sports it does not rank well, rather faltering quite near the bottom of the GPS competition's ladder. In conclusion, much, if not all of the Brisbane Grammar School article is plagued by bias and clearly deceptive information. This article cannot be redeemed, and must be deleted. Paaerduag 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article on the whole seems appropriate. If there are incorrect or over stated claims, they should be corrected.--agr 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and clean up, as per the schools policy Jcuk 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Notable and appropriate, perhaps cleanup B.ellis 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Remove incorrect statements, not whole articles! If you think this has a high level of bias, who haven't seen some of the other articles that get created. JPD (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. User contributions are this afd and user page edits - the whole thing smacks of a bad faith nomination. Please stop wasting time, there are far more productive things we could be doing. Natgoo 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • More likely someone has just gotten a little fuzzy on the distinction between AfD and cleanup. Let's assume good faith. rodii
      • As this AFD was the first edit from Paaerduag, he might not have been aware that articles can be cleaned up without being deleted. -- JJay 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. rodii 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Jcuk ComputerJoe 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - are you seriously suggesting that you want one of Brisbane's Greater Public Schools deleted entirely because of few lines of bias!! Mate, simply remove the lines in question, place a notice at the top of the article and leave a message on the talk page just like you would with any other biased article. Do not put it up for deletion, especially if it is a high school. This school far and away meets the requirements of WP:SCH so therefore this article should be KEPT!!! Thankyou -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the standard reasons above. -- JJay 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep because consensus is strong keep per WP:SCH, and nomination is for cleanup, not for deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:49Z
  • I am fully aware of the ability to clean up an article, but this article needs to be deleted. I have the sneaking suspicion that the comments above have been posted by patrons or teachers at the school. Stop now, because Wikipedia does not tolerate such disgusting deceptive behaviour. 'Jcuk' made an alarming statement: "clean up, as per the schools policy". This only confirms my belief. What you are doing is absolutely disgusting. This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not conform to some school policy, it conforms to the Wikipedia policy. Now, unless you actually have something to say, all of you Brisbane Grammar School users keep your patriotic hoopla to yourselves. --138.130.222.209 00:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What Jcuk meant by "per the schools policy" (note lack of apostrophe) is not "per the policy of the Brisbane School" but rather "per the Wikipedia policy regarding school articles". Also, those of us that are here often and the administrator who will make the final decision can easily tell who is a meat/sock puppet. Please be civil; I don't appreciate your accusing us of "disgusting deceptive behaviour" on behalf of the school. I never even heard of it before this AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 00:54Z
  • Look, I am Paaerduag, and the above comment is mine. I am sick of you accusing me of things, because i didn't know at first what to do, and timestamp didn't work. keep your critical analyses to yourself, because i am Paaerduag, and I am admitting it.
  • I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an accusation of bad-faith puppetry - it was pretty obvious you were most likely the same user. I just meant that you should be careful in accusing the rest of us as meat/sock puppets. I'm willing to reconsider my position if you provide some real arguments for deleting the article (not just that the article is not NPOV). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:00Z
  • Keep It wouldn't have taken as long to amend the article as it did to write the nomination - which was certain to fail. CalJW 02:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per everyone else here pfctdayelise 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --King of All the Franks 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep What a joke! Why not discuss this on the talk page? Not delete the article. I sense this nomination was inspired by a personal dislike of the school. Smerk 13:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article as it stands is shows no bias above what is to be expected given Human Nature. I suspect, given the Tall Poppy Syndrome that surrounds the School, that Paaerduag is simply trying to harm the School (and satisfy himself) by putting this page up for deletion. While the page could be expanded (which is happeneing slowly), it should not be deleted.Theheadhunter 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you even dare to mention that I am leveling ENVY towards whatever this school is (I actually live in Canada), I resent you. I simply point out faults in the article, and that is all I have done. For you, 'Theheadhunter', to think I am guilty of a personal dislike for the establishment in question, you would be severely mistaken, and I think that YOU should keep your comments outside of this page because it is YOU that has emotional attachments to this school. Oh, and incase someone else is going to criticize me of lying about my identity, I assure you ALL that I am Paaerduag.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine

it should be coverd by 2 articles.

  • keep. I wrote this stub to do something about the topic that was started off with the wrong foot at the currently being at AfD article East Ukraine. The current name "East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine" may not be the best one and I would welcome any rename suggestion. The problem is that one can't introduce the reader to the concept of Eastern Ukraine without constantly referring to what in its history and demographics makes it different from Western Ukraine. One article, where the issue is discussed seems like the most convinient solution. For more, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ukraine and talk:East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine. This listing, OTOH, seems a retaliation of the author of East Ukraine for its being AfD listed (not by me BTW). Did I make a case for a speedy keep? --Irpen 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but probably merge as per merge tag in the article. This is a real divide and was most evident during the last election in Ukraine. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- jaredwf 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, can we stop this wasting time and close this vote by "speedy keep" so that we can concentrate on the article itself and, perhaps, a better name. Discussion is ongoing at the article's talk. --Irpen 04:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article should be merged with East Ukraine, and be developed -- Revolutionary.
  • Keep valid topic abakharev 03:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep . encyclopedic. Kingturtle 09:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hell, Grand Cayman

DELETE not very academic. WillC 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources cited or geographic or geologic information provided. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep seems to be a moderately notable tourist destination, stub it? B.ellis 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup - This could also be merged with the article on Grand Cayman--eleuthero 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. it's a tourist attraction, better than the Mystery Spot. by the way, i remember in 7th grade, a girl came back from spring break and bragged that she had been to Hell. Kingturtle 09:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page provides little to no actual help when one is reshearchingJaku23 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intracranial

Merge, at best...with the page on the brain. WillC 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to Wiktionary. We are not a dictionary. - CorbinSimpson 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Dictdef, and a Wictionary entry for this now exists. DES (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Stifle 01:15, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynette Roby

Her only "notable" act is that she lives in the town where a mine disaster took place and she talked about it to a CNN correspondent. All of this is already mentioned in 2006 Sago Mine disaster. (Even the article of the sole survivor of the disaster is being VFD-d, although I think he's more notable.) Alensha 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think it should be deleted. She's an important part of the media coverage of the event and how the incorrect information was rectified. That said, Roby and her children may not want the article included. But unless it's against her and her family's wishes, I reckon it should be left in. -- Contribution from Carlow, Ireland. 04:40 January 7, 2006 (GMT).
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The event is notable; she is not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed with the nomination -- Mystman666 | Talk 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:07Z
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:40, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at the very least Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. Crunch 19:13, 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. Punkmorten 16:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monaco Forever

Merge, at best...to the JCVD page unless this gets really fleshed out. WillC 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep notable movie (even if it's pretty bad) listed on IMDB. --W.marsh 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable movie. Kappa 16:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as real movie, but are you sure the running time is correct? 48 minutes sounds a little short. 23skidoo 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what the imdb gives. Kappa 20:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. I've actually seen this movie. Ekpardo
  • Keep, as notable. Carioca 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: just because it is in IMDb does not make it notable. they have every freaking film in there. Kingturtle 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE. -- Jonel | Speak 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My gym partner's a monkey

I afd'd this because the grammer is off, the show is called my gym partner is a monkey. I created that wiki and copied the text from this one

  • Delete Sethie 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge! This page adds the essential information that 'It is a comedy'. I had pegged as a drama for mature women. Eixo 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Kappa 16:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge at least the page histories since it was cut and paste moved. - Bobet 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. rodii 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Stifle 01:14, 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 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numerals invented by Hindus

  • Delete: Article exists at Hindu-Arabic numerals. Title POV fork. deeptrivia (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV+ fork. The title is incorrect, & POV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per deeptrivia. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. DES (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. rodii 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per deeptrivia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:08Z
  • Delete: per nominator. --Bhadani 06:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:40, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Comment: this appears to be part of an edit war with some people attempting to push the terminology "hindu numerals". --C S (Talk) 02:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL, there's hasn't been any such edit war! deeptrivia (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries going back through early December show edit warring between several other editors. The point of contention seems to be between those who find "Arabic numerals" biased for whatever reason and those who argue from common usageI took the recent push for "Hindu numerals" to be as part of this. If not, then sorry. --C S (Talk) 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a revert war mainly between two obscure editors who have since then disappeared. Their edit histories show that they never edited anything on wikipedia except that article. However, their revert war had nothing to do with naming of the article. I don't fully understand what exactly they were fighting for. Their discussion got hopelessly mixed with an independent discussion, in which there was a consensus built to rename the article to "Hindu-Arabic numerals", based on reasons that are summarized here. After this name change, there was another vote to change the name back to "Arabic numerals." The name was changed back to AN despite a verdict for HAN, but the admin reverted that change later. The current name change was done by another editor, and currently the matter is under discussion. At no point, however, did anyone propose "Hindu numerals" as the title. All I can remember is a comment by the editor who created this fork, asking why is there the word "Arabic" at all in the title. This editor didn't contribute to the discussion at Talk:Arabic numerals apart from his vote and this comment. deeptrivia (talk) 07:03, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Original (single)

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was presumeably because it's a single from The Original Doll (AfD discussion). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - unverified, WP:NOT Crystal ball. Also unencyclopedic ("it's gonna") Essexmutant 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball JoJan 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Stifle 01:14, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuki Okumura

  • DELETE not famous or notable. WillC 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP and rewrite Actually, on further consideration, DELETE. Maybe after more time as an "artist". He hasn't even graduated from school yet, and seems mostly focused on spittle and fingernail clippings. --nihon 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that the Japanese wikipedia doesn't have anything on this guy, not even a mention in another article. --nihon 05:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is true because Yuki Okumura is a newcomer in the Japanese art scene.However submitting a new entry about this artist later on must be considered, provided that he becomes more notable.--Kaishin 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if NN. - Rudykog 05:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Yuki Okumura is a outstanding Japanese postmodern artist of the Post-Murakami generation. That's why I deemed appropriate to write an entry about him.

Kaishin (talk · contribs)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN B.ellis 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would like to see some critical appraisal of his work and influence among his peers than just links to the artists' own site. That way, an opinion regarding notability can be ascertained. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:04, 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 and cleanup. Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Women in Yugoslavia in the Twentieth Century

Personal essay. Punkmorten 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Signed. Not encyclopedic as written, may violate WP:NOR. This editor's first contribution. Delete. DES (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm reluctant to vote delete on this page. It does cite sources and quote comments. It may well become a decent encyclopedic article given some cleanup. Pass — RJH 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup per RJHall. --eleuthero 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. There's a real article in there with several references. A seasoned Wikipedian needs to dress it up. Durova
  • Cleanup. Per Durova. Ekpardo 04:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just out of curiosity, will any of the "cleanup" voters actually help cleaning this up? JoaoRicardotalk 19:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already done a little as to the "clean up." I'm a new user and still learning.  :) Elizabeth 20:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research essay at its finest.  Grue  14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of laboratory animal suppliers in the UK

Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. This is almost certainly a method to co-ordinate terrorist activity. Slashme 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so bear with me. You mean like this: Wikipedia:Category? So each company would have its own page, with a bit about their history, and they would all be put into a category which would automatically generate a list of them? I hope eventually to write something about the history of the battle between animal rights and laboratory animal breeders in the UK, which has been in the news a lot over the past 10-15 years at least So this would need a page to itself, but then this page could be linked to the Category? So it acheives the same result by different means? Arfan2006 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a fan of lists in general, but I can't see any reason to single this one out. These are notable companies because what they do is regarded as controversial. They make no attempt to hide themselves, and the claim above that it's a method to coordinate "terrorist" activity makes little sense since anyone involved in opposing these companies will already know about them. The page satisfies the criteria at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and there's nothing in the deletion policy that would allow deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What about this list, for example?: List_of_motorcycle_manufacturers. I can't see it's any different other than the addresses not being present. Also, an outside directory will only have current companies and won't have it in its historical context. Would it be better if I removed the addresses from this page? Each company still links to its own individual page which could have these kind of details on. Arfan2006 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. These companies are the subject of noteworthy controversy in the UK, precisely because they supply lab animals. The list is therefore well-specified and related to a serious political subject. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed the addresses, but I haven't seen any sign of POV in Arfan's articles (despite the name), let alone incitement to terrorism. This sort of good quality coverage should be encouraged. --Last Malthusian 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article significantly improved since it was put on AfD. Essexmutant 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Article improved but could do with more work. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Seems like a category is better. -- JJay 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look into categories and it seems that a category can't have an introduction that ties it all together and explains the context and history behind the category as a whole. Also it requires that each member of the category have its own separate page, and some members may not warrant this, although they would still be noteworthy within the overall page. How is this problem usually handled? By having a standard entry *and* a category entry? Arfan2006 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've experimented with some categories and you can put an intro but the problem is it requires each item to have their own individual page and that isn't really appropriate e.g. I'd like to list all the Harlan premises that have closed separately, but at the moment they are all listed together on the main Harlan page, as I don't think they warrant their own pages. Arfan2006 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Terrorist activity? Please cite some ways in which a page violates Wikipedia guidelines before bringing something to AfD. Turnstep 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Because animal welfare groups have previously been known to attack places like those listed here, I think it is a valid page to be brought to AFD. I don't have an opinion on it, I abstain. Stifle 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I personally think 'WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors' can be extended to 'WP:NOT censored for the protection of anyone'. An early version of this article included full addresses including street and postcode, which I removed, though the current version includes area/city/county locations. --Last Malthusian 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information is already available without any intro's etc from many websites on the net - this would provide a good list for linking the current Animal Rights related articles to. Claiming it could be used for terrorist activity is like claiming a map could be. -localzuk 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. useful. Kingturtle 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

NO VOTES IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE.

I've changed my vote to a keep as above. Moving this down for reference. Essexmutant 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - there's simply no purpose to this. Essexmutant 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What Wikipedia guidelines does this article break? I think it is of historical interest given the political climate in the UK over the past decade. There are many pages which have lists of frivolous and trivial things so I can't see why this should be disallowed. Should it be written as an article rather than as a list? I could add it to one of the animal rights pages but I think they are full enough already. Many of the companies mentioned have their own pages - this just ties them all together. I think that the suggestion it be deleted is just due to political bias and an attept to censor information. Arfan2006 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You make some valid points. Perhaps you can expand the introduction somewhat to give it a greater sense of context, and then I will consider changing my vote. Furthermore there are two links that need to be disambiguated. Essexmutant 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Change of vote to weak keep. I would like to see a stronger and more comprehensive argument regarding the notability of the companies regarding their status as suppliers to organisations such has HLS without an animal rights bias. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing notable about this list and I am sure that more comprehensive versions are available in directories available to those organisations who require laboratory animals. WP is not a directory service. If required, the companies could be linked by a category rather than a listings page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:17, 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 SPEEDY MERGED. -- Jonel | Speak 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiet Willy

Characters appears in three episodes and shouldn't have their own article, based on the WP:FICTION guideline. --Whouk (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Anville 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per guidelines as character has been featured in a bunch of episodes, otherwise keep. -- JJay 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll do that, and withdraw my nomination of the AfD. --Whouk (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. -- JJay 00:35, 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 03:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venclate

Non-encyclopedic / Non-notable KHM03 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, non-verifiable with 0 google hits, probably original 'research'. - Bobet 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like someone's idea for a computer game. Durova 21:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and/or original research, non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:18Z
  • Delete as non notable user created Video Game.Deathawk 01:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. NeoJustin 18:39, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (should of closed it at that yesterday since there were 13 votes). Ichiro 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of firearms in first-person shooters

Listcruft, list of some weapons in some first-person shooters, with links to articles on the real weapons. Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com WP:NOT (half of them from WWII themed shooters and the other half pretty much made up of various MP5 variants etc). Scoo 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It can be a useful list in giving a user who knows nothing about games a taster on the types of weaponary in games. It also looks like quite a bit of work has gone into research and creating the list, which is a shame to go to waste. Roger Dangerfields 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note: this user account was created on Jan 5 2006, edits consisted mostly of vandalism and was subsequently blocked on Jan 6 2006 (Block log), note by Scoo 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of considerable interest to gamers and firearms enthusiasts. The fact that we have articles on most of them confirms both the interest in them and the need for useful lists and cross-referencing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment what this list provide is a selection of weapons in 17 computer/video games (and 2 computer game mods). User Just zis Guy, you know? say it very well here why some lists fit wery well on Wikipedia, while others do not. Some of the content in the list might be summarized in a proper article on first-person shooter weapons, provided that it is backed up by facts & findings from sources such as www.gamestudies.org and similar. On a sidenote, today most games can be modded or receive expansion packs etc. that add new content to games. Thus, a list such as this serve little purpose on Wikipedia. Scoo 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. DES (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete . Why those particular selected FPSs? It seems completely arbitrary. Of course without that distinction, the list would be incredibly long. If kept, article should be moved to somewhere like List of firearms in first-person shooters based on real-life firearms. --Last Malthusian 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I say it's a nice comprehensive list, however several game articles have a weapons list that should be put into this article. Also, I've put a LOT of work into the article, and to see it removed would make me disappointed. Maybe a rename such as List of real-life weapons in video games could work? Because then we don't have to limit it to just first-person shooters, and maybe third-person shooter games (and certain other games such as Resident Evil) could be listed as well. TonicBH 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Since I didn't want the work to be wasted, some of the pages that didn't have weapon lists or had partial/incomplete ones now have complete weapons lists (see Nightfire, Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix, Urban Terror). If anyone wishes to add other ones (like for the Call of Duty games, for example), that would help. TonicBH 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a list that would become stupidly long. If you realy think it's needed here break it up into sub-lists. List of weapons in realistic FPS games, List of weapons in sci-fi FPS games etc. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Close call and subjective: if this list had been created with less care then I would have deleted and possibly speedied. It's organized and developed enough to serve as a reference for gaming and firearms enthusiasts. To the list creator: I suggest conversion into table format. Durova 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in current form. Some info could be merged into an encylopaedic article on Weapons in first-person shooters or similar. If this was to continue as is we'd end up with a humongous list. Scoo 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the well reasoned comments above. It's useful to know what guns are used in these games. -- JJay 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all delete votes above. The analysis in this article is backwards; under each game it lists the weapons used in that game. That information, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, should appear in the article about the game itself. If this article were to be useful to anyone, it would be organized by types of weapons and for each type, the games in which that weapon could be found. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. The guns should be listed on the articles of the game its used in. NeoJustin 18:38, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either way, by games or by arms, the list is likely to be too long. JoaoRicardotalk 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as valid, interesting, verifiable list. Turnstep 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Huh? 13 votes, no consensus = keep (normally). Durova 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've asked Ichiro to stop these relistings and discuss it on the talk page. The intentions may be good, but it certainly is easy to construe the relistings as an attempt to extend the normal discussion time to reach a desired result (e.g. a clear delete consensus). Turnstep 14:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this should be covered by the indivdual FPS's pages --Pboyd04 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. information should be in individual game articles or maybe in the weapon articles -- Astrokey44|talk 04:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all delete votes. Themusicking 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as silly gamecruft, unencyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I can imagine someone being able to present info in a list in a remotely similar way, but not this way. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind, and I agree with Durova that this should have been closed as a "no consensus" rather than a "relist" when there are 13 votes already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- listcruft. Reyk 07:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, having interest in firearms myself, I find nothing constructive nor informative in this list. -- Phædriel *whistle* 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete arbitrary list of arbitrary class of object in arbitrary subgenre of games (i.e. not even real life). JzG 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a big FPS fan and I think this list is unmaintainable and not useful. Maybe a list of real-life firearms and what games they've appeared in might be useful, as might an article on notable fictional weapons (the BFG9000 comes to mind). --[[User:Wrath

child-K|Wrathchild]] (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete- I' to play these games and don't find this informitive in the "right" way IThink4u 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn Christadelphians

Religious group with no claim of notability. Googling "Dawn Christadelphians" gives 369 hits, 85 of them relevant. - Bobet 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or self-promotion JoJan 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont see any propaganda or self promotion, unless you count the statements of belief as propaganda, in which case we may as well delete all articles about religious groups, as all are going to deal to some extent with that groups belief system. Plus, plenty of people are interested in "minor" religions, and an encyclopaedia seems to be the logical place to look for such information. Jcuk 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My Google search turned up only 79 unique hits, most of which were copies of each other and several of which led to 404 errors. There seems to be no evidence of this denomination existing other than a couple of its own websites and some open forums. I suppose this group is real but it's really unverifiable. If they'd like to merit a Wikipedia article I suggest they do some community service and get a few stories with a local newspaper. Durova 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Christadelphians--eleuthero 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a very minor fraction of the Christadelphians, which are a small denomination in themselves. As comparison, "dawn christadelphians" gets 441 Google hits, while "christadelphian" gets 94,000. It may be me mentioned in Christadelphian, but not on this level of detail. (It already has an External link for their site.) JoaoRicardotalk 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group. Stifle 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of this information is already included in the main Christadelphians article.RJB 22:48, 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 Keep and merge. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heijunka

Keep: Heijunka is a technique that is used in the lean manufacturing business model. It is NOT the same a Just-in-time, so should not be merged with that. The description given is not at all clear, though the examples of how it works are correct. Not notable. r3m0t talk 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, 15,700 google hits [9]. Kappa 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Either way, this needs a rewrite to be coherent. Alr 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Best not to rewrite until the question of notability has been settled. Kappa 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Could not this be usfully redirected to or merged with Just In Time? This seems to be a particular version of "Just In Time" manufacturing. DES (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added a couple of citations that seem to indicate at least some notability -- I think the use in a speech by the Presidnet and CEO of Toyota is rather telling. Weak keep or merge as above. DES (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merge per DES MNewnham 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Just In Time unless someone can tell me why this is a distinct concept from that. (The article certainly can't and I haven't managed to find anything on Google.) --Last Malthusian 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boarhouse

Tagged for speedy delete with {{db-club}}. I do not belive this qualifies for a speedy delte. However, the notability is not IMO well established by the article as it stands, and seems to be dubious at best. Delete Unless notablity clearly established, and some effort made to convert this to more of an encyclopedia article and less of a travle guide entry. DES (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Mea culpa. I was the one who tagged it as such; I probably should have went the AFD route instead. In any case, my opinion on it stands. Delete.--Mitsukai 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikitravel if someone who knows more about that project thinks it's necessary. In any case, Delete from here. - Bobet 17:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Transwikification from here to Wikitravel is not legally permissible. The original author must submit xyr own text to Wikitravel xyrself. Uncle G 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, thanks. - Bobet 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Mitsukai with endorsement of comment on transwiki by Uncle G. Stifle 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:01Z
  • Delete as NN. DES is correct that it's not {{db-club}}, that's a CSD A7 template for a club in the sense of "group of people". There was even a debate on the CSD talk page where someone speculated that this mistake might happen. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep said to be the most popular club in Moscow for foreigners. [13] -- Astrokey44|talk 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Astrokey's evidence. Kappa 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Astro's research sheds a new light over the notability of this club. -- Phædriel *whistle* 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC
  • Delete as above Pintele Yid 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How was this a relist, it had four delete votes and no keeps? Stifle 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A bar can be notable, and this one sounds like it is. Skeezix1000 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio.

[edit] Axel Kuhn

Attempt by someone to use Wikipedia as a buzz location for Kuhn campaign. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for political campaigns.--Mitsukai 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising.--BUF4Life 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-promotion JoJan 18:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from http://www.axelkuhn.ca/profile.html. Content removed. --Nick123 (t/c) 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know if it's copyvio to reprint the text that the author presumably wants disseminated, but it certainly doesn't make a good article. However, as a major-party candidate in an ongoing election, Kuhn should be eligible for a properly written article. -- Mwalcoff 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If someone wants to change it to fit data regarding him as a politician, that works, as we have dozens of them about other politicians already. However, as the article currently stands (a copyvio version of campaign ads), it can't fly.--Mitsukai 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, Ontario. Presumably because this is a safe Liberal riding, there's hardly anything on this guy online other than his own webpage. He's not even been mentioned in the Toronto papers. I can't see more than a stub written on him unless he pulls an upset.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ichiro 02:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain "Jag" Jai'Galaar

Minor character, does not fit WP:Fiction guidelines for own article. No clear consensus as to where this should go, as there are no pages for minor SW republic characters. Could be merged into a future [[List of Minor Republic characters in Star Wars]] or the like, but as it stands, no. Mitsukai 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge somewhere, character from notable fictional universe. Kappa 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or expand per above. -- JJay 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I don't think it should be kept or deleted but I'm not sure where to merge it at. If we can't find a place to merge it then I vote keep. NeoJustin 18:34, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as SWcruft. Stifle 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – this individual and all of his article's content appears in Clone trooper commanders. ×Meegs 01:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, duplicate information. -LtNOWIS 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Clone trooper commanders. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:02Z
  • Redirect to Clone Trooper Commanders, all content is already present. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect--nixie 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Clone trooper commanders -- Astrokey44|talk 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect duplicate content. Sliggy 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect Pintele Yid 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect --IceCube 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Clone trooper commanders per above. - Bobet 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OGA (Office Golf Association)

See the first AfD on this article, which closed without consensus because only one vote was cast.

At the time of the original nomination the article looked like either an article about a non-notable "sport" or a hoax. The addition of poorly Photoshopped pictures to the article now supports the second theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Its frightening the amount of time someone has spent on this MNewnham 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, and the images too (unless BJAODN). Scoo 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and delete the images too. Contrary to the article, office golf predates 2002 -- there was a book about it published in 1999 [ISBN 0761115935]. --Metropolitan90 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:30, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheebear

Hoax/joke JPD (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete definite hoax. get rid of it.--BUF4Life 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - should it be called a shear or a beep? MNewnham 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:22Z
  • Delete, but surely worthy of a place on WP:BJAODN? --RFBailey 13:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. NeoJustin 18:29, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and a BJAODN candidate. Stifle 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D-503

Delete. Non-notable! band? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NMG, [14]. Annoyingly vague article, incidentally. PJM 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 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 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendspeak

A neologism. Not verifiable, etc. Sliggy 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, if it were real, the article would belong in wiktionary. As it is, it's original research and non-verifiable. - Bobet 17:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. --Walter Görlitz 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only is it a neologism, but I'm pretty sure the whole concept is made-up nonsense. David Johnson [T|C] 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Aren't all words originally made-up? Posted by User:24.131.9.147. Sliggy 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It was the concept that xe said was made up. Uncle G 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Also, "friendspeak" seems to be the name of an unrelated Christian outreach program. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:25Z
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:29, January 7, 2006 (UTC)

(Delete per Quarl. Stifle 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. Punkmorten 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thursdaymas

A neologism, not verifiable etc., delete. Sliggy 17:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Verbal exchanges often go undocumented for extended periods of time. --Walklikepeople 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not the place to document things that have never been documented before. See our Wikipedia:No original research official policy. Uncle G 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The vote was discounted anyways since it was Walklikepeople's second edit. Punkmorten 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism which gets 0 Google hits, probably original research, certainly unverifiable. David Johnson [T|C] 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 01:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:25Z
  • Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:26, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New MGS on Xbox 360?

I can think of no reason that this should be on wikipedia MNewnham 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non encyclopedic --Nick123 (t/c) 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete illogical title, crystal-ball-gazing, not worth a standalone article. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ESKog. Someone thought Wikipedia is a web forum for game rumours. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:27Z
  • Delete, as innapropriate for an encylcapedic article, it reads like something you'd find on a gaming website of some sorts, which is all well and good for them but this is an encyclapedia we're building. -Deathawk 01:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ESkog. NeoJustin 18:29, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mmadatabase.com

This is a webportal for martial arts. Alexa and google have never heard of it. Doesn't come remotely close to meeting WP:WEB (so Delete) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. -- Mikeblas 18:01, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technobangman

  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}}

Probably nonsense, non-notable (0 Google hits), unverifiable, maybe an attack page. David Johnson [T|C] 17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Also no relevant google hits on either listed "founder". Delete unless verifiable sources provided that clearly establish notability. DES (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. PJM 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hey. Thought id mention, being from the same areas mentioned in the Technobangman section and working in the film industry myself, i have heard whispers that two very well known forces in the British film industry are making a similair film (comedy). Apparently, the pair are fed up with the cinema critics giving them special attention, based on previous work in the industry. As a result of this frustration they may have used unknown names and an unknown production company to use during shooting. However, this could all be just a load of rubbish but i thought id mention it in case its useful. Will Hughes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.178.59 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 January 2006
  • Comment. Hello I am Liam Burbridge, one founder of technobangman. the reason i have not been searched for on google is because I'M NOT FAMOUS. we are a low budget film production company and are trying to start out with barely any funds. a place on wikipedia would mean we can be searched for on this site and google and would be a great help. i would be happy to add sources to make technobangman more authentic if you told me how. thanks (liamcb@aol.co —the preceding unsigned comment is by Liamcb (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Hi there, i would like to mention that Technobangman does exist and that I, Sean Brophy are in fact a background artist on Pegface, the company has only recently started and is yet to establish itself, if you were to give it a chance and not doubt its credibility then you will see that in a few years it Mr Burbridge and Mr Hullait will be hitting the Hollywood scene. Thankyou —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.216.91.74 (talk • contribs)
    • comment then in a few years we would be glad to have an artilce about them or this project. Wikipedia does not generally have articles about things that are not in some way already notable or of encyclopedic value. Things or people that might be notable someday are nor normally included. "I'M NOT FAMOUS", "trying to start out", and "yet to establish itself" all pretty clearly indicate that thsi does not belong in wikipedia. If Technobangman has recieved significant coverage in major media, please indicate this in the article, providing dates and story titles/headlines, and links if the content is online. Otherwise this looks like a probable delete to me. My previous vote is only strenghtened by these comments. DES (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic (yet?) CDC (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks. Obina 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antagonistic comments

  • "comment" you people are odd. what sort of hoax would this be? we just chose a name that Joe invented that we thought was funny. and in what way is it nasty? i dont see any evidence toward this being sockpuppets either. stop being so paranoid, we aren't hurting anyone. liam. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Liamcb (talk • contribs)
  • why are you accusing us of this skullduggery etc? what was on another website? we are not trying to alter anything. it is tragic that people would waste time with this. if you delete us technobangman will come down upon you with great vengeance and furious anger. thank you. liam.
  • a movie poster will be on the page soon. word up. shout out to all the technobangmans, this poster is gonna BANG in your FACE. ble$$ 1. 1 peace 1 love 1 pride. one earth. don't pollute it. get me. love you. don't delete, increase the peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.149.183 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as [WP:VAIN|vanity]]. - ulayiti (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Silver

Tagged for speedy, but "internationaly exhibited artist" is IMO a clear claim of notability. However this is about a very young artist, and I am not at all convinced that the articel as written establishes notability. Delete unless clearer notability established from verifiable sources. DES (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, WP:BIO. PJM 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article written by user with the same name as the subject. Concerned about Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines-Jcbarr 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Nope, not written by herself, but copied from [15] Jcuk 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
But posted by User:JenSilver. And that site says "submit your own profile". [16] -Jcbarr 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Considering the inherent anonymity involved with posting things on the computer (even with user id's), I don't see how anyone could be certain either way. PJM 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to verify claims. Only external link is to the creator's personal website. Durova 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see the article reflect some of the critical appraisal that the artist has received during her career. This would then make a statement for notability. At the very least, the article needs to be Wikified and cleaned up as it is very hard to read. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:53, 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. Punkmorten 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zachmus

Neologism, some kind of local joke holiday; school-wide at most. - Pureblade | Θ 18:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:27, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ewido

advertisement JoJan 17:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - advertisement JoJan 17:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No notable content on page --Nick123 (t/c) 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:27, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, unfortunately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War on Christmas

  • Delete nonsense. paranoid delusions from the circus of right-wing extremism. --Revolución (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - They're extreme right-wing paranoid delusions, I agree. But they're notable extreme right-wing paranoid delusions. FCYTravis 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - The article is encyclopedic and well supported by citations. [removed user box as it was interfering with keep border - JOG] Endomion 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep NPOV disputes aren't a basis for deletion. - FrancisTyers 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article should be modified to be more NPOV but it is an issue that has come to a head in 2005. Supported by citations, provides useful info for those doing research on this. Happy holidays, everyone! Drmandrake 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep The argument is very common these days, and there can be plenty room for both sides in the article. To use reductio ad absurdum, there's an article on holocaust denial and the wikipedia is not actually denying the holocaust. (I'm not stating the view that the two are equivalent; I am just making the point that the subject is very relevant, and it's existence does not imply the support of the belief that Christmas is under attack.)
  • The article is a morass of POV garbage - it's initial creation was someone making a point. Nevertheless, it is decidedly notable, so Speedy keep it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep* The Anti-Christian groups are trying to hide the facts that they are suing us over Christmas. I received threats to not put up Christmas lights on my house, or else I would be sued. Check court records and see how many lawsuits are filed over Christmas, then you will see that there is a real war on Christmas. Ironic that the vote to delete this article was made on Christmas, when most Christians are busy and not on Wikipedia to defend the article. You can really see the bias there by the Anti-Christians and their hate. --Charles Schram 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Dark Source

Completing malformed AfD nomination. I have to side with the nameless IP who began the nomination; this game mod has nothing to warrant an encyclopaedia article. Anville 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - it doesn't even say what it's a mod for. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete RadioActive 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Stifle 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another non-notable, unreleased, possibly vaporware Half-Life 2 mod. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:22, 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 as reposted material (should maybe have been speedied). - ulayiti (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy V

This page has already been deleted once (previous AfD vote); I can only suppose it got recreated. The "new" content does not represent an improvement. Anville 18:31, 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. Punkmorten 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond the Book

Original article has multiple links to website where this "program" is sold. I trimmed out those links but this remains little more than an ad, non-notable. Delete. Ifnord 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- I agree; I replaced the "importance" tag with the "advert" tag. I don't see this as expandable. -- MatthewDBA 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I also agree. Anville 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thanks for changing my {{importance}} tag to {{advert}}, Matthew. That's certainly more appropriate. Kafziel 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delee advert. Stifle 00:45, 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. Punkmorten 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buy something awesome

Reads like an ad.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio (ESkog)(Talk) 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Moran

Hoax/vanity created by a user who keeps adding similar things about himself to football articles Oldelpaso 18:47, 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. Punkmorten 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Fournier

Bio of NN exec of NN juice company MNewnham 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN biographical info. Reads as if it was taken from the company's own website or annual report. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteper nom. Obina 00:10, 7 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) 2006-01-07 01:31Z
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:26, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Stifle 00:44, 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. -- Jonel | Speak 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol Manor Farm F.C.

non-notable football club ComputerJoe 19:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, Toolstation Premier Division team. Kappa 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable as above. Nick123 (t/c) 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. What's so extraordinarily special about the Toolstation Premier Division, a league of football/soccer sides from the Bristol (UK, not Tennessee) area, that merely being in the league merits an article for each team? I could see a team in the UK's top division being considered notable without further evidence of distinction. But I don't recognize anything about this local-area league that distinguishes it from hundreds, probably thousands, of other regional and local sports leagues. Can someone show citations more significant than listings of scores from newspaper sports sections? Or is my local semi-pro American-football team automatically Wikipedic just by virtue of belonging to the Empire Football League? Barno 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. The league the team plays in is administered by the English Football Association and is a recognised tier of the English football league system. SoLando (Talk) 21:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as obviously notable. Carioca 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly plays in the league. -- JJay 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep'. Quaque (talk • contribs) 00:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous notability arguments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:54Z
  • Keep No reason not to cover clubs at this level. Players are a different matter. CalJW 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. NeoJustin 18:27, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, not really notable. Stifle 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all Toolstation Premier Division teams. Youngamerican 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete are you aware about UK's football league system? This team is really at the bottom of competitive football. It is not notable in any possible sense of the word.  Grue  14:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete spam. - ulayiti (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content Control Room

advertising for NN software MNewnham 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:43, 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. Punkmorten 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Hodge

Totally unverifiable claims to notability, wasn't this on AFD a couple of days ago? MNewnham 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or perhaps completely rewrite so that it is about the British actor/director listed on imdb and tv.com. The singer (google search "gavin hodge" coupled with "folk") lists no related hits.--eleuthero 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:43, 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 Speedy deleted by Babajobu - Bobet 02:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin James Stark

Vanity Nv8200p talk 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Justin James Stark is a widely recognized entertainment personality and opinion maker in his community as well as in many other spheres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.20.166 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2006
  • This should have been a Speedy Delete.--Mitsukai 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, not notable. Also can't spell and can't seem to understand encyclopedic standards. "His success as an oppinion maker and entertainment personality is often credited to his dress and grooming standards. His entertainment can be largely categorized as shriek jokes." Angel Moroni, please come and cleanse the earth of this undereducated teenager. Barno 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's not bite the newcomers. I wish Justin James Stark success in life. When he achieves it in a verifiable and encyclopedic manner I'll enjoy reading an article about him. Durova 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. See below. DES (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 21:49, 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 REDIRECT. -- Jonel | Speak 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child sexual abuse and sexual orientation

1. Article contains no information, actually. 2. The subject is not worth a separate article. 3. POV. Anthony Ivanoff 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Child sexual abuse. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per aeropagitica. This looks like a university project. JoaoRicardotalk 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Stifle 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to the appropriate place, otherwise delete. --DanielCD 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing worth saving here. It's not even wrong. Hermitian 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. Too small a topic for its own article, merge anything worthwhile. -Will Beback 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is devoted entirely to one POV about a controversial issue, and seems to be excerpted from an abstract of a single study -- not encylopedic material. Corax 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect in the interest of avoiding no-consensus result (WP:RFD later). Ludicrous POV fork. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:22, Jan. 10, 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MattsMenus.com

advertising. if it is deleted, make sure you remove the redirect page at Mattsmenus.com as well-- Syrthiss 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't make WP:WEB. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa rank: 1,720,253... --Nick123 (t/c) 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:26, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 00:43, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compos Mentis (Australian Band)

Non-notable, but due to the fact that one member of the band has gone on to become an Australian celebrity, does not meet speedy. A search on Google for the band turns up nothing, a search on Google Australia turns out a heavy metal band of the same name not related to this one. Might be worth a merge into the the article for Tim Harding, but not otherwise. Mitsukai 19:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and, if necessary, mention in Tim Harding. PJM 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Normally I would say keep per WP:MUSIC as they have released an album, but as it's unverifiable (no google results), it's no good. (There is a Danish metal band of the same name.) Also, the band is defunct. Not very significant to Tim Harding it would seem, so I just support a plain delete. pfctdayelise 03:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Canley 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:25, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Roisterer 02:59, 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 sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 16:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASTPCC

Badly written article on extremelly obscure subject. Google test lists 6 results on "ASTPCC" and 88 on "Asterisk-based Pre-paid Calling Card System". Completely non-notable and looks too much like original research. Mecanismo | Talk 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic product pitch. PJM 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just an ad cut and pasted from the front page of their website. Let's just speedy this and let them show more effort next time, if this thing ever becomes notable. - Bobet 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tagged and listed as copyvio. -- JJay 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio team will deal with this. Stifle 00:28, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent S. Tantillo

vanity page about a Congressional aide who appears to be maiing POV edits about himself, his boss and other members of Congress TMS63112 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Apparently he's trying to make himself notable by means of "several pointless Wiki articles." Sorry, not working. Delete this and Democracy Project.--Mitsukai 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. - Bobet 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Mitsukai.Obina 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:28, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy Project

nn not for profit organization created by Congressional aide Brent S. Tantillo who is himself non-notable TMS63112 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Apparently he's trying to make himself notable by means of "several pointless Wiki articles." Sorry, not working. Delete this and Brent S. Tantillo.--Mitsukai 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -Bobet 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mitsukai. Obina 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:24, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:27, 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 REDIRECT. -- Jonel | Speak 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid

spelling mistake in title by author has made it redundant to 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, which is covered in serotonin Ianvitro 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Serotonin then? But really, how could you misspell a word like that. What are they teaching them in school nowadays? --Last Malthusian 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Serotonin.--Mitsukai 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Mitsukai. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. 12,000 Google hits, so I would assume it's an alternate spelling or at least extremely extremely common misspelling. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:33Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Zobel

Apparently non-notable Filipino actress. No IMDB entry. Two relevant Google hits from one site, both of which are 404s and have to be looked at via Google's cache, which show her as low down on the cast lists of a couple of films, which I don't see as evidence of meeting WP:BIO, and there is certainly no verification for anything in the article other than "she exists". Created by the same author as Premiere Production, which is also up for deletion. Last Malthusian 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, full of weblinks. Stifle 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:56, 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 speedy keep. Ichiro 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armona Union School District

Rambling, POV article that seems to have something with one particular school. There may be an actual AUSD, but this article doesn't even give that information. Meets WP:NOT in every way possible. Mitsukai 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Complete crap. Lists off best teachers. This belongs in Urbandictionary, not Wikipedia. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep page, Delete 99% of Content I suppose this is a keep, but I would just keep the first sentence, link to any schools and the county within which it sits. Not sure it needs to come to AFD to clear the bias.Obina 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Serious delete per nom, without prejudice to recreating a proper article. Stifle 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All of the districts merit an article. Vegaswikian 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep School disticts --Jaranda wat's sup 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since Vegaswikian has cleaned it up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:04Z
  • Keep now that its been cleaned up -- Astrokey44|talk 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that it's cleaned up, I'm withdrawing my decision to delete it. Strong Keep.--Mitsukai 05:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crysp Entertainment

Not notable production company (web designer?) with stub website and less than ten links in search engines. Mikeblas 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable / Advert. Obina 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert. Stifle 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of largest empires

Has potential, but appears to have been abandoned by creator, and may be prone to POV even if completed properly. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and no references to support text -Nv8200p talk 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with it - it just needs to be completed and fixed up DrIdiot 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Just because something may be prone to POV disputes that doesn't mean we should delete the article, besides if it's factually based the article should speak for itself.-Deathawk 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Edit: Forgot to sign my name last time heh heh.Deathawk 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Will be useful when it is expanded, as I am confident it will be one day. CalJW 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Problematic article, because physical space is somewhat an arbitrary means of measuring an empire in the past, but if it were to be developed and with sub headings or sections going into the length of time the empire kept power, how and any other aspects of why it was a large empire, well worth keeping on ice until someone is prepared to do the work! Just a list with no work -delete! SatuSuro 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if a standard for inclusion can be established. The Soviet Union should end up on this list at some point, but would everything behind the Iron Curtain be counted? Client states as far away as Cuba? Would the Japanese Empire include ocean area? --Ajdz 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. NeoJustin 18:25, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seeks to be a POV magnet and rather crufty. Stifle 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Abandonment by creator and potential for POV (what article doesn't?) are not good enough arguments. Turnstep 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV listcruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, tag for expansion, and set parameters for inclusion. Youngamerican 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. educational, encyclopedic. needs work. Kingturtle 09:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I, as creator of this article, have came across great difficulties in finding relevant info for this article. It still seems to me like a great idea, but I just don't know where to get the info from. I won't cry if it gets deleted (as I've reached dead end), but I'll be thrilled if someone points me as to where I could find some more info :-) Maybe WP:COTW could help... --Dijxtra 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was moved to redirect for deletion. Ichiro 23:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey-Blood

senseless redirect Adam (talk) 20:34, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brantmeyer

Just a surname listing, not even geneology MNewnham 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Without a genealogy or evidence of notability, this surname doesn't belong on WP. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to transwiki to WikiTree. Stifle 00:25, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screamtrigger

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. No claim of notability according to the article (just recorded a demo), 21 google results for screamtrigger so no notability to be found there. - Bobet 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, article is poorly written, link to myspace indicates a nn band DrIdiot 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DrIdiot's excellent observation. Stifle 00:25, 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 (22/31) as OR. An AFD over a year ago makes no difference. - ulayiti (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision fetish

Circumcision fetish was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish.

No reliable sources for this article exist. Several users are attempting to get rid of it by redirecting it to sexual fetishism, which isn't really relevant, as the only mention of this is a link to this article. I'd rather delete it. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep since it fits in the large list of sexual fetishes. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted and the others not. --Scandum 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reason this one should be deleted is that, since there are no verifiable sources, as near as we can tell it is simply made up; note that one of the sources in the article is actually a letter by a wikipedia editor. This, it seems to me, egregiously violates the no original research guideline. Nandesuka 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And note, that particular "source" (an e-mail to the editor) doesn't even use the term "Circumcision fetish" or even "fetish". Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 1. This article has already been voted for to be kept, 2. The vast amount of internet sites that describe a circumcision fetish make it certain it is not simply made up or Original Research. That there are no reliable sources (medical peer reviewed journals providing articles about circumcision fetish) is not reason to delete it, as few fetishes as described on Wikipedia would actually qualify under that standard. It would open a slippery slope that would legitimize removal of most if not all fetish articles and ultimately most if not all wikipedia articles. Dabljuh 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If there are a vast number of sites that describe circumcision fetishes, why isn't there even one circumcision fetish site cited in the article (as distinguished from some isolated quotes on political advocacy sites)? The slippery slope argument is odd. No one is proposing removing foot fetish, because foot fetishes aren't completely fabricated. In fact, it turns out that no reliable sources is, in fact, one of the best reasons to delete an article. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of things that people just made up. Nandesuka 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • For purposes of comparison, searching PubMed for foot fetish returns three articles: [17] [18] [19]. Searching PubMed for 'circumcision fetish' returns none. Jakew 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to note that VFD/AFD discussions are not permanently binding. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I googled up this story from a castration fetish site: [20] which describes a fetish circumcision.
    • Following site [21] is interesting as well and labels it as an amputation disorder.
    • Following article [22] finds a majority of a group of women is sexualy aroused by the circumcised penis.
  • That's enough for an article. --Scandum 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The first is not an encyclopaedic source. The second is mildly interesting - and probably the closest to a suitable source yet suggested - but only mentions it in passing, failing to define it, and unfortunately does not specify who these 'many' are. The third makes no mention of fetishism, only a preference. Reinterpretation of the study's findings as such is an obvious case of original research. Jakew 16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The first source also has "erotic" stories of children being tortured, killed, mutilated, castrated, having female circumcision and mastectomies. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Cock and ball torture Is'nt found on Pubmed either. Anyhow it is a widely accepted fetish / SM activity. The thing is, doctors tend not to investigate more naughty sexual stuff because they are soon labeled as perverts. Dabljuh 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well it may not be on PubMed, but cock and ball torture is discussed in: King, C. Richard (1996) The Siren Scream of Telesex: Speech, Seduction and Simulation. Journal of Popular Culture 30 (3), 91-101. Also: Thorne, Adrian & Coupland, Justine (1998) Articulations of Same-sex Desire: Lesbian and Gay Male Dating Advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (2), 233-257. And finally: The Masters Manual: A Handbook of Erotic Dominance by Jack Rinella ISBN: 1881943038. Jakew 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Please add those to the article, so that the question does not arise again. Uncle G 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no validated sources to even demonstrate that this fetish exists; while I'm sure that it does (since just about anything imaginable is a fetish for someone), Wikipedia accepts neither original research nor unreliable sources as the basis for an article. I'd speedy this except someone would no doubt have a fit; however, I am going to remove the reference to "circumcision fetish" from Sexual fetishism. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources. There is a fetish for just about everything, but 99% are not notable and only of interest to an extremly small audience. - D NN fetishcruft. --GraemeL (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. And please note that "original research" does not mean something that is made up, but instead it means innovative research. Wikipedia is not the place for this; the article should be a summary of the current research in the field, and not a research in itself. If there is no research in the field, there should be no article, no matter if the subject is real or not. JoaoRicardotalk 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete...WP:NOR. KHM03 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Scandum. Stifle 00:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If, after the interminable discussions in the initial AfD and on the talk apge, these are the best references we can come up with, I'd hazard that they are the best there are. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously original research, and those defending the article still have not been able to come up with one single reference that meets Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Del. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kelly Martin -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to be an ancient relic of the circumcision wars of over a year ago (a similar article, Foreskin fetish was created at around the same time, although there are apparently some references for the latter). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
There are two references in the foreskin fetish article. One is to a general definition of fetishism which could also be used in the circumcision fetish article. The other is a link to a 1965 article on Jake's personal pro-circumcision advocacy web site. The overwhelming majority of articles listed in the Less common forms of fetishism section of the sexual fetish article do not have references. Why should the circumcision fetish article be judged by a different standard? -- DanBlackham 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
DanBlackham 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Which encyclopaedic sources have identified these as 'circumcision fetish websites', Dan? If none, please explain the difference between your position and that of a person who presents a photo of the moon and a photo of a similarly-coloured piece of blue cheese as a 'source' that the moon is made of blue cheese. Clearly, in that example, it is not a source, it is merely evidence that requires considerable interpretation. Jakew 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Jake, I think most reasonable people would agree that the following is a good example of a circumcision fetish:
The Ultimate Circumcision Video. Filmed in Phoenix, Az after a heated contest between the Champion, Max, and his opponent, Jon. The raging battle for the conquest of manhood where only one will walk away a MAN ends in the loser being CIRCUMCISED. His glans bare and a scar to show his defeat.
Max, the Circumcision Master, preps the still warm, pink loose foreskin for it's exicution. First the Betadine, then the EMLA cream to numb the sensative nerves. The audience of 20 naked men (mostly CIRCUMCISED...ready to welcome a new member to their people) gasp as the Tara KLamp is placed over the doomed foreskin...then clasped...then......CIRCUMCISED!
http://www.circlist.com/resources/videos.html
There are much more evidence of the reality of a circumcision fetish on the CIRCLIST website. -- DanBlackham 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, Dan, but it doesn't answer my question. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Perhaps we have a skeptical reader who looks at this and thinks, "pretty strange stuff, but I wonder if it's really a fetish in the technical sense". What scholarly sources exist to allow him to verify that this is indeed a circumcision fetish? Jakew 23:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.depression-guide.com/apotemnophilia.htm does. Searching google for apotemnophilia+fetish and apotemnophilia+circumcision gives quite a few links but I don't have time to see if any of them are useful atm. There seems an indication that apotemnophilia is a fetish and that in some cases circumcision can be classified as apotemnophilia. Before you claim that saying 1+1=2 is original research I've already given a link stating so. --Scandum 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
"Many view the circumcision fetish as a form of apotemnophilia, particularly in the case of an adult male being voluntarily circumcised." [23]
A vague reference to unspecified people having an opinion that an undefined term is a form of apotemnophilia is not the best basis for an article, is it? Jakew 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of course -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and Kelly Martin.--Sean|Black 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Kelly Martin. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There apprears to be a double standard here. The overwhelming majority of articles listed in the "Less common forms of fetishism" section of the sexual fetish article do not have references. Why should the article on circumcision fetishism be judged by a different standard than most of the other articles on less common forms of fetishism? -- DanBlackham 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you mind explaining why you have nominated foreskin fetish for deletion, then? If you wish to complain about double standards, it might be wise not to use them. Jakew 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I (very weakly) supported keeping Foreskin fetish, this article strikes me as much less believable and less likely to be an actual fetish. Again, many of the fetish articles are problematic in similar ways, but this "fetish," if it really exists, seems so minor and marginal as to be unremarkable and unencyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 18:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the Short Circumcision Stories on the CIRCLIST South Africa web site is evidence of circumcision fetishism. The Cutting Club web site is also evidence of circumcision fetishism. The following from the main CIRCLIST web site is also evidence.
"Like me, this guy also had a circumcision fetish. He loved thinking about it and planning it. So, our first sex play began with you show me your skanky skin, and I'll show you how one looks after it's had an adult circumcision. He worshiped my scar with his tongue. He sucked my flared, bare head. He begged me to fuck (dock) inside his boy-skin. I eventually bent him over and fucked his uncircumcised boy-ass. Our first time together was all about foreskin and circumcision. It was very hot. During future activities, we always included talk about my circumcision and his pending circumcision in our play. We even began simulating his own circumcision....tying him down and placing film canisters under his skin, etc. Eventually we bought a Gomco and a Tara clamp for our play. After about one year, we actually had him circumcised, which was very hot."
"Now, we look for other "boys" who still have their little baby-skins. We enjoy playing with them and helping them to get circumcised too (if that's what they ultimately want.) It's amazing how many uncut guys have a circumcision fetish (or can at least be turned on by fantasy play about circumcising them, usually ritually) Even if they would never want to ultimately get the cut, like my friend and partner did, many enjoy fantasizing about it. That's why we like uncut guys!" [24] (emphasis added)
Please note that the author even uses the term "circumcision fetish". It seems to me like that is evidence that this fetish really exists. -- DanBlackham 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a sexual fetish where the subject of the sexual desire is a non-sexual item: The circumcision itself. That is unlike the supposed "foreskin fetish" which is the attraction to a natural sexual part of the male anatomy. --smt 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, SMT. Jakew 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with reluctance. The article presents no information beyond what can be inferred from the title, Circumcision fetish, itself. If the article could be expanded to include additional, non-trivial information about the topic, then, clearly I think, it would warrant keeping. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a lack of reliable sources that could provide such information meaning any expansion of the article would require original research. Perhaps in the future research about this subject will be published upon which an aritcle could be based. Until then, delete. Benanhalt 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good arguments on both sides, but since many people admit the fetish exists the article should be kept and improved. -- JJay 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "If there are a vast number of sites that describe circumcision fetishes, why isn't there even one circumcision fetish site cited in the article (as distinguished from some isolated quotes on political advocacy sites)?" Circumcision fetish sites don't necessarily describe themselves as such. Circlist and The Acorn Club are clear examples. The "isolated quotes" are many and consistent. Features of the stories they tell are an obsessive focus on the details of circumcision and aspects of humiliation, submission and "punishment" (Humiliation fetishism is listed as one of the common types). Hugh7 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If they don't describe themselves as such, then who does describe them as such? We cannot be the first due to no original research. Jakew 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep...for two reasons: (1) it passed VfD just over one year ago. (2) a google search finds over 30,000 links. Kingturtle 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep If the evidence I presented was strong enough for the Journal of Medical Ethics to publish my letter on circumcision's seamy underside [25], then attempts to suppress discussion of circumcision fetishism should be treated with great caution. Michael Glass 12:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course you are right Michael, but the next time you write a letter like that, make sure that you use the terminology "Circumcision fetish" when you are talking about a circumcision fetish. Some people (cough censors cough) aren't happy otherwise apparently. Dabljuh 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It might also help to write about circumcision fetish as described in the article. Jakew 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR no real citations -Doc ask? 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Kelly Martin, JFW, Phroziac, et al. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Phroziac and others. Ral315 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsupported by reliable sources, with no prejudice to recreation WITH such sources provided. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is mentioned in the "Encyclopedia of unusual sex practices". It doesn't get much more encyclopedic than that, when it comes to weird ass fetishes. Also, check [what is apparently the website of the book] Dabljuh 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Have I won now? Do I get a prize? Dabljuh 15:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: some of the contributors to the "encyclopedia" are merely BDSM people and it does not have citations. -- Kjkolb 15:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I am quite certain, some of the contributors to the Encyclopedia Brittannica are BDSM people as well! Dabljuh 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block dude

Delete. This is a puzzle for a calculator, and although verifiable, is not encyclopedic. Mindmatrix 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Programs for calculators are not encyclopedic. -Share Bear

  • Delete This doesn't seem notable enough for a WP entry. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely non-notable. Although if the general concept of games on programmable calculators doesn't have an article, it should. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:35Z
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:18, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - very minor, of course, but it might as well stay and be linked or merged with Quarl's new page on Calculator gaming... :)--Bookandcoffee 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, heh. Stifle 00:13, 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 Speedy deleted by Babajobu - Bobet 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline morant

recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caroline Morant MNewnham 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material (csd-g4, tagged). - Bobet 23:40, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DarkSoul Kingdom

Seems to me like original research about non-notable fiction. 141 google hits, which isn't very good since their main publication channel is a website (with no alexa rank). - Bobet 21:15, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearlene

Insignificant person, text dumped from another site. Justin (koavf) 21:15, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stoost

Delete. Neologism. -Rebelguys2 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I live in North, GA and have actually heard that word. Thats great it made it to the Wikipedia!!!! Keep it up!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.78.96.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This definition may well be better off being in a dictionary of American slang. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism DrIdiot 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, random word someone made up. 14 English language google results, none of them relating to this usage. - Bobet 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Couldn't find any evidence of usage. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:53Z
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:17, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. Stifle 00:11, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X Cards Advance

Nonsense Justin (koavf) 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Needs to be wikified for starters, and needs a LOT of work, but isn't exactly nonsense. May have some notiablity issues.--Esprit15d 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable and speculative. Obina 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this manga exists, neither in Google nor in manga sites like [26]. JoaoRicardotalk 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's rough, but obviously a beginner's page. Give the article more time. Lela 23:48, 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. r3m0t talk 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X Cards Advance Characters

Nonsense Justin (koavf) 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep (contigent on consensus above). Again, needs to be wikified for and needs a LOT of work, but isn't exactly nonsense. May have some notiablity issues.--Esprit15d 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is non notable regardless of the parent page X Cards Advance AFD result. Obina 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this manga exists. JoaoRicardotalk 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as A1 no context. Stifle 00:10, 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 speedy deleted as a band asserting no claim of notability whatsoever. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:19, Jan. 7, 2006

[edit] Rammsund

Band article, previously speedied, now re-created. Likely notability issue, may not meet criteria, I haven't researched. -- Curps 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Cover band, no entry in AMG. JoaoRicardotalk 18:03, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur's Hall

Promotion of NN Blog/Forum, Forum has 45 registered members MNewnham 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Alexa ranking. JoaoRicardotalk 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:09, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikology

Admittd neologism. No google hits. No good evidence of widespread usage or notability. Delete unless verifiable evidence establishing wide use or other notability is provided. DES (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Void of google support. Definite neologism.--Esprit15d 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks' book on the subject is called Wiki Science, for what it's worth. Uncle G 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Although wikilogy.com is interesting -- apparently an unrelated wiki for information about companies -- maybe we can tell all the corpospammers to go there instead of Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 01:39Z
    • We already encourage people to submit Yellow Pages listings to Yellowikis. Uncle G 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 18:16, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, what? Delete. Stifle 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as of now, non-notable. Jjjsixsix 03:31, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-light

This article starts out discussing travel and the speed of light (which has already been covered in detail in other articles), then spins off into a bizarre conspiracy theory that takes up the majority of the article. I'd vote to delete. - Bootstoots 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-technical discussion of the physical properties of travelling below lightspeed and extremely POV discussion of alleged alien civilisations. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and (aeropagitica) ManoaChild 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This appears to be original research, a novel hypothesis about an alien civilisation, which it is claimed has set up an exchange programme with the United States, that has not been acknowledged by the rest of the world or accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. Delete. Uncle G 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, and article has no worth, probably spam. DrIdiot 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although it ends brilliantly ("Personally I'm not really sure if mankind were worse off if some alien race enslaved us by taking control over our so called leaders"), this is total garbage. I would be tempted to speedy it as "nonsense". bikeable (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and why not BJAODN it into the bargain. Stifle 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research but copy to BJAODN (after removing the advertised site?) Turnstep 01:04, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tel3advantage

Total spam. Esprit15d 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising, through and through. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising DrIdiot 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:07, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silence Dogwood

Someone has suggested that Silence Dogwood be merged with Benjamin Franklin, however the pseudonym is incorrect. It should be Silence Dogood which is already redirected to Benjamin Franklin. Anthopos 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or maybe redirect also if this is a common error IDK. Obina 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gazpacho 12:19, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saveonprepaid

Blatant advertising. Incorrectly tagged as speedy. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. Second spam offense by this user, and user has recieved two warnings.--Esprit15d 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Another telecom advertising article? -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising DrIdiot 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT Advertising. Obina 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gazpacho 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - spam. MattHucke(t) 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: "spam" is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion. Stifle 00:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    thanks; amended. MattHucke(t) 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 00:05, 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. Punkmorten 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RED CORNER 2

This is spam. Esprit15d 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems more like promotion than information. DrIdiot 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Obina 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete promotional article. Stifle 00:03, 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of solar eclipses seen from China

Seems NN, no other similar pages for other countries, Delete. Colonel Cow 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It would only be notable for historical records of eclipses, from the dawn of time until 1900. 132.205.45.110 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely useless. Alr 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I don't see anything in the deletion policy that forbids this. However, I do agree that it is somewhat arbitrary. If it were up to me I would keep it because I see no harm coming from it. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft Sceptre (Talk) 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's verifiable and interesting. Needs to be cleaned up to standardize dates but otherwise looks good. Ifnord 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain, but two things: firstly the future redlink eclipses should be dewikilinked, as creating the articles would be crystal balling, and secondly the article needs to be renamed, as the title uses the past tense even though the article includes to eclipses 800 years in the future. --Last Malthusian 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sadly, we cannot dewiki the future dates due to the poor design of MediaWiki in overloading the brackets to indicate not only internal links, but date preferences as well. Turnstep 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually this would be one of the very few legitimate exceptions to the crystal ball argument. Eclipses really are predictable centuries in advance. All it takes is physics and mathematics. Durova 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • From WP:NOT: "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." That seems to match future eclipses perfectly. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, it's not a perfect match. While the chance of a tropical storm occuring in 2010 is extremely high, the chance that future eclipses will happen is orders of magnitude more likely. You could almost say as likely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :) Unless some *extremely* improbable event happens, such as the Earth being destroyed by Voguns, these eclipses will happen. I still wouldn't link to the dates, however. Better to link to a single page on future astromical events or something. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Maybe I've misinterpreted, but I interpreted that sentence, specifically "even though it is virtually certain", to mean that crystal balling does not necessarily exclude articles about subjects that are certain to happen. --Malthusian (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
              • The exact wording is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Basically what it would take to alter this schedule is a collision with a very large comet - a collision on a scale neither the earth nor moon have experienced in hundreds of millions of years. So yup: this article falls within Wikipedia's narrow exception. Durova 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete per precedent on lists of eclipses (see below) and inability to make this article conform with crystal ball policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I hope someone could extend this article to the whole world. — Yaohua2000 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well that's exactly my point. The Solar eclipse article already has a list of recent and upcoming (to 2020) eclipses across the world. The question I ask to the Wikipedia community in this AFD is whether or not a separate article is needed for China, with eclipses ranging from 1001 to 3000. --Colonel Cow 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Solar eclipses can be seen from worldwide area is very different from solar eclipses can be seen from a specific location. For worldwide, total solar eclipses are common, about once every one or two years, but for a specific location, they are very rare events, about once every 300 years. So it makes sense to list these rare events in a separated article. — Yaohua2000 09:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
But one could just check the Solar eclipse page and look for eclipses in their region of the world (it says where the eclipse will happen on that page). Now, it doesn't go as far into the future as this article, but whether or not a list really needs to go to 3000 is a separate debate (which I'm sure those at the Solar eclipse page have already debated). --Colonel Cow 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I always wondering when I can see a total solar eclipse in my hometown when I was a child, total eclipse is rather rare, and it is not easy for a layman to work it out with enough precision, for people with similar questions, this article focuses on the previous and next total and annular solar eclipses from a specific location on the Earth, Solar eclipse doesn't contain such information, and such information is also rare on the web. Wikipedia and this article gives the answer. So I think it is useful, and perhaps encyclopedic, if it has a worldwide view some time, it can be a great article. — Yaohua2000 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Solar eclipse does in fact have that information (or is being added). If I were someone in New York, I could go to the Solar eclipse article and look for the next time an eclipse will occur for me in that list (by looking for "North America"). Same thing if I were anywhere in the world. If I were in Beijing, I'd go and look for eclipses under Asia. Solar eclipse already has this worldwide view that you speak of, and so pages like this aren't needed in my opinion. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If you did some research on this topic, you might not think so. Absolute most (> 95%) total solar eclipses in North America is not total in New York. Even in Beijing, Beijing municipality is far smaller than North America, but during A.D. 1001 and A.D. 2000 period [28], 7 total eclipses occured from somewhere in the municipality, but only one visible in the urban area. So for someone only check total eclipses visible in North America, or even State of New York doesn't make so much sense to total eclipses in New York City. — Yaohua2000 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
So then a column on the Solar eclipse page e.g. "Total eclipse viewable in" would be a good idea, but it still doesn't change that a list about China itself (when the information could be put on the Solar eclipse page and represent a worldwide view) is "listcruft" in my opinion, as Sceptre put it. --Colonel Cow 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You can create such a column in solar eclipse, but make this column as a separated article would be better. — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This list navigate aid articles in Category:Solar eclipses. — Yaohua2000 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Categories in themselves are navigational aids, so they don't need pages redirecting people to them. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This article not only a navigational aid, but also provide additional information to the readers. Why don't you think it is a great article, but require to delete it? :( — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is a category for this already, why keep the list? Plus, this would lead to an infinite series of lists of eclipses visible from location X. And I'm sure people won't stop at countries, they will want to include their hometowns as well. JoaoRicardotalk 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It should stay because this list organizes information in ways that no category could emulate. It's an excellent example of the sort of information a good list can provide. Durova 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:15, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft and an invitation to create a load more articles about events that nobody will ever look up. Stifle 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems harmless enough, and WP:WINP, so why not extend this to the whole world? Could be very useful and I could certainly see people looking it up.Turnstep 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle, Wikipedia is not toilet paper -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifible and usefoul article. --Moravek 15:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete eh?!? --Angelo 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per NOM. Themusicking 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If we follow this precedent, we could wind up with too many susch list. Solar Eclipse should perhaps be expanded to give more detail on area of totality.... On the other hand, Wikipedia Is Not A CGI. A program would do this much better than article(s), Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Monicasdude 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --HappyCamper 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's interesting from an archaeoastronomy point of view. Although on that line there should maybe just be a list of solar-eclipse observations in pre-modern times. Well if we could agree on what's pre-modern.--T. Anthony 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)--T. Anthony 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--nixie 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move/rewrite to List of solar eclipses. while its only a list of solar eclipses seen from China there doesnt seem to be a list of solar eclipses except for the one on Solar eclipse which only covers recent eclipses -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and keep the future listings too. Eclipses are one of the very few things that really are predictable. Physics and mathematics do not equal a crystal ball. I'm going to go out on a limb here because my father was a NASA scientist and I grew up with this sort of stuff. I see what these list creators are doing and it makes a lot of sense. There should be more lists like this for other major cities. The information at solar eclipse is too general to be useful for eclipse enthusiasts. These are people who spend thousands of dollars and plan years in advance so that they can observe the real show during a solar eclipse, and by that I mean the very small path of totality where the sky goes dark. This sort of person would want to know, "Will there be a total eclipse in my metropolitan area during my lifetime?" If they're likely to be alive for the next one, then that saves a small fortune. These people would use a series of similar lists because they would designate easy points of travel: nearly two-thirds of the earth's surface is ocean and some of the rest is pretty uninhabitable. I believe this year's total eclipse will be in the Sahara desert. Solar eclipses are about the most verifiable information on earth and they're unquestionably notable. Durova 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete on 3 points. The first two: the article violates both WP:V and WP:NOR as it stands since it does not cite the source of its information. Third point: Even though I am really keen on physics and astronomy as a hobby, this kind of info qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information and really belongs on some astronomy website, where the information probably comes from. Taken to one extreme, if this article is kept then similar articles for every country in the world would be equally acceptable and IMHO is overkill. Taken to another extreme, since prediction of eclipses is not crystal balling, predictions from the beginning of time to the end of time would be equally valid, and Wikipedia is not infinite. To answer the above point about eclipse enthusiasts, any true eclipse enthusiast worth his salt (and I am one, though probably not worth my salt) would keep an eye on astronomy websites and/or news of upcoming events. Zunaid 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you carried that reasoning to its logical conclusion Wikipedia would become a very small project supported only by journal articles and books. Many articles present information that is available on other Internet websites. Let's leave this alone and chase down the real cruft: the copyvios and the phone lists of fast food restaurants in Manila. Durova 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep and Comment, for WP:NOR you pointed, but this is NOT original research. I suggest you read what original research first, since solar eclipses are verifyable. Anyone with a astrosoft and some astronomical knowledge can verify these eclipses. — Yaohua2000 12:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand WP:V - it says that everything must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of cites is no reason to delete a page. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, as indiscriminate information. Similar articles have been deleted before.
  • I think there are more articles, and more recent articles, but I wasn't able to find them. -- Kjkolb 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The limited English language skills of these article creators hinders their ability to advocate for these entries. Had I noticed these nominations I would have defended them all. The mistaken reasoning cited in some deletion votes (such as the fallacy that eclipses are unpredictable) is strong evidence that Wikipedia needs more articles about astronomy. Solar eclipse information is an excellent starting point. Durova 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I think having the eclipse, solar eclipse and lunar eclipse articles is sufficient to explain eclipses. A list of eclipses will not increase understanding of astronomy, except by duplicating content in other articles in the introduction or linking to other articles. Also, covering eclipses by the country will require many articles, and covering them by the city would require an enormous amont of articles. -- Kjkolb 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom - very obscure ComputerJoe 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
These six cities have a combined population of 81 million people. How is that obscure? Durova 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zunaid and otehrs sum it up well. -R. fiend 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft and per Zunaid. Pavel Vozenilek 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting information; I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Keep up the great work Yaohua2000! DarthVader 23:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CTB flying squad

Advert for Australian business consulting group MNewnham 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing even remotely important. DrIdiot 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An advert for a NN business. Obina 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please see CTB Flying Squad. Punkmorten 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted before discussion reached five days. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National socialists party of canada

unverified and likely a hoax given that the World Socialist Movement a) already has an outfit in Canada called the Socialist Party of Canada and b) is unlikely to accept a name like "National Socicalists". Homey 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I see someone has already deleted the reference to the World Socialist Movement. Delete. CJCurrie 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see this page already had a speedy deletion notice which someone deleted. Given that the kid who made up the page is just making it more obvious he made it up with his defence of it on the talk page I'm going to go ahead and speedy delete.Homey 23:21, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William G. "Bill" Bailey

Vanity page. Snalwibma 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This company seems to have little significance, although it does exist. DrIdiot 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though Bill will sell YOU supplies for LESS if you call NOW. Sorry, per nom. Obina 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you are not associated with the timber, logging, arborist or forestry industries I can understand why you might wish to delete. If however, you were associated with one of these industries/communities/culture or if you were one of the 100,000 or so customers of his, you would not likely consider deletion. Within these communities Bill is a bit of a legend. He has at times spoken before the US Congress to improve safety standards in our industry and has served on numerous timber and forest industry boards over the years. Additionally, his company is a small business success story. Current annual revenues are over 25 million US$. While this certainly isn't at the level of a Sam Walton, it is a success nonetheless. I had hoped to expand the page with more information and accomplishments at a later time and mainly put this page up as a placeholder. I've certainly seen many lesser-known and completely obscure people with pages. He also published a book now out of print, Reflections of a Timberfaller. That's my two cents and incidentally, in the interest of full-disclosure I do work for Bill, but I put up this page on my own without any coercion. --Jcon95482 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please edit the article to point to the places in the Congressional Record where he has spoken and to list the book (with ISBN). The problem with the article as it stands is that there is nothing in it to indicate that the subject satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 04:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The Library of Congress catalog seems to have no record of Reflections of a Timberfaller, or any book with "Timberfaller" in the title. u p p l a n d 08:21, 7 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) 2006-01-07 01:41Z
  • Keep. I am amazed that this man, this mortal man started a timber company. This has an enormous amount of relevance to life in general. Every joe soap on the planet should be listed. Is there room for 6 billion entries??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.47.32 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 January 2006
    • This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of "every joe soap on the planet". For such a directory, see WikiTree. Wikipedia is not a directory. Uncle G 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, possibly notable enough but it seems that it is a vanity bio. Stifle 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will defer to the general consensus as Bill's book was self-published and his presentations before Congress were prior to 1994, which is only as far the online Congressional record goes. His work with Congress was in the late 70's and early 80's when safety in the timber industry was mostly non-existent. He fought to upgrade safety standards for forest workers during that time. Anyway, delete per nom.--Jcon95482 23:44, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ludvig Strigeus

Non-notable. Already covered in µTorrent, doesn't even merit a merge. Delete. Ifnord 23:36, 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 REDIRECT. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikislap

Nn neologism, references have not been provided. the wub "?!" 23:38, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Panick

The only relevant Google hits for +"John Panick" +Tour are to this article and to a stub category it's in [29]. Googling for +"John Panick" +cycling gives a link to a mechanic in Bakersfield, California [30]. This person is probably the subject of the article. However, I'm afraid that being a cycling mechanic is no sign of notability. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:50, 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 KEEP, as no longer a collection of external links. -- Jonel | Speak 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

List of nothing more than URLs to external LDS pages StoatBringer 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and I'd like to note that this list is simply copied from [31] DrIdiot 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - needs to be deleted, unless value is created in some other way.
Value has been created. Keep -Visorstuff 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a list of external links. --Last Malthusian 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain, Article is no longer a list of external links. --Last Malthusian 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I added the page because I found articles for Bern Switzerland Temple, Chicago Illinois Temple, Freiberg Germany Temple, Kona Hawaii Temple, Laie Hawaii Temple and about 8 others. There are basically a smattering of random articles on about 10 of the 120 operating temples out there, and no comprehensive List Of article anywhere. I initially made the article to be a list of the temples that could link to other Wikipedia articles, but saw that with just a little effort I could make external links to the LDS pages. Please don't interpret it as a dump of an LDS page, it is meant to be a foundation for a Wikipedia article that links to richer Wiki articles on each temple. It needs to be expanded. I think that the external links add value, but agree that at the core the page needs to point to Wikipedia articles. Maybe a table with the external link and with the Wiki link. I haven't done tables though, I spent an hour on it as it was, and I thought that it could be done later. If you delete this, I think that this article will eventually be created. Bhludzin 04:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK so convert those which do have articles into internal links or I will vote to delete. -- RHaworth 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Bhludzin, I believe Categories are better for this. JoaoRicardotalk 17:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There is already a category: Category:Latter Day Saint temples. But a category can not list the temples, including those without an article, in chronological order and include the foundation date for each. u p p l a n d 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a legitimate topic for a list, and the chronological order makes it useful in a way that a category couldn't be, but is now a directory of external links, which (as already pointed out) is something Wikipedia pages are not supposed to be. Keep, but only if the items are all turned into internal wikilinks, provided there is enough to write an article about the temple, or just unlinked but with some data in the list itself, whenever too little can be said about the temple in question. Making it into a table may be a good idea. u p p l a n d 08:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC) No reservations anymore. u p p l a n d 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Moving my keep vote to beginning of line to make it clearly visible. u p p l a n d 00:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • So is this vote actually a delete, assuming this isn't done before the AfD period is up? --Last Malthusian 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm assuming the author will clean up the list before the end of the AfD period. u p p l a n d 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup; keep, but needs to be wikilinked. now that it is more wikilinks than external. —akghetto talk 10:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and DrIdiot who has the stronger argument: this article appears to be a copyright violation, as it is copied from an external website: [32]. You can't just cut and paste material from other web-sites into Wikipedia!!! Also, I doubt Wikipedia should be a repository of directories. We wouldn't want to see a list of all the Walmart stores on here (temples to consumerism), or a list of all gyms (temples to fitness), or a list of all the streets of the world (the paths to all temples). But links to websites that provide them would be more appropriate, if in context for the article(s) those links appear in. Provide a link to the external site that presents the list in question, and remove the list itself from Wikipedia. Go for it! 12:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think a simple list like this can be copyrightable. There is also an obvious difference between important religious sanctuaries and Walmart stores. As far as I understand, only the most central Mormon sanctuaries are called "temples", which is why there is in many cases only one in each country. u p p l a n d 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Facts are not copyrightable. Additionally, the organization has subtle but significant differences to the presentation on the cited page. Trödel•talk 11:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK - I updated the page so that it's a table with the Wiki links and I added the Temple's current status. As a future update I want to add the construction style/type as a column. If this is acceptable, please remove the AfD status. If not, let me know why. Bhludzin 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question is this list comparable to a list of Christian Churches, or more akin to a list of Christian Cathedrals? I ask cos I seem to think that lists of churches are discouraged unless the church itself is notable for something or another. Jcuk 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This would be more akin to a list of cathedrals than a List of Ottawa churches. There are about 145 LDS temples currently operating or announced; this list up for deletion is missing the newest to be announced. I didn't count, but there is roughly the same number as on the List of Buddhist temples article. Val42 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of notable stories for each temple, which make it more than just a list of buildings. There are the stories of miraculous events at the dedication of the Kirtland, Nauvoo and Salt Lake temples, Wilford Woodruff said he met with the signers of the Declaration of Independence in one, Lorenzo Snow said he met the Savior in another, plus probably thousands of journal accounts from less prominent people - I am assuming that there will eventually be Wikipedia articles for all of the temples listed. Bhludzin 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I was answering the question as to scope; roughly how common temples are. Hopefully, there will be enough information about each of the temples, in the future. But for this vote, we will have to consider the fifteen articles about temples that already exist. Val42 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with requested clean-ups. I think that people will want information on LDS temples, in chronological order. If this list isn't kept, then (as unothodox as this may be on Wikipedia) I think that a single link to one or two such a lists should be included on the Category:Latter Day Saint temples page. Val42 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Temple (Mormonism). JonMoore 19:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it seems to almost be an external link list only.The Scurvy Eye 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. Too many redlinks. Stifle 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Redlinks should not be a reason for deletion - they should be welcomed as guidelines for future article writers. Turnstep 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting, verified list with a chronology (and red links) which discounts use of a simple category. Turnstep 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • All right, I removed all red links, and added square feet. I want to keep the official LDS links because they link to the church page with the current temple hours, phone number, etc. I want to add architectural style as a column in the table, but please give me a break! I have frantically spent about 5 or 6 hours on this page in the last day trying to keep it from being deleted. Please spare it so that I can have a break and come back and do the architectural style information in several days (I do have a life outside of this). I also intend to start doing Wikipedia temple pages, where I can add Mormon historical events relevant to each temple (unless of course I have to frantically fight to keep each one from being deleted). This will also clean up some of the temple red links in the Mormonism articles in general.Bhludzin 02:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Despite the re-formatting, still mostly just a list of external links. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to do the Temple articles. I think it seems natural to have a list that indexes and links to them. But, (correct me if I'm wrong) if the list includes external links then the list must be deleted? The external links supplement the list with "live" information. If this is the approach taken, then after I did articles on all 120+ temples, I would be allowed to create the list to link to them? Bhludzin 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP but Merge with some material from Temple (Mormonism) about temple construction and history into either article. WBardwin 06:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a useful list with the dates and other stats. I was just wondering if there was a list for this; it's much more useful than categories, and it can be a complete list, unlike many that we maintain. Merging with the general article on Mormon temples would overwhelm that article, which is meant to describe temples for the entire movement as opposed to a list of buildings for the LDS Church in particular. Cool Hand Luke 08:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed the "list of links" nature of this page - and updated the table in a few other ways. I also added wikisectioning so that individual rows with specific temple information can be individually edited and directly linked. I suggest that these changes address the concerns of the nom. Agree with Cool Hand re merging with general temples page - additional useful columns could be added such as number of Ordination rooms, number of Sealing rooms, existence of visitors center, existence of Holy of Holies, etc. Trödel•talk 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep seems a reasonable enough list now I know what it is. Jcuk 12:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Useful reference for those interested in such stuff. Needs to be improved to meet Wiki standards. Dr U 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Seems valuable and useful. Tom Haws 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote summary as of 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC), Delete 5, Keep 10, Abstain 1, Merge/Move 1

  • Keep - My vote was not counted Bhludzin 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This version looks like an informative list, and with noteworthy content per Val42's comments. By the way, there is no need to count votes. HollyAm 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone who can close this discussion and remove this from AfD status? I can't because I created the article, and StoatBringer hasn't responded to a request to do so. Bhludzin 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD discussions generally last 5 days if they aren't closed speedily, which means this will probably be closed either today or tomorrow. Generally even an overwhelming 'keep' consensus doesn't lead to a speedy keep on its own, and this discussion is only 63% for keep. --Malthusian (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediashout

WikiPedia policiy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Alancookie 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, there was a typo in the article title in the afd page, fixed now. - Bobet 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have rewritten the article to be more objective and unbiased (IE removed about half of it!) However, I think as it stands it is now a valid article, which as a practicing Christian I can see ministers etc. looking up. I vote Keep as per my rewrite (as long as thats not covered in any vanity policy!!! *G*) Jcuk 17:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, currently unverifiable. Stifle 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, made by a company that probably fails WP:CORP horribly. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the rewrite on 7 Jan 2006 began to clean this page up and make it more of what I would have expected...less advertisement and more neutral and objective. I created a worship presentation program page to represent the topic of these types of programs and linked MediaShout's company webpage in the external links. Alancookie 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup tag. 46k google. although the article is currently about Corporation MediaShout 2.5 rather than Mediashout itself -- Astrokey44|talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From what I can tell the product is called MediaShout, but the company is MediaComplete, so it still needs cleanup/clarification Alancookie 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising, also most of the Google results are not unique. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the topic worship presentation program which describes this genre of software along with external links to various software, including MediaShout. This was my solution after putting some thought into it, but I'm only making this suggestion if it would be appropriate Alancookie 06:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the media coordinator at our church, and we use Mediashout in our worship services. I vote Keep, as I rely on Wikipedia for anything I think of!!! Also, I don't quite think this is anything to do with the company. Probably someone who had no idea about the wiki's standards, and thought Wikipedia was some kind of "copy 'n paste" place. But can't we fix it instead of DELETE IT??? --66.82.9.82 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


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